The Senate, yesterday, voted down both articles of impeachment against President Trump, as pretty much everyone predicted from the start. Trump stands Impeached but not Removed and seems ready to stand for re-election in November.
The process is now completely over and I'm still in the same place I was at the beginning: what was the point of this? What were the House Democrats trying to achieve? I don't get it and I never got it. Two takeaways: the House lost track of the crime committed and Trump's refusal to participate has given future presidents a brand new game plan.
The crime Trump stood accused of was holding up aid to Ukraine as allotted by the Congress, the Pentagon and the State Department. The whole business about an investigation of Hunter Biden was the motive for the crime, not the crime itself. The crime was never properly laid out because since the White House chose not to defend itself, the House Dems never bothered to actually follow through on the crime. They brought a steady diet of ambassadors that had their thoughts on what was going on and why, but none of them concretely showed that the aid was ever actually held up. They were able to talk about Rudy Giuliani-led shenanigans into the Ukrainian political scene but none had any worthwhile knowledge about the aid itself.
As for the aid, it went out by the deadline without any strings attached and the President of Ukraine has said numerous times that he never felt pressured or extorted. Now the crime may well have been committed but the House never really got around to making that case. A few reasons the House didn't go down this road: 1) the White House never showed up and forced them to lay out the case; 2) the aid was in fact delivered without penalty, so was there actually a crime?; and 3) pointing out the White House isn't actually able to hold up aid begs a further question: if the POTUS isn't allowed to do this, then why was the POTUS allowed to do this?
The circumstantial evidence did not look good for Trump; it certainly looks as if Trump held up aid in hopes of getting the president of Ukraine to announce an investigation into the workings of Hunter Biden, which presumably would help Trump's re-election efforts. But because the House never went beyond the circumstantial evidence, they left enough room for the White House to maintain a shadow of a doubt: there's enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that Trump's queries all related to the 2016 election, which is the POTUS's job to potentially investigate. And that withholding aid is actually standard procedure, as shown by VP Joe Biden holding up aid in the same place in the same manner in the previous administration. Did Trump look guilty? Yeah, but not guilty enough to my eye to make it a slam dunk. If this was a real trial in a real court, there's plenty there for Trump's lawyers to work with.
And even if he was guilty...guilty of what? Of doing the same thing the previous administration had done? That makes Trump look no more guilty than Obama, and is that really where the House was intending to go with this? And, again: guilty of what? If a crime had clearly been committed, why was the 1st article of impeachment for the abstract accusation of 'Abuse of Power' and not an actual crime? (*)
It sounds weird to say that Trump didn't participate, doesn't it? Trump was still there every single day in one form or another. But he wasn't ever in the Congress. He wasn't ever in these hearings or in this process. Such is the layout of modern media: the President gets to talk all god damn day long without really ever having to do anything. So when I say Trump ignored the proceedings, I mean he ignored them in the Houses where they took place, he stepped outside of the actual processes and went straight to the American people. Not every president is willing to just be impeached by a grumpy House but Trump will wear this as a badge of pride. And he knew full well that he had the support he needed in the Senate (with or without Mitt Romney, who groveled pretty hard to be Trump's Secretary of State, you may recall).
But more than any of this: impeachment is strictly a political act, not a proper trial, and the votes for removing Trump from office were never there. So why on earth did the House move forward with this action at this time? The House assumed that just flinging around the potential of Trump's electoral paranoia would lead to more revelations and bombshells (not really, mostly just more of what we already knew) and ideally galvanize public opinion against him and/or the Republicans up for reelection in 2020. But the case was flimsy and Trump's masterstroke of ignoring the whole thing worked perfectly. It made the House Dems look like, well a bunch of fantasy-driven masturbators with no real sense of what the truth is or how to get to it.
If the point of this was to remove Trump from office, well that never had much of a shot of succeeding.
If the point of this was to simply convince everyone that Trump is sleazy and self-aggrandizing, well....who didn't already know that?
If the point was to show that House Democrats are fighting for America while everyone else is not, well the shoddy case didn't win me over and the cynicism necessary to do all of this is anathema to any of that high minded feeling.
If the point was to derail Trump's chances of getting reelected, well I don't think this did the job--though it may well have knee-capped Joe Biden for the final time!
If the point was to galvanize Democrats heading into an election year, well the disaster of this year's Iowa Caucus pretty well shot that in the foot.
I just don't see it, I never did see it, I still don't see it.
If the House never bothered to prove the crime, then why on earth were they trying to get to trial? The Senate did the right thing in keeping this to a minimum and getting it over with. We now know that impeachment is just a political tool like any other, hardly the fail-safe device the Founders imagined--and the House has foolishly laid out a blueprint for future presidents to avoid their comeuppance.
