Showing posts with label President’s. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President’s. Show all posts

Saturday, April 5, 2014

Weekly Address: The President’s Budget Ensures Opportunity for All Hardworking Americans


In this week’s address, the President highlighted the important differences between the budget he’s put forward — built on opportunity for all — and the budget House Republicans are advocating for, which stacks the deck against the middle class.


While the President is focused on building lasting economic security and ensuring that hardworking Americans have the opportunity to get ahead, Republicans are advancing the same old top-down approach of cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans and slashing important investments in education, infrastructure, and research and development.


Transcript | mp4 | mp3





White House.gov Blog Feed



Weekly Address: The President’s Budget Ensures Opportunity for All Hardworking Americans

Thursday, April 3, 2014

Presidents and Baseball: An RCP Quiz



Barack Obama’s favorite game is hoops, not baseball, and his aides say that he’s eschewing throwing out the first pitch Friday at the Washington Nationals home opener. But the First Fan did open the White House doors to the Boston Red Sox on Tuesday, lauding the 2013 World Series champs for their role in helping heal their city after last April’s Boston Marathon bombing.


“Sometimes, sports seems like it’s trivial— just an entertainment,” the president said. “And then, every once in a while, you’re reminded that sports represents something else and it has the power to bring people together like almost nothing can. And all of you should be very proud of what you accomplished. I know your fans are. And I’m grateful to you as well.”


U.S. presidents have a long and rich association with the game. So here, to cap off MLB’s Opening Week, is RealClearPolitics’ first annual Presidents and Baseball Quiz. Grade yourself—it’s an honor system—but it’s not an open-book test. In other words, no peeking at Google.


1. What baseball executive said, “Baseball is America. If you want to be associated with what’s truly American—and you’re a politician—you better get close to baseball.”


2. Who was the first president to attend an Opening Day?


3. The only president in the last century not to throw out a ball on Opening Day.


4. The first president ever booed at a major league game?


5. This president dreamed of growing up to be Honus Wagner.


6. This one wanted to be Willie Mays.


7. The sole president in history with no connection to baseball or its athletic forerunners.


8. Only time a president and vice president attended a game together while in office.


9. This chief executive said, “Good ballplayers make good citizens.”


10. This president weathered impeachment by inviting supporters to the White House to watch baseball as he talked nostalgically about playing the game as a boy.


11. First president to throw out a ceremonial first pitch at the World Series.


12. This man was the first (and only) president to publicly disdain the game of baseball.


13. He was the first southpaw to throw out a first pitch.


14. This president tossed out two pitches—one left-handed and the other right-handed.


15. This president regularly hunted during the off-season with Ty Cobb.


16. This one previously owned a minor league team, was the first to invite Babe Ruth to the White House, wagered on games — and lived and died with the Washington Senators.


17. He was the only president ever to play in an old-timers game.


18. This future president walked up to a future Hall of Famer and said, “They say you’re too old to be a ballplayer and I’m too young to be president. Maybe we’ll fool them.”


19. This baseball player was named after a president—and portrayed in a movie by a future president.


20. Which U.S. president was the best baseball player?


CLICK HERE FOR THE ANSWERS




Carl M. Cannon is the Washington Bureau Chief for RealClearPolitics. Reach him on Twitter @CarlCannon.




RealClearPolitics – Articles



Presidents and Baseball: An RCP Quiz

Monday, November 25, 2013

Of course presidents lie


 These presidents told massive lies but deceit is vital for presidential power, historians say. Even


These presidents told massive lies but deceit is vital for presidential power, historians say. Even “Honest Abe” lied.





  • Some of our greatest presidents were skillful liars

  • Machiavelli said a leader must be a “great pretender”

  • The difference between good vs. bad lies

  • Why one honest president should have learned how to lie



(CNN) — “I cannot tell a lie.”


That’s the signature line from a classic American story. When the nation’s first president was asked as a boy if he had chopped down his father’s cherry tree, he didn’t say “I can neither confirm nor deny those reports,” or “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”


George Washington told the truth even if it got him in trouble. The moral of the story — Washington was a great leader because he would not lie, and all presidents should be as honest as our founding father.


Well, guess what? That story about Washington and the cherry tree is a lie. Never happened. And the notion that a good president doesn’t lie to the American people — that’s an illusion as well. Historians say many of our greatest presidents were the biggest liars — and duplicity was part of their greatness.


“Every president has not only lied at some time, but needs to lie to be effective,” says Ed Uravic, a former Washington lobbyist, congressional chief of staff and author of “Lying Cheating Scum.”


Presidential lying is a hot topic because of a promise made by President Obama. While promoting Obamacare, Obama told Americans that they could keep their health insurance if they wanted to. That turned out to not be true for some, and Obama has been accused of lying.


Some political pundits warn that Obama’s “lie” will undo his second term. They say Americans won’t forgive a president who violates their trust. It’s a good sound-bite, but it’s bad history. A great leader must “be a great pretender and dissembler,” Machiavelli said in “The Prince.” And so should a president, some historians say.


You might say lying is the verbal lubricant that keeps the Oval Office engine running. Some of our most popular presidents told the biggest whoppers, say historians, including Benjamin Ginsberg, author of “The American Lie: Government by the People and other Political Fables.”


While preparing the country for World War II, Franklin Roosevelt told Americans in 1940 that “your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”


President John F. Kennedy declared in 1961 that “I have previously stated, and I repeat now, that the United States plans no military intervention in Cuba.” All the while, he was planning an invasion of Cuba.


Ronald Reagan told Americans in 1986, “We did not, I repeat, did not trade weapons or anything else [to Iran] for hostages, nor will we,” four months before admitting that the U.S. had actually done what he had denied.


Even “Honest Abe,” whose majestic “Gettysburg Address” the nation commemorated this week, was a skillful liar, says Meg Mott, a professor of political theory at Marlboro College in Vermont.


Lincoln lied about whether he was negotiating with the South to end the war. That deception was given extended treatment in “Steven Spielberg” recent film “Lincoln.” He also lied about where he stood on slavery. He told the American public and political allies that he didn’t believe in political equality for slaves because he didn’t want to get too far ahead of public opinion, Mott says.


“He had to be devious with the electorate,” Mott says. “He played slave-holders against abolitionists. He had to lie to get people to follow him. Lincoln is a great Machiavellian.”


6 things presidents wish they hadn’t said


Forgivable vs. unforgivable lies


Presidential lies fall into two categories: forgivable vs. unforgiveable.


Forgivable lies are those meant to keep the nation from harm. Some consider the National Security Agency’s lies about the scope of domestic spying to be in this category because they protect us from terrorists, says Uravic, author of “Lying, Cheating Scum.”


Unforgivable lies fall into the Nixonian “I am not a crook” category, Uravic says.


Those are lies meant to cover up crimes, incompetence or protect a president’s political future. President Lyndon Johnson, for example, kept the full cost of spending on the Vietnam War from Congress and the public to preserve his political power, Uravic says.


“The American people remain forgiving of their politicians, as long as those politicians put the people first and deliver tangible benefits for all of us,” says Uravic, who also teaches at the Harrisburg University of Science and Technology in Pennsylvania.


The ultimate test of whether the American public will accept a lie from a president is if the nation determines that the lie serves the national interests.


That distinction is why Bill Clinton remains popular, and George W. Bush remains reviled for his “lie,” says Allan Cooper, a political scientist and historian at Otterbein University in Ohio.


In a nationally televised address in 2003, Bush said that invading Iraq was necessary “to eliminate weapons of mass destruction.”


“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised,” Bush said.


Clinton told the nation that he did “not have sexual relations with that woman.”





I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
President Bill Clinton




“Clinton’s lies about a sexual affair were understandable given his interest to protect his marriage and to shield the nation’s children from having to ask their parents to explain the phenomenon of oral sex,” Cooper says. “Bush’s lies led to the death and injuries of thousands of Americans.”


Obama’s statement will be judged by the same standard: Did it help the country, or did he say it just to save his bacon?


Obama apologized for saying people could keep their insurance if they like it. But some Americans who buy policies on the private market recently received cancellation notices because their plans don’t meet Obamacare requirements for more comprehensive care.


Americans may forgive Obama if Obamacare improves their lives, says Christopher J. Galdieri, who teaches a course on the U.S. presidency at Saint Anslem College in New Hampshire.


“Ultimately, this is going to come down to whether the federal [health care] exchange improves, and whether people come to view that as a successful and viable option for buying insurance for themselves and their families,” Galdieri says.


Will George W. Bush’s reputation ever recover from the accusation that he led the nation into war under false pretenses? It’s hard to say from history.


Several presidents were accused of deceiving the American public to sell military action, says David Contosta, a history professor at Chestnut Hill College in Pennsylvania.


President James Polk lied to Congress in 1846 — claiming Mexico had invaded the United States — because he was determined to take the Southwest from Mexico. That lie led to the Mexican-American War, Contosta says.


President William McKinley lied to the American public in 1898 when he insisted that Spain had blown up the USS Maine warship in Havana Harbor, Cuba, although he had no evidence. That lie led to the Spanish-American war.





Every president has not only lied at some time, but needs to lie to be effective.
Ed Uravic, former Washington lobbyist and author of “Lying Cheating Scum.”




One popular president got caught telling a lie about a failed military action but his popularity remains intact.


“President Dwight Eisenhower denied that the United States was flying U-2 spy planes over the Soviet Union, until the Soviets shot down one of the planes, capturing the pilot, and he was forced to admit the truth,” Contosta says.


Some presidents were so deceitful that they even lied to their friends.


Franklin Roosevelt was such a president. Roosevelt led the nation out of the Great Depression and through World War II. But even his allies couldn’t bank on honesty.


Roosevelt told three different men that he wanted them to be his next vice president during the Democratic national convention in 1944. Then he picked a fourth man, Harry Truman, for the office, says David Barrett, a political science professor at Villanova University in Pennsylvania.


“He did it with such skill that all three men were completely convinced that Roosevelt was behind him.”


The lost art of the quotable speech


Why we need a president who lies


Roosevelt’s deceitfulness hasn’t stopped historians from widely picking him as one of nation’s three greatest presidents, along with Lincoln and Washington. Perhaps they and ordinary Americans forgive presidents who lie because there’s something in human nature that believes a leader needs to be cunning.


Sure, we tell our children about Washington cutting down the cherry tree. The 19th century writer Parson Mason Weems inserted that fable into his 1800 biography “A Life of Washington.”


But then we close the children’s book and turn on the TV to admire the lethal duplicity of a leader like the mafia patriarch Vito Corleone in the classic 1972 film “The Godfather.”


We want our presidents to have a little gangster in them. It’s the presidential paradox that scholars Thomas Cronin and Michael Genovese talked about in their recent book, “The Paradoxes of the American Presidency.”


They wrote:


“We want a decent, just, caring, and compassionate president, yet we admire a cunning, guileful and, on occasions that warrant it, even a ruthless, manipulative president.”


The most sublime execution of presidential deception comes when a president discovers that he doesn’t have to lie to deceive. Why lie when a simple misimpression will do, says James Hoopes, an ethics in business professor at Babson College in Massachusetts.


These presidents learn from Machiavelli, who said that the Prince must be a “fox and lion” — a fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify enemies who would trap him, Hoopes says.


President Andrew Jackson foxily campaigned on a lie insisting that he was for a “judicious tariff” which to Southern ears in the 1828 presidential election meant a low tariff. After Jackson was elected, though, Congress passed a high tariff that prompted outraged Southern leaders to talk about nullification and secession, Hoopes says.


The fox then became the lion, Hoopes says of Jackson.


“Like the lion he was, Jackson faced down the challenge with threats of force, threats that had the ring of truth, coming from a former general who summarily executed enemy civilians and hanged mutinous soldiers under his command,” Hoopes says.


If you still think you want a leader who is always honest, consider the fate of one recent president.


He vowed during his presidential campaign that “I will never tell a lie to the American people.” He wore a sweater during a nationally televised speech from the Oval Office because he had turned down the White House thermostat to conserve energy. He brought peace to the Middle East and even taught Sunday school.


He was also swept out of the Oval Office after one term.


“The country fell apart,” Mott says of this president’s time in office. “He was too noble, too pure. He didn’t know how to play people against one another. He should have read his Machiavelli.”


That president was Jimmy Carter. He won the Nobel Peace Prize after leaving office, and he’s been widely praised for his humanitarian efforts around the globe. He still builds homes for the poor around the world.


No one ever labeled Carter a liar while he was in office.


But then hardly anyone calls him a great president today.




CNN.com – Politics



Of course presidents lie

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Cash-strapped University of California may spend millions on president"s residence


Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano speaks during a news conference after being voted in as the next president of the University of California on the campus of UCSF in San Francisco, California, July 18, 2013. REUTERS/Beck Diefenbach

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano speaks during a news conference after being voted in as the next president of the University of California on the campus of UCSF in San Francisco, California, July 18, 2013.


Credit: Reuters/Beck Diefenbach






SAN FRANCISCO | Wed Sep 18, 2013 7:13am EDT



SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – As Janet Napolitano prepares to lead the cash-strapped University of California, the Board of Regents is set to vote Wednesday on whether to take first steps toward spending millions to repair a decaying mansion to house the system’s presidents.


The move to fix up the mansion, which could cost as much as $ 6 million over two years, comes just two weeks before the former Homeland Security chief is expected to take over as U.C. president, and provides a telling example of what she faces as she tries to bring financial order to the prestigious but struggling system.


The Board of Regents for the sprawling, 13-campus system is set to decide whether to spend an initial $ 620,000 toward renovating the dilapidated Blake House mansion, which was designed by prominent turn-of-the century architect Walter Danforth Bliss, whose work included such San Francisco landmarks as the St. Francis Hotel and the Bank of America building.


In hiring Napolitano, state officials were counting on her political savvy and fund-raising prowess to restore a system racked by years of budget cuts and turmoil.


She won’t be on the job Wednesday to argue for or against the renovation project, but Napolitano could influence subsequent votes on additional spending.


The dwelling has been vacant since 2008 and has fallen into extreme disrepair, said Patrick Lenz, U.C. vice president for budget. It will cost about $ 370,000 for the most basic repairs and deferred maintenance, including fixing its leaking roof, officials said, plus another $ 250,000 for preliminary architectural plans.


Even if the Regents vote to renovate the mansion, it won’t be inhabitable for at least two years, during which time the university will spend about $ 10,000 per month for Napolitano’s rented residence.


Chosen from among more than 300 candidates in part because of her political skills, the 55-year-old Democrat and two-term Arizona governor takes the helm as the university is struggling to recover from economic crises that have eaten away at the state budget on and off for nearly two decades.


Cuts of nearly $ 1 billion over the last five years have led to tuition increases and class shortages, and have strained relations with faculty and staff through the imposition of furlough days and hiring freezes.


Napolitano has not said what she thinks of repairing the mansion, and university officials said Tuesday that they had not “fully” discussed it with her.


A regents committee voted to recommend beginning the work, for a total cost of $ 620,000.


Some regents, however, were skeptical.


“The last time I was at the Blake House was about eight years ago and I thought it was pretty run down then,” said Regent Fred Ruiz, who suggested that the university sell the property instead of renovating it.


The historic mansion sits in the quiet community of Kensington – four miles to the north of the U.C. Berkeley campus and proximate to the system’s administrative offices in nearby Oakland. It was donated to the university in 1957 and has traditionally been used to serve as the living quarters for the university system’s presidents.


As the mansion lay in disrepair, the university was paying to lease living quarters for its presidents, spending more than $ 100,000 for each of the past five years to house outgoing President Mark Yudof, and entering into a two-year lease of about $ 10,000 per month for a house for Napolitano.


The president’s residence must be large, officials said, because he or she is expected to host events there as well as live on the premises.


Lenz, who supports the idea of renovating the mansion, said the cost of leasing such a facility would eclipse the cost of repairs on Blake House in just 15 years.


To be habitable, he said, the mansion would require seismic and security upgrades, repairs to the kitchen and residential areas along with other fixes.


His department will look into the possibility of selling the site, but that initial repairs were needed right away.


“We’re kind of at a point where we need to retain the value that we have,” he said.


University spokeswoman Dianne Klein said in a statement that the large public rooms on the first floor of the 13,000 square foot mansion were large enough for university functions, but the upstairs living quarters were “not currently adequate to meet the needs of the president.”


If approved, funding for the project would come from the Searles Fund, an endowment used for expenses not covered by the state, Klein said.


(Reporting by Laila Kearney, Editing by Sharon Bernstein and Ken Wills)






Reuters: Politics



Cash-strapped University of California may spend millions on president"s residence

Friday, September 13, 2013

The President"s Embarrassment


When Secretary of State John Kerry, apparently irritated by a lack of sleep, gave a snippy and what he thought was an unrealistic reply to a reporter’s question at a London press conference last weekend, he hardly could have imagined the world’s response. Asked whether there is anything Syrian President Bashar al-Assad could do at this relatively late hour to avoid an American invasion, Kerry told an international audience that if Assad gave up whatever chemical weapons his government possesses, the U.S. would forgo an invasion.


But not to worry, Kerry added. Assad is not going to do that, and we will end up invading Syria in order to vindicate President Obama’s threat to do so. For two days, Obama remained silent on this as his arch-nemesis, Russian President Vladimir Putin, grabbed the spotlight and the high moral ground.


Putin, sounding more like a Nobel Peace laureate than the killer he is known to be, offered to broker a deal whereby the Syrian chemical stockpile would be surrendered to the United Nations, the Syrian government could go about defending itself from the al-Qaida-driven effort to take it over, and the U.S. would leave Syria alone.


Obama is generally firm in his belief that he needs to vindicate the threat he made last summer when he was trying to outdo Mitt Romney on sounding tough. It was then that Obama threatened to intervene in the Syrian civil war if chemical weapons were used by the government. Nevertheless, hating the international embarrassment visited upon him when suddenly Putin seems more reasonable than he does, Obama conceded to my Fox News colleague Chris Wallace that the Kerry-inspired and Putin-pushed idea seemed worth considering. And then the Syrian government agreed.


Just last week, the president was arguing that only military force would show the world that the U.S. means what it says. Just last week, he realized that he needed political cover in order to justify an unpopular invasion, and so he asked Congress for permission to invade Syria, even while knowing that he already has the legal authority to invade on his own. Just last week, he dispatched his political team, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to argue that war is the only way to go. And just last week, he intimated that he might bomb Syria even if Congress said no.


What happened?


What happened was the president’s head counters polled their allies on Capitol Hill earlier this week and informed him that he was about to become the first American president in history to seek war-making authority from Congress and have it denied to him, including by many members of his own political party.
The president cannot even say for sure that the weapons he and his advisers claim were used were in fact deployed by the Assad regime. Nor can they state with intellectual honesty that the freedom or safety of Americans is affected by any weaponry used in this civil war 6,700 miles from our shores.


The legal linchpin of American involvement in a foreign war is not American hatred of one of the weapons systems used in the war, but the imminence of danger to American freedom and safety if we stay out. Treaties to which the U.S. is a party and the body of international law to which the U.S. subscribes make clear that the U.S. cannot lawfully use military force to punish the government of another country without first demonstrating that the other country’s military poses an immediate threat of danger to the U.S. Obama and Kerry have been unable to address this.


They also have been unable to address how the U.S. can punish Syria for using weapons that the U.S. and the U.N. have outlawed but Syria has not. Put aside the fact that Syria is a client state of Russia and hence will be protected by it at the U.N., Syria never agreed to the U.N. prohibition on chemical weapons in the first place. So the U.N. is without lawful authority to authorize any violent American intercession in Syria over the use of these weapons.


We don’t know whether the Syrian government used chemical weapons on its own people who may or may not have been combatants in its civil war. But we do know that the government of Syria — like all governments — has a natural right to defend itself from violent attacks by terrorist groups. We also know that the U.S. used chemical weapons to kill hundreds of Vietcong soldiers in South Vietnam in 1965, and used them as well to kill 76 Americans in Waco, Texas, where federal agents murdered peaceful religious fanatics, including their children, in 1993. Can you imagine the response if another country sought to use violence to punish the Clinton administration for that?


What have we here?


We have a president heedless of his duty to uphold the Constitution by keeping the government within its confines, disdainful of international law when it fails to suit his purposes, and contemptuous of a Congress he once controlled when it feels the heat from the American people who have had enough of being lied to and tricked into wars. The American people have come to realize that war is the mother’s milk of big government: It kills innocents, increases taxes or borrowing, diminishes personal freedom, and unleashes irrational fears and hatreds, and the government continues to grow.


While all of this has been consuming us, the federal debt is approaching $ 17 trillion and Obama wants to borrow another trillion, the NSA has been exposed as spying on every computer and every mobile phone in the country for the past two years at the insistence of the Obama administration, and the fiscal bankruptcy of Obamacare is now just below the horizon.


Does the president really expect the American people to approve his bombing and killing just to avoid his personal embarrassment? Or is it his professional incompetence he wants to hide? 




RealClearPolitics – Articles



The President"s Embarrassment

The President"s Embarrassment


When Secretary of State John Kerry, apparently irritated by a lack of sleep, gave a snippy and what he thought was an unrealistic reply to a reporter’s question at a London press conference last weekend, he hardly could have imagined the world’s response. Asked whether there is anything Syrian President Bashar al-Assad could do at this relatively late hour to avoid an American invasion, Kerry told an international audience that if Assad gave up whatever chemical weapons his government possesses, the U.S. would forgo an invasion.


But not to worry, Kerry added. Assad is not going to do that, and we will end up invading Syria in order to vindicate President Obama’s threat to do so. For two days, Obama remained silent on this as his arch-nemesis, Russian President Vladimir Putin, grabbed the spotlight and the high moral ground.


Putin, sounding more like a Nobel Peace laureate than the killer he is known to be, offered to broker a deal whereby the Syrian chemical stockpile would be surrendered to the United Nations, the Syrian government could go about defending itself from the al-Qaida-driven effort to take it over, and the U.S. would leave Syria alone.


Obama is generally firm in his belief that he needs to vindicate the threat he made last summer when he was trying to outdo Mitt Romney on sounding tough. It was then that Obama threatened to intervene in the Syrian civil war if chemical weapons were used by the government. Nevertheless, hating the international embarrassment visited upon him when suddenly Putin seems more reasonable than he does, Obama conceded to my Fox News colleague Chris Wallace that the Kerry-inspired and Putin-pushed idea seemed worth considering. And then the Syrian government agreed.


Just last week, the president was arguing that only military force would show the world that the U.S. means what it says. Just last week, he realized that he needed political cover in order to justify an unpopular invasion, and so he asked Congress for permission to invade Syria, even while knowing that he already has the legal authority to invade on his own. Just last week, he dispatched his political team, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to argue that war is the only way to go. And just last week, he intimated that he might bomb Syria even if Congress said no.


What happened?


What happened was the president’s head counters polled their allies on Capitol Hill earlier this week and informed him that he was about to become the first American president in history to seek war-making authority from Congress and have it denied to him, including by many members of his own political party.
The president cannot even say for sure that the weapons he and his advisers claim were used were in fact deployed by the Assad regime. Nor can they state with intellectual honesty that the freedom or safety of Americans is affected by any weaponry used in this civil war 6,700 miles from our shores.


The legal linchpin of American involvement in a foreign war is not American hatred of one of the weapons systems used in the war, but the imminence of danger to American freedom and safety if we stay out. Treaties to which the U.S. is a party and the body of international law to which the U.S. subscribes make clear that the U.S. cannot lawfully use military force to punish the government of another country without first demonstrating that the other country’s military poses an immediate threat of danger to the U.S. Obama and Kerry have been unable to address this.


They also have been unable to address how the U.S. can punish Syria for using weapons that the U.S. and the U.N. have outlawed but Syria has not. Put aside the fact that Syria is a client state of Russia and hence will be protected by it at the U.N., Syria never agreed to the U.N. prohibition on chemical weapons in the first place. So the U.N. is without lawful authority to authorize any violent American intercession in Syria over the use of these weapons.


We don’t know whether the Syrian government used chemical weapons on its own people who may or may not have been combatants in its civil war. But we do know that the government of Syria — like all governments — has a natural right to defend itself from violent attacks by terrorist groups. We also know that the U.S. used chemical weapons to kill hundreds of Vietcong soldiers in South Vietnam in 1965, and used them as well to kill 76 Americans in Waco, Texas, where federal agents murdered peaceful religious fanatics, including their children, in 1993. Can you imagine the response if another country sought to use violence to punish the Clinton administration for that?


What have we here?


We have a president heedless of his duty to uphold the Constitution by keeping the government within its confines, disdainful of international law when it fails to suit his purposes, and contemptuous of a Congress he once controlled when it feels the heat from the American people who have had enough of being lied to and tricked into wars. The American people have come to realize that war is the mother’s milk of big government: It kills innocents, increases taxes or borrowing, diminishes personal freedom, and unleashes irrational fears and hatreds, and the government continues to grow.


While all of this has been consuming us, the federal debt is approaching $ 17 trillion and Obama wants to borrow another trillion, the NSA has been exposed as spying on every computer and every mobile phone in the country for the past two years at the insistence of the Obama administration, and the fiscal bankruptcy of Obamacare is now just below the horizon.


Does the president really expect the American people to approve his bombing and killing just to avoid his personal embarrassment? Or is it his professional incompetence he wants to hide? 




RealClearPolitics – Articles



The President"s Embarrassment

Saturday, August 17, 2013

August can play havoc with a president"s vacation




U.S. President Barack Obama (L) bike rides with his oldest daughter, Malia, while at the Manuel F. Correllus State Forest in West Tisbury on their vacation in Martha


1 of 5. U.S. President Barack Obama (L) bike rides with his oldest daughter, Malia, while at the Manuel F. Correllus State Forest in West Tisbury on their vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, August 16, 2013.


Credit: Reuters/Larry Downing






EDGARTOWN, Massachusetts | Fri Aug 16, 2013 2:33pm EDT



EDGARTOWN, Massachusetts (Reuters) – August has a way of interfering with a U.S. president’s best-laid plans for vacation. Just ask Barack Obama. Or Bill Clinton. Or either of the presidents named Bush.


Obama, determined to take a week off from his typically grinding schedule, interrupted his holiday briefly on Thursday to condemn the killing of hundreds of people in a violent crackdown on demonstrators by Egypt’s military government.


But at the risk of a new round of criticism, Obama promptly went on to play golf after the morning statement.


On Friday, after he was briefed on Egypt by his national security adviser, Susan Rice, he was out riding bikes with his wife Michelle and two daughters.


The message to be gleaned? He will not be held hostage by world events.


It is a maxim of presidential power that the commander-in-chief is never really off. The nuclear launch codes carried by a military aide are always close at hand. Modern technology allows the president to work anywhere.


But when world events intervene, presidents must draw a careful line. They must appear confident, engaged and responsive, and not seem to be overwhelmed by crises.


August is not always kind to the president.


George W. Bush provided the type of image that presidents want to avoid when, in August 2002 while vacationing in Kennebunkport, Maine, he opted to react to a suicide bombing in Israel while at the first tee box at Cape Arundel golf course.


“I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now, watch this drive,” said Bush, who proceeded to swing away.


The image did not help a president who had received high marks months earlier for his response to the September 11, 2001, attacks, only to see them dissipate when the Iraq war turned unpopular after the 2003 invasion. With troops in harm’s way, he avoided playing golf and took up mountain biking.


His father, President George H.W. Bush, faithfully traveled to his Walker’s Point oceanfront home in Kennebunkport, where he confronted some sort of August vacation challenge nearly every year of his term from 1989 to 1993.


“What is it about August?” he once asked reporters.


Aboard his boat offshore Walker’s Point, Bush worked on the war plan to repel Iraq’s August 1990 invasion of Kuwait and adjust U.S. policy toward a “new world order” while fishing with Brent Scowcroft, his national security adviser.


Being able to deliver good news to Americans helps a vacationing president avoid bad optics.


CHANGE THE SUBJECT


In August of 1991, the elder Bush was again out on his boat when he got the word to come back and take a call from Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, who had just survived a short coup.


Wearing a multi-colored wind jacket that would horrify modern-day image meisters, Bush appeared before the press outside a weather-beaten building at Walker’s Point to tell the world what had happened.


“It’s been an emotional day,” he said.


Sometimes a world crisis can change the subject.


It was in August 1998 that President Bill Clinton was on vacation on Martha’s Vineyard, reeling from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. On August 20, reporters were expecting him to play golf.


Instead his motorcade deposited him at the White House press filing center and he announced U.S. military strikes against “one of the most active terrorist bases in the world” in Afghanistan.


It was Americans’ first encounter with al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. And whether intended or not, it provided an important diversion from the Lewinsky scandal.


“Now I am returning to Washington to be briefed by my national security team on the latest information,” Clinton said, before rushing back to Washington.


He then wasted little time getting back to his Martha’s Vineyard holiday.


(Reporting by Steve Holland; Editing by Karey Van Hall and Vicki Allen)






Reuters: Politics



August can play havoc with a president"s vacation