Update from the
Heartland
No.811
10.7.17 – 16.7.17
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To
all,
I do not think anyone needs a rehash of Don Jr.’s eMail
fiasco, so I will assume everyone is well versed on the facts. Don Jr. says, “There is nothing
there.” We should believe him
outright, correct? There is no
reason to doubt Don Jr.’s claim . . . right? Nothing happened, so no harm no foul. So, we are just supposed to believe him
now. Unfortunately, I must ask, what
if something had happened? Are we to
believe they would have done nothing with the information?
I
will simply say, there is a significant difference between doing the
investigative research and having a foreign government bring “information” to
you. Further, the Russian
government has chosen to take a strongly adversarial stance with respect to the
United States and Europe; the Ukrainian government has not and has had the
courage to seek membership in the European Union and NATO. All analysis should, or must, include
assessment of the reliability of the source(s) and the accuracy of the
information (through corroboration).
What
is troubling to me in this whole Russia meddling tragedy is the overt, albeit
naïve, admiration of The Donald for Russian strongman Vladimir Putin.
“I think I get
along with [Putin] fine. I think
he would be absolutely fine. He
would never keep somebody like Snowden in Russia. He hates Obama. He doesn't
respect Obama. Obama doesn't like him either. But he has no respect for Obama.
Has a hatred for Obama. And Snowden is living the life. Look if that -- if I'm
president, Putin says, hey, boom, you're gone. I guarantee you this.”
--
Donald J. Trump, 8.July.2015
“Russia, if you're listening, I hope you'll be able to find
the 30,000 emails that are missing.
I think you'll probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
--
Donald J. Trump, 27.July.2016
Why
were they not concerned prima facie
with where the Russian government obtained such sensitive information? The implication is, it was quite
acceptable to Don Jr., and by inference The Donald himself, if they obtained
dirt on Hillary Clinton or any of her close advisors, and they could care less
where it came from. After all,
they were trying to win an election and they did not care how they did it.
All
the incessant whining about “Fake News” seems rather hollow, lame and otherwise
disingenuous. I did not believe
his claims then, and I believe them even less now. The Don Jr. conduct is part and parcel of the same crowd –
like father, like son.
So much of international relations is imagery, perception,
body language, gestures, et cetera.
This
week, President Trump flew to Paris to join President Macron for the Bastille
Day celebration – the French independence day from royal dominance. Just a simple observation . . . of the
reviewing stand of the Bastille Day celebration in Paris. President Macron was smiling, animated
and appears to be enjoying himself.
President Trump was static, stoic, frowning markedly (apparently his
normal expression), appearing bored and not very happy. To the casual observer, what would you
take away from the image?
Then,
the worst part, President Trump turned to Brigitte Macron – President Macron’s
spouse – and gestured toward her body.
He said, “You know, you’re in such good shape.” Trump repeated the observation to her
husband. “Beautiful,” he added. He
was talking about the French president’s wife like she was un objet d'art, or
a fancy possession. I’m sorry and
I apologize to all his ardent supporters
. . . he just has no
class! Someone else might have
gotten away with such an unusual comment in a high level, diplomatic
setting. However, in his case,
when coupled with his lusting after his daughter and other lewd comments, his
remarks to Mrs. Macron take on a vastly different image.
These
are Donald John Trump’s words . . . no one else’s:
“Don’t you think my daughter’s hot? She’s hot, right?”
-- 1997,
Ivanka, then 16yo
“You know who’s one of the great beauties of the world,
according to everybody? And I
helped create her. Ivanka. My daughter, Ivanka. She’s 6 feet tall, she’s got the best
body.”
-- 2003,
Ivanka, then 22yo
“I've said if Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be
dating her.”
-- 2006,
Ivanka, then 25yo
“I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn't get there, and
she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she's now got the big phony
tits and everything.”
-- 2005
“I better use some Tic-Tacs just in case I start kissing
her. You know, I’m automatically
attracted to beautiful [women] – I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do
it. You can do anything.”
“Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.”
-- 2005
I am openly in favor of sexual liberation and a more mature
attitude toward human sexuality.
Yet, such comments sound and appear lecherous, disgusting, and at best
misogynistic . . . thus, my initial comment.
I
want this to stop. I want these
ugly images and feelings to go away.
These are Trump’s words . . . no one else’s words . . . spoken from his
mouth accurately quoted from multiple sources. These are not words from some “Fake News” journalist or
talking head. They are his
words. Full stop! I want this insanity to stop. Yet, the realist in me knows and
recognizes that it will never end until he can no longer speak or twitter, or
all forms of media and the Press render him silent to the rest of us.
Comments and contributions from Update no.810:
Comment to the Blog:
“North Korea has created difficulty for the entire world by
its unpredictability. The State Department needs to focus a great deal of
attention on them, but instead has to deal with Trump’s antics that befoul our
entire international policy and image. Ditto Defense.
“Mr. Shaub, the exiting ethics director under Trump, will
leave behind a job that cannot be done. I wish him well.
“The recent G20 meetings brought the USA marginally less
embarrassment because the other 19 nations have recognized that U.S. leaders
are crooked, incompetent, or both. They have begun to ignore those bozos, as
well they might.
“The Syrian cease-fire represents another attempt to control
the uncontrollable in the Middle East. The Donald cannot be blamed for that
quagmire, but most likely he will not resolve it either. The U.S. is fighting
for at least two sides of this multi-part conflict (Defense versus CIA) and
cannot possibly achieve any real, lasting victory.
“Putin has denied manipulating the U.S. elections, of
course. The investigations continue.”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
unpredictability. It is good in
combat, but not so good in foreign policy and international relations. “Antics” is putting his conduct rather
mildly, I must say.
Re:
“government ethics.” He has indeed
thumbed his nose at ethics since he entered politics, and what’s worse, many of
his supporters could care less. I
wonder if they would be quite so tolerant or forgiving if Barack or Hillary had
done a mere fraction of what he is continuing to do. We can only hope he chokes on all the slack rope he has been
given.
I
don’t think ignoring “those bozos” is a wise course of action.
Re:
“[two sides of this multi-part conflict (Defense versus CIA)].” I’m not sure what you are suggesting
with this reference.
Re:
“blamed for that quagmire.” Quite
correct. I think that distinction
must go to Bush 43 and ‘Rummie’ Rumsfeld for attempting to fight a war on the
cheap, and thus inadequately managing the aftermath of the Hussein regime’s
demise. The Donald may not resolve
it, but we need to give him a chance.
Re:
“Putin.” Yes, of course, the
dictator would deny any involvement; that’s what dictators do. After all, dictators are accountable to
no one. The only thing that
matters is his grip on power. The
investigation is likely going to take a very long time.
. . . Round two:
“On the multi-part conflict in Syria, one part of our government
supports the Kurds and another supports some other faction that opposes them. I
can't remember which is which any more. Our attempt at Middle East policy is so
disjointed and leaderless that we effectively fight our own country.”
. . . my response to round two:
I
think you may have distilled the Syrian situation a bit too far. The issue is not a conflict within the
USG; it is a reflection of the political complexity in that part of the world,
i.e., it is NOT bilateral. The
‘them’ includes a nuclear state and a regional power. The ‘us’ involves allies who share our common objective, but
they are essentially long-term enemies, e.g., Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Sunni
Arab Gulf states. The USG is
attempting to maintain a very fine, delicate balance between those enemies to
focus on the common adversary – ISIL and the Assad regime.
. . . Round three:
“One can see it that way. I see it as a mess not subject to
resolution either internally or by outside forces. The various factions of
Sunnis, Shiites, Jews, and occasionally Christians are barely the beginning.
Kurds, Palestinians, Lebanese, on and on. This is all complicated by oil, military equipment sales, and
strategic locations. Nobody has
really won in that region since the Romans, and they couldn't keep it quiet.”