I just don't see how any of this was good for America, for Americans, or for the federal gov't. I don't even see how it benefited the Democratic Party, which looks worse in every way today than it did six months ago. (**)
(*) As for the 2nd article, well that was just bullshit from the git-go: the House was eager to remind us over and over again that the Constitution leaves all impeachment power to the House, but I don't see anything in the Constitution that says the Executive has to participate, so citing him for not participating is just manufactured nonsense. Indeed the Founders are the same guys who invented the 5th Amendment, its not hard to imagine that they would've seen Impeachment as something that happens in absentia or with a hostile Executive, so why would the President be expected to participate? And how do you cite him for not doing something he's not required to do?
(**) So do Mitt Romney and Joe Biden get together to form a new party? Can they suck George Soros and the Koch Brothers in? Or how about Michael Bloomberg and Steve Forbes? Can Rand Paul and Amy Klobachar co-exist in the middle? Do Susan Collins and Tulsi Gabbard join the new team? Yeah...none of that sounds right, does it?
Thursday, February 6, 2020
Friday, January 31, 2020
Remembrances
9/11 killed newspapers. Newspapers, to be sure, were long on the way out but the sheer power of that one event let Americans know that newspapers simply were no longer good enough. On 9/11, if you will recall, the television became nothing but news on all channels (*) for a few days and from then on Americans looked to cable TV to give them their daily reportage because we could no longer afford to wait til the next morning to be informed. On September 12 people might've still cared but by September 13, 2001, all Americans knew that newspapers were no longer of any use (with five notable exceptions: New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, USA Today and LA Times).
The cable news era really didn't last all that long. Sure, it's still around but by 2001 the internet was pretty well ingrained in American culture,with handheld devices already on the way. Once you had all the news of the world in your hand, then News became not simply a morning burst or an evening update, but a full time all day preoccupation. With the inventions of Facebook, Twitter, etc., then News became even more tailored to fit to each individual person and the abstractness of the News became ever more personalized, immediate, important.
Now to say that 9/11 itself was instrumental in this changing media landscape is a bit of a reach. It was the changing technology and social landscape that made these changes inevitable. 9/11 as a historical event coincides with these changes even if its effect were merely ephemeral. For example, after 9/11 Americans became shockingly non-political...for about six months. No one wanted to disagree about anything for a while until, to my recollection, about the spring of 2002, when political differences began to re-emerge and harden into the roughly 50/50 split of partisanship that still reigns to this day. The expanding array of channels on the TV and then the explosion of the blogosphere and the podcasting world and social media calcified America's political splits by allowing ever more individuality and seemingly less reliance on the party line (which ironically calcifies the party lines as the only two games in town).
On to the shifting media landscape, let us layer over the shifts in the Republican and Democrat parties of the time. Here's how the Republicans work: they tend to go for the guy that finished second last time and/or the oldest man in the room. This method was interrupted by George W. Bush when he seized on his famous name and his dad's built-out political machine to jump the line in the 2000 election. 2000 was supposed to be John McCain's year but Bush, governor of Texas at the time, jumped to the head of the class and kinda stole McCain's thunder, pushing back his executive ambitions until 2008.
Here's how the Democrats work: they prefer a new face they've never seen before, a rousing public speaker that has no history whatsoever (think Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton). This is hard to come by, so more often than not they end up with political hacks that don't inspire them but seem to be the least bad choice available (think Walter Mondale or Al Gore).
In 2000 when Bush upset the order, he compounded it by bringing along a protege (Dick Cheney) that was clearly not going to follow in his footsteps. So Bush not only upset the order, he upset it in a manner that would remain upset for multiple election cycles, which is kinda devastating to how the Republican Party operates. And on the other side, Al Gore didn't make himself electable until well after his loss in 2000, and even though by 2004 everyone was expecting Hillary Clinton to make a move, she paused rather than rushing ahead, leaving John Kerry to glumly Dukakis his way through the 2004 election.
So in the early 2000s we had a rapidly evolving media landscape and a topsy turvy political landscape, neither of which is directly related to 9/11, but clearly that was the tower that loomed over this evolving time. What if there was a single person that had the gravitas, the money and the profile to enter that post-9/11 cultural and technological shift and pull it all together? There was one: John F. Kennedy, Jr., except that he died on July 16, 1999.
JFK Jr was the owner/editor of a then-influential political magazine called George. It was a late 1990s attempt to bring politics into the popular culture, to bring Washington down to the mainstream in a manner familiar to movie stars, pop stars and athletes. Now, personally, I wasn't a fan of the magazine or of that approach generally--indeed, I think the main problem with Democracy in general is that it leads the populace to think that they are supposed to like everything, which is simply unrealistic and leads to nothing but disappointment and despair and a bratty petulance amongst the electorate. Nonetheless, I think JFK Jr was well on his way to tapping into a paradigm that he might have had the power to dominate. The thing about JFK Jr that I thought at the time was that he would've been happy to remain a media mogul, a political gadfly that didn't actually have to dabble in the brutal world of politics. He was the kind of guy that could've remained above it all while still being quite influential.
So what kind of moves would he have made in the post-9/11 world? Perhaps he would've failed. Perhaps he would've clung to fading paradigm of magazines and print media, perhaps he would've scoffed at the worthwhile impact of newfangled technologies and the new media world would've left him behind. I doubt it, but let's go down that road for a second. Perhaps he would've tried to buy a paper or a cable news outlet but as rich as the Kennedys are, they're not that kind of rich. The Washington Post was bought by Jeff Bezos and the Wall Street Journal was bought by Rupert Murdoch. The Kennedys are rich but they're not internet rich--which actually suggests to me that JFK Jr would've courted the internet wealth and tried to capture some for himself. JFK Jr would've partnered with people like Mark Cuban and tried to get in on the next big thing.
But not for the money. JFK Jr had money, seizing new technologies would've been for the reach, the influence, not the money. So what kind of influence would he have sought? He was a Democrat, to be sure, and in the partisan hardening of the early 2000's, he surely would've opposed George Bush and doesn't it seem plainly obvious that he would've adored the rise of Barack Obama? Think back on it: if JFK Jr was on the scene at the time, doesn't it seem plausible that the two would have been intertwined? (**)
And by 2016, with the Republicans still in disarray, with no reasonable replacement for Mitt Romney, and reaching deep into the media swirl to come out with a reality show star, doesn't it seem quite possible that following the Obama years that JFK Jr could've thought to himself, "I'm the guy, this is my time and I'm not letting no Donald fuckin' Trump become president!"
Yeah...kind of a counterfactual reach--one I did not even expect to make when I sat down to write this! Again, I was working on the notion that JFK Jr would've studiously AVOIDED a life of true politics, preferring to be a removed influencer, a guy floating above it all. But clearly he would've loved Obama, not hard to imagine that he would've wanted to be for Obama what Arthur Schlesinger was for his dad. And unlike Schlesinger, JFK Jr would've had the backing, the gravitas and the money to run in Obama's shadow. Imagine that...it's not hard to imagine.
Now in counterfactuals we are blessed by knowing how the world turned out. It was not predictable in July of 1999 where the media and political (***) scene would've gone. It was not predictable what kind of world JFK Jr would have entered had he not gone down in a plane crash. It easy 20+ years later to look back, see what happened and reimagine how JFK Jr would've fit into it. It's not easy to look ahead from that moment and know.
And that not-knowing is where we find ourselves now with the death of Kobe Bryant. Yeah, this is actually a remembrance of Kobe Bryant--and Gianna Bryant, a name I'd never heard before last Sunday afternoon--because when I first saw the story of his death in a helicopter crash in Los Angeles, the celebrity death it most reminded me of was JFK Jr. I've had this thought experiment about JFK Jr in my head for years but now trying to play it forward to a new out-of-nowhere celebrity death is a totally different thing.
Why Kobe? Because like JFK Jr he was insanely popular, much admired and respected and super fuckin' rich. Kobe was a competitive man, a man interested in the world, in the future and his influence would've most certainly gone beyond sports. It's easy to say Kobe would've been involved in making movies (****) but I think he would've been involved in tech companies, internet start-ups, maybe even apparel or music or other popular culture industries, maybe even medicine or other science interests. Dude, Kobe had money and the interest in the world and the competitive spirit to make big differences in sectors and industries and cultures that we can't even begin to predict.
Clearly Kobe was a devoted father, clearly spent a ton of time with Gianna in particular and was invested in his children in the way he was invested in himself. And perhaps this attempt at a counterfactual shouldn't be applied to Kobe but to Gianna. She was on her way to a privileged education and upbringing, she would've mingled with the greats because her dad was a man that could go anywhere, therefore she could go anywhere. Was Kobe gonna be president of the USA? No, I don't think he would've ever been interested in the gig (what a fuckin' dead end job!). But these Bryant daughters were built to be assassins and it's not at all hard to imagine that Gianna Bryant may well have transcended all of that and moved into a life of public service. Indeed, the three surviving daughters will miss out on Kobe being in their lives, but they'll still be treated like royalty and will have numerous opportunities to expand on their in-born Mamba mentalities. Perhaps their inspiration going forward isn't a life of sports or entertainment media, perhaps they become great scholars in law or science. Hey, man, I wouldn't put anything past the children of Kobe Bryant, perhaps the most single-minded achiever of my lifetime.
