Tag: Lindsay Graham

Categories
Editorial Opinion

Donald Trump: The Manchurian Candidate

The outcome of the 2016 presidential campaign was already regarded as nightmarish by various blocs of Americans — and not just those who call themselves Democrats. But the persistence of President-elect Donald Trump’s bizarre affinity to and connection with Russia has become unnerving to increasing numbers of his constituents-to-be, including members of Trump’s adopted Republican Party.

As evidence continues to emerge indicating that Trump’s relationship with Russia, America’s longstanding national adversary, might be something more ominous than an unseemly flirtation of the mutual-admiration sort with Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, the GOP’s congressional leadership itself is being forced to take notice. That includes no less a figure than Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, whose adamantine resistance to incontrovertible facts uncovered by the CIA prevented a pre-election joint congressional statement affirming Russian responsibility for acts of espionage and sabotage against Democrat Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Yes, we said “espionage” and “sabotage.” What other words are appropriate to describe the organized invasion of private email correspondence and the carefully directed leaks that clearly achieved the obvious goal of casting doubts on candidate Clinton’s bona fides and crippling her prospects? If there was communication or, worse, complicity between some members of Trump’s campaign entourage and the Russians, the question becomes whether treasonous activity took place.

Trump’s behavior bears undeniable echoes to the general circumstances depicted in the classic novel/film The Manchurian Candidate, which concerns an unfriendly foreign power’s Trojan-horse plot to implant its own man in the White House. Let us count the ways: Candidate Trump calls for a rethinking, perhaps even a scuttling, of NATO’s traditional function as a multi-national security buffer; he lets no opportunity pass to make fawning public statements about Putin or to suggest that a profitable strategy for the future is to make common cause with the Russians. (That word “profitable” is on purpose, too — especially for someone like Trump who imagines all international questions to revolve around “deals.”)

Trump not only went out of his way to douse suspicions that the Kremlin was the source of the unending Wikileaks revelations plaguing his opponent, he actually made (however facetious) a public plea that the Russians turn up missing emails from Clinton’s private server!

Now, he stands victorious, happily making fox-in-the-henhouse appointments to head every important cabinet post — none more eyebrow-raising than Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, an oil-and-gas tycoon whose background in foreign affairs consists mainly of his long-term friendship with Putin. 

Already there were Republicans such as Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham ready to pin down Trump for his breaches.  But for McConnell to come forward is revealing. Responding to Trump’s continued denial of untoward conduct and his spiteful remarks about the nation’s intelligence community, the majority leader said, “Any foreign breach of our cyber-security measures is disturbing, and I strongly condemn any such efforts. The Russians are not our friends. I have the highest confidence in the intelligence community,” and, most significantly, that “this simply cannot be a partisan issue.”

The smell of fish is in the air.

Categories
Letter From The Editor Opinion

Bozos on the Bus

There’s a classic Jerry Seinfeld routine where he riffs on Bozo the Clown. “What’s with Bozo the Clown?” he asks. “I mean, is ‘the clown’ really necessary? It’s not like there’s going to be a Bozo the Optometrist. If your name is Bozo, your career path is pretty well set. You’re a clown.”

Or a Republican presidential candidate?

I jest. Sort of. But there’s a reason folks are joking about the GOP candidates’ “clown car.” There are a lot of Bozos on that bus.

So how do the Republicans fix their image problem? Pretty simple, actually. All it’s going to take is one GOP presidential candidate with the courage to take off the clown suit and say, “Enough.” One Republican who will state the obvious, hopefully on a debate stage filled with all the other candidates.

“My fellow Republicans,” he will begin, “I’m going to say something that will be painful for you to hear: Our Grand Old Party is in trouble. We are too old, too white, too rich, too angry, and too out of touch. We’re chasing giant portions of the electorate off our lawn. We’ve lost African Americans, Hispanics, gays, and open-minded moderates and independents. We’re chasing off young people, people who believe in science, people who want accessible health care, and people who live in cities. And why? Because we have allowed ourselves to become trapped into pandering to know-nothings, gun fetishists, racists, religious fundamentalists, and the wealthy.

“As a major political party, we’re killing ourselves, gerrymandering ourselves into national irrelevancy. We have almost literally become Clint Eastwood talking to a chair. My friends, let’s face it, if our party doesn’t change soon, we’re going the way of the Whigs.

“We need to recognize that the country is becoming increasingly multicultural, more tolerant of sexual and gender differences, less traditional. We have a majority on the Supreme Court, and even they won’t support our agenda. The Democrats don’t have all the answers. Hillary Clinton’s not even that likable, but she’s going to win in a landslide if our candidate backs himself into a corner by pandering to our nutjob ‘base’ in the primaries.

“So, I’m not going to do that. I’m going to acknowledge that global climate change is happening, and I’m going to listen to our scientists at NASA, the Pentagon, and NOAA and take their counsel. I’m going to embrace the fact that gay Americans are now free to marry, just like the rest of us. That means you, too, Lindsay. Oh, did I say that out loud? Sorry. Where was I?

“Oh, yeah. I’m going to accept that some form of universal health care, as flawed as the ACA is, is inevitable, and I’m going to strive to make it work as efficiently as possible. And I want every American to be able to earn a living wage, because the real strength of this country lies in our having a robust middle class. I will fight to make that happen.

“In closing, I’d like to reiterate: It’s 2015. I’m a Republican. My name isn’t Bozo. And I’d appreciate your vote.”

Bruce VanWyngarden

brucev@memphisflyer.com

Categories
Opinion The Last Word

The Rant (September 18, 2014)

A few months ago, no one outside of the defense establishment had ever heard of ISIS, but now that the president has offered a strategy to combat these barbaric psychopaths, the right-wing geniuses in Congress and every talking blonde-head on Fox News has suddenly become an expert on Middle East foreign policy.

It’s clear that the terrorist organization has become an existential threat to the U.S. Recently, an ISIS leader paraphrased George W. Bush, saying, “You are either with us or we will kill you.” Their savagery has again taken this nation back into a sectarian war, and if that is the case, the reactionary Obama haters need to sit down and shut up. When the criminal Bush invaded Iraq under false pretenses, he was at least given the courtesy of bipartisan support before his lies were exposed. No such support for Obama.

An editorial appeared in the New York Times, composed by John McCain and Lindsey Graham, the Abbott and Costello of war-mongers. It attempted to goad the president into stronger action, including more American troops on the ground. After Obama’s televised address outlining plans for assembling a coalition to join the fight, a speech, by the way, which could easily have been given by G. Dubya, Graham ran to Fox News Sunday and said, “Our strategy will fail yet again. The president needs to rise to the occasion before we all get killed here at home.”

The ‘Bama-bashers first took issue with the president for using the term ISIL, instead if ISIS. I was baffled too and had to Google it for myself. So, ISIS means the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria; ISIL stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Which raises another question: Levant is an antiquated term used mainly by archaeologists, meaning the area currently in conflict, but also including Palestine and Israel. The apocalyptic conspiratorialists went blotto, claiming Obama had a hidden agenda. One end-of-times website said, “When Obama refers to the Islamic State as ISIL, he is sending a message to Muslims all over the Middle East that he personally does not recognize Israel as a sovereign nation, but as territory belonging to the Islamic State… Obama’s ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel.”

Really? Another article credited to the Fox News staff joined the argument over the president’s choice of words. A massive mob of jihadist maniacs are running wild in Iraq and Syria, committing mass killings, public executions, beheadings, and crucifixions, and the conservative crazies over at Fox are arguing over semantics. Meanwhile, Obama has killed more terrorists than sand fleas and crotch rot.

These three gruesome videos of a knife-wielding, British-sounding ISIS terrorist, who will soon be known as “ashes in a keffiyeh,” are meant to goad the West into sending in ground troops as targets. Aside from our Special Forces who, to no one’s surprise, are already there, these savages aren’t worth sacrificing a single soldier for. In this case, Obama’s strategy is correct — use air strikes and drone the hell out of them. Recently, I viewed a video online that was either leaked or classified because it was quickly taken down. It showed the view from a U.S. helicopter warship over a camp of ISIS killers, scurrying like rats in a barn while being targeted and blown to hell by our military. I must admit, it was the most engrossing thing I’ve seen online in a while.

We have the technology to halt the advances of this group of disaffected men without women, but the need for ground troops is the subject of the current Paris Conference. Muslim countries need to combat this threat directly, but the cavalry isn’t coming — not from our dear friends the Saudis, or the Turks, or the United Arab Emirates — the “Coalition of the Threatened.” Our military claims that an army of Shiite Muslims is necessary to fight the Sunni dominated ISIS militia.

Y’all know me. I’m a leftist peace-nic. There hasn’t been a war since Vietnam that I haven’t opposed. But these thrill-killers are a different animal. This is a moral issue. Remember the first Gulf War after Iraq invaded Kuwait and Poppy Bush drew a line in the sand? You could question the motives for the war, but not the conduct of the operation. Under the direction of General “Stormin’ Norman” Schwarzkopf, a force of 675,000 troops from 28 countries was assembled to fight Hussein’s brutally loyal Republican Guard. After getting their asses kicked out of Kuwait, the Iraqi army retreated in a single-file column, making it easy for U.S. fighter jets to transform them into one long smoking strip of bacon in the desert. I’ve noticed the same single-file progression of ISIS through Iraq. Perhaps the Schwarzkopf strategy can be dusted off one more time and air strikes could be used to create even more lines of crispy critters in the sand. Better still, the CIA could start a blood feud between ISIS and Al Qaeda and let them shoot it out among themselves. There is no negotiating with someone missing their soul. It may come as a surprise, but this pacifist says, “Smoke ’em.” Nothing deters a terrorist quite like death.