. . . my response to round three:
Yes,
indeed. We are free to choose to
see the glass as half empty or half full.
“a mess not subject to resolution” perhaps so. If they confined their tribal squabbles
to their areas, I would condemn the ridiculous violence, but I would not object
to their choices in life. That was
the basis of my objection to the Saddam Hussein regime. Unfortunately, the real megalomaniacs
among us seek to exploit those tribal rivalries to export their violence. It is at that point I object and feel
obliged to stop that exportation.
I do not believe anyone in the USG seeks to control the activities and
conduct of people in the region. I
believe we seek peace and stability, not war and chaos. Stability is good for business; chaos
is not.
My
very best wishes to all. Take care
of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
For some reason, I didn’t get an email this week.
Donald Trump, Jr., seems to think incompetence is a mitigating factor. By his own statement, he accepted and attended a meeting with the intention of acquiring sensitive information from a foreign power. I don’t think failure relieves him of responsibility for his conspiracy. The story keeps developing, too. Another attendee at that meeting, so we’re told, is a Russian-American who has been accused in a large money-laundering scheme involving Russians back in 2000. That raises some fascinating possibilities.
Trump, Sr., embarrasses me. Much of his behavior demonstrates an utter absence of either sensitivity or good sense. His behavior toward women ought to draw condemnation from pretty much anyone, and his conduct in international affairs is dangerous. Were his Cabinet made up of strong, sensible people the disability clause could be invoked, although that would leave us with a President Pence. Despite some of the talk from Democrats, I have yet to see evidence of impeachable offenses by Trump himself. There’s potential there, but so far nothing attached to the actual incumbent. Nepotism, to the best of my knowledge, is not “high crimes and misdemeanors” in this situation.
Calvin,
First, my apologies for my response delay.
Second, I have no idea what or why the Update notice got waylaid this week. Hopefully, this week’s Update distribution will be normal on Monday.
Re: “incompetence.” So it would seem. To me, the search for political dirt is a regrettable fact of life in modern politics. However, again to me, there is a huge difference doing the ground game to acquire information, and a foreign government operative coming to you and offering information. The potential of receiving what you think you want instead of the facts is much higher in the latter circumstance. Incompetence is NOT a mitigating factor, and Junior is about to learn that reality.
Re: “embarrasses me.” You are not alone.
Re: “His behavior toward women” absolutely, and I have illuminated his misogyny since his candidacy began, and will undoubtedly continue until he disappears from public view, since it is highly unlikely he will change. Yes, his conduct (in so many ways) should have been condemned, and yet 60M American citizens chose to ignore the reality of his conduct, which speaks volumes about our progress toward equality, respect and peaceful coexistence.
Re: “impeachable offenses.” I would agree, but he has purposefully moved much closer to that threshold. I say that since we are faced with the reality that essential information remains beyond our awareness. The FBI Director serves at the pleasure of the President, so he is subject to termination at any time for any reason. However, the details we do know about that personnel matter virtually ensured that a special counsel investigation was warranted. I fear the special counsel may acquire sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the termination was obstruction of justice . . . that is impeachable. Further, his reported inquiries regarding pardoning his family and even more shockingly himself is a LOT more smoke; and, his publicly warning the special counsel not to dig into family financial information is a monstrous red flag. No, we have not seen criminal or impeachable offenses (as yet); however, the incidental signs continue to pile up, pointing to that potential.
A little historic observation: I thought the news of the DNC break in (1972) was little more than a police blotter news item. By the time of the Saturday Night Massacre (1973), whatever remaining doubt existed in my mind evaporated instantly. Regrettably, I see strikingly similar conduct – then & now. What’s worse, in all of Nixon’s troubles, he never considered pardoning himself. To my knowledge, no president in the long history of this Grand Republic has EVER considered such an extension of the president’s constitutional pardon authority.
Stay tuned; more to follow, I have little doubt.
“That’s my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment