Category Archives: Presidents

The Amateur

Posted on by

the-amateurThe subtitle of this book by Edward Klein is “Barrack Obama in the White House.” The book begins with a detailed discussion of what is supposed to have been a very private discussion between Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton. Bill is pleading with Hillary to run against Mr. Obama in the 2012 primary. Chelsea agrees with Bill, but Hillary refuses and wants to wait until 2016. The quoted conversation ends with Bill declaring that Barrack Obama “…is an amateur.” I wondered about the truth of the conversation, which wouldn’t likely be carried out in front of anyone the Clinton’s could not trust completely.

It is later pointed out that Americans love amateurs who succeed, and Barrack the candidate certainly did thrill his supporters. Unfortunately Barrack the skilled campaigner has been revealed to have few of the talents needed to lead and communicate with the country. Presidential historian Fred I. Greenstein observed, “With all of Obama’s rhetorical brilliance and flash, he went into the phone booth as Superman and came out as Clark Kent.”

There is considerable information about Michelle Obama, Oprah, Caroline Kennedy, and the people who are the key advisors to Mr. Obama. I’m more interested in Mr. Obama, so I don’t intend to say much more about the others.

There are an astonishing 862 reviews on Amazon, and the average rating is four and a half out of five stars. The half results from the one hundred one star reviews. One of those said “It is difficult to know where this author received his information. He does not use any quotes to substantiate his allegations.” However, I will say in defense much of the information in the book is based on public record and agrees with information in news reports.

I found the book easy to read and mostly interesting. Much of the public record about Mr. Obama in his youth continues to be thin. He apparently was nearly invisible in college, displayed no intellectual curiosity, and wrote no scholarly articles as a young law professor. However, he had written his autobiography by the time he was thirty. He was elected to the Illinois Senate and hardly showed up at all. (He voted “present” on most issues.) He demonstrated no interest the legislative process, but he did enjoy giving speeches.

Mr. Obama married Michelle Robinson at the age of thirty, and the most significant adult influence on him during that time and for many years to follow was the controversial Jeremiah Wright whose sermons “…encouraged a victimization mentality among his black parishioners.” When Mr. Obama says “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody, he is channeling Jeremiah Wright.” The media followed the same approach with the reporting about Wright that they followed with just about any potentially negative story about Mr. Obama. They did not report it. (It has been said the power of the press is not in what they report. It is in what they decide not to report.) The media was swooning over Mr. Obama, and they made little effort to vet him as he campaigned for the Presidency.

There is much information about Mr. Obama’s foreign policy, which begins with the ideas that American exceptionalism is misguided and that American power has done more harm than good. He very much wants the Muslim world to gain respect for at least him if not the country, and he thinks that Israel needs to bend to the Palestinians. He forbids the use of the term “Islamic extremism.” He much prefers to be travelling and speaking to adoring foreign crowds to governing or dealing with Congress in any manner. He was said to have commented that he did not want to waste precious hours talking with “congressmen from Palookaville.” He is described as a thin-skinned, haughty, and exceedingly proud man.

Perhaps the scariest part of the book is the description of a secret meeting with several presidential historians where it appeared the historians were being asked about the most admirable traits of great presidents. One of the attendees observed that Mr. Obama “…seemed to be looking for a presidential identity not his own…endlessly trying on new presidential masks.” The meeting was judged by the author to reveal Mr. Obama “…didn’t have the faintest idea 1) who he was; 2) why he had been elected president; and 3) how to be commander in chief and chief executive of the United States of American.” “In short, he didn’t know what he didn’t know.”

But he did and does have devout fans. Oprah Winfery encouraged his apparent messianic complex by referring to him as “The One,” which is a reference to both Jesus Christ and Neo from The Matrix. Joe Biden, in typical Joe Biden fashion, told a gathering that Barrack Obama had been unable to attend “…because he’s getting busy for Easter. He thinks it’s about him.” It is said his personality most closely matches Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was being asked about appointments, and made it clear that he owed no one anything. He explained “Remember that God ordained that I should be the next President of the United States.”

Mr. Obama has been so inept at so many aspects of being President that The Onion News Network broadcast a fake “…story that the real Barrack Obama had been kidnapped just hours after the election and replaced by an imposter.” The book asks whether the centrist, pragmatic, post-partisan leader vanished, or, “Did he ever exists? Was he a figment of his own imagination, or of our imagination—or both?”

Chapter 7 is titled “Bungler in Chief,” and lists many of Mr. Obama’s failures. He loves signing ceremonies, but has little interest in what is being signed. Perhaps his most embarrassing failure was his decision to go to Copenhagen to convince the Olympic committee to select Chicago as a site for future games. He had many friends in Chicago who would have had handsome profits if the city was chosen. He gave his speech, and Chicago came in fourth out of four. Of course that isn’t the only embarrassing failure, and the Solyndra fiasco immediately comes to mind.

There are interesting observations about the current presidential campaign. First, it is written that the Republican (who we now know to be Mitt Romney) will have to run against not only the Democratic campaign but the full force of the liberal media. They are already gearing up a campaign that Barrack has made mistakes, but he has learned so much he deserves a second term. Axelrod “…has ripped a page out of Harry Truman’s 1948 playbook …he demonizes his opponent and runs against a ‘Do-Nothing’ Republican Congress and its wealthy supporters.” The last pages of the book list all the things Mr. Obama does not want America to remember on Election Day.

George F. Will recently wrote about Barrack Obama, “…people who like the idea of him, but not the results of him.”

President Obama and Islam

Posted on by

I just saw the movie “2016 Obama’s America,” and there are references to actions Mr. Obama has taken to make people wonder how close he is to the Muslim religion. Snopes says Mr. Obama said during his Presidential campaign “…it is just wonderful to be back in Oregon, and over the last 15 months we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in fifty….seven states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii…”  Mr. Obama and his staff explained that he was tired and “It’s a sign that my numeracy is getting a little, uh…” His defenders note the long pause between “fifty” and “seven.” Skeptics note that there are 57 member states of the Islamic Conference.

Mark Steyn notes in his book “After America:  Get ready for Armageddon,” that the NASA administrator Charles Bolden said in a conversation with Al Jazeera on June 30, 2010 that President Obama had given him some priorities. “One was he wanted me to re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with the dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering.”

I watched the entire video, which is over twenty-one minutes long, and Mr. Bolden articulately described much about what President Obama had done to change NASA. The curious comments about the priorities (mentioned in the movie “2016”) President Obama gave him came just after the one minute mark on the video. Mr. Bolden also mentions that the Al Jazeera appearance had been scheduled to commemorate the one year anniversary of the policy speech President Obama had given in Egypt.

Toby Harnden points out in an article in The Telegraph dated June 3, 2009 there were other curious comment made by President Obama during his Mideast visit to Riyadh and Cairo in 2009. Obama had resisted even using his middle name when he was a candidate for President After his election he said he wanted to “…create a better dialogue so that the Muslim world understands more effectively how the United States but also how the West thinks about many of these difficult issues like terrorism, like democracy…what’s happened in Iraq and Afghanistan and our outreach to Iran…” He also said, “And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” Debbie Schussel provided an update that a reputable survey puts the number of Muslims in the U.S at 1.8 million, which means there are 47 countries with more Muslims Indonesia has more than a hundred times more Muslims than the U.S.

Just another curious set of information about a man the media seems unwilling to vet.

It’s My Fault

Posted on by

Art Buchwald (bless him) wrote an unforgettable article apologizing that the Vietnam War was his fault. The gist of the article was that several people warned him that there would be a full scale shooting war in Vietnam if he voted for Barry Goldwater for President. I haven’t found documentation of the article, although I remember it quite well. What I have found is the introduction to a 1965 Time Magazine article that asks the question, “How would the U.S. have fared if Barry Goldwater had been elected President? The mind boggles to think of it, mused Columnist Art Buchwald last week in the New York Herald Tribune. Nonetheless, Buchwald did his deadpan best to guess how things really would have turned out under Goldwater. To begin with, he wrote, the Viet Cong would have blown up an American barracks. Goldwater would have immediately called for a strike on military bases in North Viet Nam and announce a ‘new tit-for-tat policy.’ Democrats would make speeches that Goldwater was ‘trigger-happy’ and was trying to get us into…”

Unfortunately, the link ends at that point and indicates, “To read the entire article, you must be a TIME Subscriber.” However, I will ask you to depend on my less-than-reliable memory. I recall what followed was humorous and thought-provoking. I remember that Mr. Buchwald apologized (in this or some other article), saying something to the effect, “They told me there would be a war in Vietnam if I voted for Goldwater. I voted for Goldwater, and they were right. It’s my fault.”

That brings us to the current political situation. I was told that several bad things would happen if I didn’t vote for Barrack Obama. I was told the economic condition of the country would not improve. I was told that the unemployment rate would continue to exceed eight percent (not counting people who are underemployed or have given up on finding a job). I was told Guantanamo would remain the imprisonment site for suspected terrorists. I was told Guantanamo and military tribunals that would be held there would be the source of recruitment of others who wanted to commit terrorist acts against the U.S. In summary, I was told there would be many, many bad things that would happen if I didn’t vote for Barrack Obama. I ignored the warnings and didn’t vote for Obama. How can I possibly atone for my mistake?

I’ll end the sarcasm with the observation that I understand politicians will say many things to be elected. Newly elected Presidents then sit at the desk in the Oval Office and begin to receive classified intelligence briefings which explain why some of their promised policies might not be wise. They also apparently learn (perhaps to their dismay) that they do not control the legislative branch of government or the private economy. They are the leader of the most powerful country in the world, but there are limits for even them. I suggest we all keep that in mind as the Presidential campaign, which is predicted to be the most vicious in at least recent memory, proceeds.

Why George H. W. Bush Ended Operation Desert Shield in Iraq

Posted on by

I recently posted a review of the book “Second Chance:  Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower” by Zbigniew Brzezinski in which he gives President George H. W. Bush a “solid B” for his foreign policy performance. However he said that Bush I’s greatest failure was stopping the Persian Gulf War,or “Operation Desert Shield,” before the last twenty divisions of Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard were attacked and destroyed. As a result, the Guard was able to crush a Shiite rebellion that followed the withdrawal of collation forces, which allowed Hussein to remain in power. My recollection was that Bush ended the war because that was what was required by United Nations resolutions. I decided this was a subject worth researching, because the decision has had far-reaching foreign policy effects.

The first thing I found in researching the issue was a YouTube video of Bush announcing the end of the war to a joint session of Congress. Most of the over five minute video is of standing ovations by every member of Congress. The longest ovation was for Cheney and Powell for their role for planning and executing the war.

The Persian Gulf War Resolution was adopted by the House of Representatives and Senate January 12, 1991 and authorized the use of U.S. military force against Iraq “pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678.”  That resolution gave Hussein until January 15, 1991 to withdraw from Kuwait. The UN would employ “all necessary means” to liberate Kuwait after that date. In addition to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the resolution specifically mentions the risks of Iraq using weapons of mass destruction. “Whereas, Iraq’s conventional, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs and its demonstrated willingness to use weapons of mass destruction pose a grave threat to world peace…”  “Operation Desert Shield” was the name selected for the operation probably because of the intent to prevent Hussein from expanding his invasion into Saudi Arabia.

The war began on January 16 with heavy bombing and missile strikes. The land war began on February 23 after Iraq set massive fires in Kuwait’s oil fields. The war lasted a mere 100 hours with coalition forces easily and brutally rolling up the badly outmatched Iraq forces.

UN Resolution 686 states that the members would “…bring their military presence in Iraq to an end as soon as possible consistent with achieving the objectives…” Therefore, after Kuwait had been liberated and the Iraqi army was in full retreat, the UN stipulated that hostilities would end. Those were the orders given by Bush I.

An excellent report on the war and why Bush decided to end it when he did clearly states the war was ended in concert with the UN resolutions that were so crucial in arranging the delicate coalition of Arab and other countries to end Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait. Bush knew that the war had been approved by the UN to end to occupation of Kuwait, and any expansion would result in difficulties for the coalition and perhaps an even bigger war. There was also the question of swinging the balance of power from Iraq to Iran.

History has shown that the failure to take out the last divisions of Hussein’s Republican Guard has had a long lasting and obviously negative effect on the foreign policies of the United States. It is quite easy with the clarity of a rear view mirror to see what should have been done. However, I can’t help but wonder what skilled diplomats, such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, would have done or what they would have counseled should have been done if they had been in the position of advising Bush I. Would they have advised ignoring the UN resolutions that had been so skillfully crafted and negotiated that led to the liberation of Kuwait, or would they have been more aggressive and “imperialist” and ordered coalition forces to crush remaining Iraq forces in violation of the UN resolutions. It doesn’t take too much imagination to picture what would have happened in Iraq if the Republican Guard and effectively the government of Iraq had been destroyed. The Shiite uprising would undoubtedly have created a civil war that would, I speculate, make the current instability in Iraq look mild. What would the United States have done then? Would Brzezinski have advised Bush he needed to establish control to fill the vacuum left by the defeat of Hussein?

My rear view mirror assessment of what Bush I did in Iraq was exactly what most diplomats would have recommended, and he would have been criticized even more strongly if he had ignored the intent of UN resolutions and taken out the Iraq government. Too bad things didn’t work out well after his decisions, but I predict things would have been worse absent his decisions.

Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower

Posted on by

This book presents Zbigniew Brzezinski’s analysis of the three presidential administrations preceding Barrack Obama. Those administrations represents the period after the United States had emerged as the victor of the Cold War and the “…three American presidents were not mere heads of state but the de facto leaders of the world.” Brzezinski was President Carter’s National Security Advisor. One reviewer of the book on Amazon refers to him as “…the finest foreign policy thinker of the past 100 years.” The review selected to present the less than complimentary side say the book presents “…few insights, but two extremely well-written chapters.” The assessments of the three presidents should not be a surprise to someone who has followed Brzezinski. He has been said to have been a prime source of President Obama’s anti-Iraqi war policy.

The author states that the “…emergence as the world’s most powerful state has saddled Washington’s leadership with three central missions…” A truncated version of those missions is: management of central power relationships, containment and termination of conflicts, and addressing inequalities in the human condition. “One superpower, fifteen years, three presidents: that in a nutshell is the focus of this book.”

George H. W. Bush came into office with an extensive background in foreign affairs, and was by far the most diplomatically skillful of the three presidents. He proved to be a superb crisis manager, but the author judges he ultimately failed as a strategic visionary. His greatest failure was not continuing the first Iraq War to remove Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard. That allowed a Shiite rebellion to be crushed and Hussein to remain in power. He was said to have brilliantly and successfully dismantled the Soviet empire and cut down Hussein’s excessive ambitions, but exploited neither. (I have researched the UN resolutions that resulted in ending the Iraq War and dispute Mr. Brzezinski’s assessment as will be detailed in a blog posting.)

Bill Clinton had no experience and was focused almost exclusively on domestic affairs. He is described as “…the brightest and most futuristic, be he lacked strategic consistency…” His focus was globalization, although his critics called it “globaloney.” The foreign policy meetings held during his time in office were described as having little structure. It was said an observer would not have been able to guess that Clinton was the president and not just another person participating in the discussions. His effectiveness in all areas “…suffered from the president’s declining capacity to inspire and lead because of his personal difficulties…”

Clinton is especially criticized for his poor record of dealing with North Korea, India, and Pakistan in their development of nuclear weapons. Sanctions against Iran made it virtually impossible to have open relations with that country. Expansion of NATO and admission of China into the World Trade Organization are listed as Clinton successes. The Senate dealt Clinton and Gore a defeat when it voted 95 to 0 to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. The Protocol is described as being the “whipping boy” for White House skeptics about the soundness of science in the global warming predictions.

The precipitous withdrawal of forces after the “Black Hawk Down” event encouraged those who believed the United States to be weak. However, the intense bombing campaign by NATO against Serbians sent a different message, as did the mistaken bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory. Clinton also approved bombing Taliban strongholds in Afghanistan. His Middle East policy drifted from fair to lopsided in favor of Israel which resulted in worse Israeli-Palestinian relations than when he took office. He “…did not leave a historically grand imprint on the world.” His autobiography of over a thousand pages devotes only a few pages to foreign policy.

George W. Bush began with restrained foreign policy. He is described as having “…strong gut instincts but no knowledge of global complexities and a temperament prone to dogmatic formulations.” He dramatically changed from almost completely delegating foreign policy immediately after the 9/11 attacks. His advisors convinced him he was the “…commander in chief of ‘a nation at war’.” He was characterized as arrogant in his approach to foreign policy. The invasion of Iraq is described as his “original sin” that resulted in damage to the nation’s reputation throughout the Middle East and helped encourage the formation of al Qaeda. The author writes that “…the war has caused calamitous damage to America’s global standing…(and) has been a geopolitical disaster.” The actions have divided allies and united  enemies. The fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found caused worldwide distrust. The author can’t help but contain his glee in one regard. “Perhaps the war’s only saving grace is that it made Iraq the cemetery of neocon dreams.”

The book provides a summary of world events leading up and during the fifteen years that is the focus. There are also thumbnail sketches of the key advisors to each of the three presidents. The author can’t resist making light of Ronald Reagan and the “fairy tale” of “an Evil Empire seeking global dominion.” He also disagrees strenuously that Reagan was the architect of the collapse of the Soviet Union, and mentions numerous other people who had, in his opinion, a larger role. The Solidarity movement in Poland led to upheavals in Czechoslovakia and Hungary and the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Gorbachev was seen as a key player because he allowed political dissent.

The thinking of the author and assessment of the three presidents is mostly focused on the differences between the globalization approach followed by Clinton and the neoconservative doctrine adopted by George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks. I’m confident that many so-called “neoconservatives,” including Charles Krauthammer, would disagree with the author’s declaration that “It was essentially an updated version of imperialism and was not primarily concerned with new global realities or novel social trends.” My recollection of the aftermath of 9/11 is radically different than that of the author. He writes that the fear of terrorism that was created “…began to verge on social intolerance, especially toward those whose ethnic origins or appearance could be viewed as giving grounds for suspicion.”

There is interesting information about the well-funded foreign policy lobbies.“The most active of these have been the Israeli-American and Cuban-American lobbies, both of which have the resources to make a difference in congressional fund-raising and command large electoral support in two major states, New York and Florida.”

The final chapter leads by describing “…Bush I was the policeman…Clinton was the social welfare advocate…(and) Bush II was the vigilante…” The “report card” gives Bush I a solid B, Clinton and uneven C, and Bush II a failed F. The author then predicts there will be a second chance if “…the next president (is) aware that the strength of a great power is diminished if it ceases to serve an idea…to the aspirations of politically awakened humanity.”

Common Ground, How to Stop the Partisan War That Is Destroying America

Posted on by

I was attracted to this book because I liked the concept of staunch Conservative Cal Thomas coauthoring a book with staunch Liberal Bob Beckel. However, the book misses the mark. There book predicts a less partisan election campaign in 2008 because Barrack Obama was a likely Democratic candidate, and he was viewed by the authors as a moderate. One passage is that “Senator Barrack Obama has already embraced the call for common ground (and an end to polarization) in his campaign for president…”.

I found it difficult to believe that two such astute political observers could misinterpret by such a wide margin. Mr. Obama was the most liberal Senator when he began his campaign. He followed the standard game plan of campaigning to gain votes from the hard left liberals in the primaries and then portrayed himself as moving to the middle in the Presidential campaign. I believe it is safe to say President Obama has not been the moderate unifier predicted by the authors

I believe the book has value for the analysis of recent political history that has led to radical polarization of the two political parties. The far right and left have both been encouraged by the news media’s thirst for stories of conflict. The book criticizes recent leaders of both parties for contributing to the polarization.

It is also pointed out that JFK was given a free ride on his sexual escapades while other politicians have been forced out for less. There is no holding back on what the book calls “bottom feeders,” and Ann Coulter and Michael Moore are named in that category. They are described as “…polarizers who make money by keeping politics inflamed …” MoveOn.org and Focus on the Family are named as organizations that thrive on polarization. “Polarizers could care less about unity. Indeed, finding common ground and consensus is their worst nightmare, especially for the bottom feeders.”

The authors lay a large portion of blame for the evolution of polarization on voters. Middle American stays home for the primaries while political activists select the candidates for the general election. Politicians are clever enough to try to appeal to their base to gain the nomination. It also doesn’t help that moderate voters are showing up in declining numbers in general elections. For some reason not well explained, the authors predict that polarization is coming to an end. That prediction is, for the present, widely off the mark.

The quotes that lead off the individual chapters are the part of the book I enjoyed the most, and the quote leading off Chapter 3 about the impact of voters is a good example. “Bad officials are elected by good citizens, who do not vote.”

Mr. Beckel and Mr. Thomas give arguments for their Liberal/Conservative positions in the preface to the book. One would think that my Libertarian leanings would make me more sympathetic to the Conservative argument. Not so. I agreed with many of Mr. Thomas’s statements, but give Mr. Beckel credit for what I thought was a better presentation.

One of my favorite descriptions of how partisan polarization is destructive is the McCain/Kennedy immigration bill that attempted to “thread the needle” and begin to solve a very difficult problem. The bill was gathering strong support from both parties, and the Bush White House announced support, “…but Harry Reid was not about to let it pass.” Reid could not allow Bush to get credit for a legislative victory. He used a parliamentary maneuver to delay the bill and talk radio eventually destroyed any hope of the legislation being passed.

The book declares that the designation of Red and Blue states is a myth, because Middle America is in basic agreement on most issues regardless of the section of the country. “To characterize an entire state as Republican or Democrat base on the popular vote to one candidate is absurd.” Ohio was given a red state designation because 50.5 percent voted for George Bush over John Kerry. The red state label has stuck despite the fact Ohio has several Democrats in their congressional delegation. In the quest to “color” states, Ohio should be called a blue state.

The book does give at least a partial answer to the puzzling question as to why blacks are dominantly Democrats despite years of “Jim Crow” laws advocated by that party in the past. “The dramatic shift occurred in 1960 when an overwhelming number of black voters—many loyal to the Republicans since Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation a century earlier—moved their allegiance to the Democrats…President Lyndon Johnson sealed that allegiance by signing the Voting Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the 1965 Civil Rights Act.” (Legislation opposed by many Southern Democrats.)

Another interesting cultural observation is that blue-collar workers who voted dominantly Democrat saw their sons go to Vietnam while sons of white-collar workers went to college under draft deferments. Growing opposition to that war has led to the Democrats being the party considered to be soft on commitment to national defense.

President Carter advocated reorganizing and streamlining the government, but the large Democratic margins in the House and Senate resisted along with increased lobbying by Liberal special interest groups. All Carter accomplished was flooding Washington D.C. with lobbyists, and the flood hasn’t diminished. Challenges to Carter and then to Ford by their own parties resulted in the political extremists becoming more dominant and moderates becoming more irrelevant. Winston Churchill said, “Some men change their parties for the sake of principles; others their principles for the sake of their party.” An unknown author offered the opinion, “Why pay money to have your family tree traced; go into politics and your opponents will do it for you.”

There is an interesting reminder of the Clinton’s taking up health care as their first priority. The famous “Harry and Louise” commercials showing a couple talking about how the proposed bill would hurt them was instrumental in killing it.

The book was worth reading to find the passage about George McGovern opening an inn after he lost the 1980 election. He said in a Wall Street Journal interview, “…if he had known how difficult it was to run a business, he might have voted differently while in Congress.”

However, the book reminds me in the closing pages how wrong the authors viewed Obama. “Senator Barrack Obama’s message in his presidential campaign is closer, so far, to a common ground message than that of any other candidate in either party.” Cal Thomas does give a warning. “I like Obama’s language, but I want to make sure it isn’t a cover for liberal policies…”