BloggeRhythms

Spending considerable time reviewing history, aside from viewing many presidential campaigns myself, makes it embarrassingly difficult to comprehend the level to which the current run for the presidency has been demeaned by Trump.    

An article @FoxNews.com yesterday states that: “Donald Trump dramatically escalated his feud with rival Ted Cruz on Monday, threatening to sue the Texas senator over his eligibility for office if he does not retract alleged “lies” about Trump’s positions – and calling on the Republican National Committee to intervene on two fronts. 

“The billionaire businessman wants the RNC to pressure Cruz, and also stop allowing so many donors at the debates. If the RNC does not “get its act together,” Trump warned, they would be violating the “pledge” he signed to support the eventual GOP nominee.” 

In the real world, though, there are incredibly important issues facing the U.S. today. Both at home and abroad, all of them requiring the hand of a skilled, well-seasoned leader fully steeped in the workings of government. One who should have at least proven himself successful in a similar position, in this case at least governor of a larger state. 

However, at this point in the Republican campaign, we have an untested blowhard, Trump, treating the campaigning process as if it were a couple of guys in a schoolyard, flaunting their macho like ten year olds. It takes considerable competence to be leader of the free world, which among other things the presidency certainly is. It also requires professional, mature, unquestioned capability to perform under immense stress. 

Thus, bringing a campaign down to the level of threatening lawsuits because a questionable past has been targeted by a competitor is just about as thin-skinned and wimpish as one can get. It also implies that in difficult situations facing the nation, were Trump its leader his first move would likely be to call his attorney for help. And if that didn’t work, he’d run to his Mommy in tears.   

Similarly, according to nzherald.co.nz: “Trump hit former President George W. Bush hard in Saturday's debate, directing some blame at him for the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and saying he erred badly by invading Iraq in 2003.”

In this case, once again an outlandish statement's been made, whereas Trump’s accusations have nothing to do with the actual events that took place.  

It was Osama Bin Laden, who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, initially denying them but later admitting involvement. He declared a holy war against the United States, when a 1998 fatwā signed by bin Laden and others, called for the killing of Americans. The idea for the attacks came from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who first presented it to Osama bin Laden in 1996.

Following the attacks, “W.” Bush's approval rating soared to 90%. On September 20, 2001, he addressed the nation and a joint session of Congress regarding the events of September 11 and the subsequent nine days of rescue and recovery efforts, describing his intended response to the attacks. New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani's highly visible role also won him high praise in New York and nationally, as well.

As far as the Iraq situation itself is concerned,  a 9/11 Commission report identified four times when Bill Clinton could have killed bin Laden.

Similarly, Philip D. Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 report, actually identifies nine key moments in Clinton’s presidency when a different decision might have led to bin Laden’s death. “On every one of these nine choices there are people who believe the President could have made a different choice,” Zelikow said. “And, in each case, there are people who believe the President made the right call.” 

The day before the terror attacks on September 11, 2001, Clinton told a group of businessmen in Australia that he "could have killed" the man behind those attacks, Osama bin Laden, in 1998, but decided against launching a strike out of concern for civilian casualties.

In Bush’s case, both the House and the Senate voted to authorize his war-making powers, a resounding message to the United Nations and the world that "the gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally."

The resolution - authorizing Bush to launch a military attack against Iraq if he decided it necessary - was approved by both the House (296-133) and Senate (77-23.) 

In the House a majority of Democrats, but not all,  voted against the resolution. In the Senate, 21 Democrats voted no. 

As a result, Bush had Congress behind him, when he pressed his case with the United Nations Security Council, seeking approval of a tough new resolution holding Iraq to unfettered inspections and disarmament and promising force if Iraq does not comply. 

What’s more, prior to 2002, the Security Council had passed 16 resolutions on Iraq. In 2002, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions.

Resolution 1441 itself stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1990–1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations." 

Thus, while it’s easy to sling mud 15 years after the fact regarding September 11th, at the time the world was in turmoil whereas the U.S. had been attacked on its own soil. However, a carefully thought out retaliation was planned and properly executed, including obtaining the agreement of the U.N. 16 times. 

But, then again, perhaps it would have been more acceptable to Trump if the U.S. simply declared bankruptcy instead and walked away from retaliation, leaving the disastrous problem to somebody else.   

Bringing us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

Olaf Ekberg @theamericanmirror.com, writes: “While there may be sagging excitement around Hillary Clinton’s campaign, there seems to be even less to see Chelsea.”

The younger Clinton was campaigning in Cleveland Monday and a video “shows numerous empty seats in an already small room.” Which may be another indication of a weakening campaign, like last time around. 

At the same time, a reader John (magnum) posted another perspective of the current Clinton campaign situation:  

Bringing up the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?

     

That’s it for today folks.   

Adios