I started this with the thought that the real tragedy of last Sunday is that we're gonna miss out on Kobe's second act and just like JFK Jr, I am convinced he would've had one. Perhaps he would've failed it in his efforts, perhaps even become a laughingstock, but Kobe would've done something and now we'll never know what he might have accomplished. Or what he might have accomplished through Gianna. Likewise, JFK Jr would've done something....I dunno what, but it would've been something. And society missed out and now we're missing again.
And, yes, counterfactuals are a trite thought experiment but I talked myself into believing JFK could, in fact, be POTUS right now. But outside of Seinfeld re-runs, who thinks of JFK Jr these days? The real tragedy of last Sunday is the thought that Kobe's influence might not last beyond the rest of this NBA season. That's fucking tragic, that's a loss for all of us, whether we were fans of Kobe or not.
(*) I remember ABC News, CBS News and CNN on virtually every channel. I suppose Fox News and NBC News must've been there, too, but I don't recall them. Only C-Span (and the Weather Channel?) remained, everything else was pure news. Also, even more shockingly upon reflection, it was commercial-free for at least 2-3 days. Indeed, the first commercial was something like a signal that normality was returning.
(**) This all depends on JFK Jr's reaction to the viability of Hillary Clinton. Either he would've been her main supporter or he would've sought to rid the world of more Clintons and backed away from her. Hard to say where this counterfactual-within-the-counterfactual would've gone.
(***) Check out where George W. Bush was as of July 12, 1999. The morphing of the Republican Party had already begun when JFK Jr perished.
(****) Man, doesn't it seem plainly obvious that once Lebron retired from b-ball and dedicated himself to making movies (which he certainly will) that he and Kobe would've been perfect partners? Man, that's a duo that really could've done a lot for several more decades. Damn!
The cable news era really didn't last all that long. Sure, it's still around but by 2001 the internet was pretty well ingrained in American culture,with handheld devices already on the way. Once you had all the news of the world in your hand, then News became not simply a morning burst or an evening update, but a full time all day preoccupation. With the inventions of Facebook, Twitter, etc., then News became even more tailored to fit to each individual person and the abstractness of the News became ever more personalized, immediate, important.
Now to say that 9/11 itself was instrumental in this changing media landscape is a bit of a reach. It was the changing technology and social landscape that made these changes inevitable. 9/11 as a historical event coincides with these changes even if its effect were merely ephemeral. For example, after 9/11 Americans became shockingly non-political...for about six months. No one wanted to disagree about anything for a while until, to my recollection, about the spring of 2002, when political differences began to re-emerge and harden into the roughly 50/50 split of partisanship that still reigns to this day. The expanding array of channels on the TV and then the explosion of the blogosphere and the podcasting world and social media calcified America's political splits by allowing ever more individuality and seemingly less reliance on the party line (which ironically calcifies the party lines as the only two games in town).
On to the shifting media landscape, let us layer over the shifts in the Republican and Democrat parties of the time. Here's how the Republicans work: they tend to go for the guy that finished second last time and/or the oldest man in the room. This method was interrupted by George W. Bush when he seized on his famous name and his dad's built-out political machine to jump the line in the 2000 election. 2000 was supposed to be John McCain's year but Bush, governor of Texas at the time, jumped to the head of the class and kinda stole McCain's thunder, pushing back his executive ambitions until 2008.
Here's how the Democrats work: they prefer a new face they've never seen before, a rousing public speaker that has no history whatsoever (think Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton). This is hard to come by, so more often than not they end up with political hacks that don't inspire them but seem to be the least bad choice available (think Walter Mondale or Al Gore).
In 2000 when Bush upset the order, he compounded it by bringing along a protege (Dick Cheney) that was clearly not going to follow in his footsteps. So Bush not only upset the order, he upset it in a manner that would remain upset for multiple election cycles, which is kinda devastating to how the Republican Party operates. And on the other side, Al Gore didn't make himself electable until well after his loss in 2000, and even though by 2004 everyone was expecting Hillary Clinton to make a move, she paused rather than rushing ahead, leaving John Kerry to glumly Dukakis his way through the 2004 election.
So in the early 2000s we had a rapidly evolving media landscape and a topsy turvy political landscape, neither of which is directly related to 9/11, but clearly that was the tower that loomed over this evolving time. What if there was a single person that had the gravitas, the money and the profile to enter that post-9/11 cultural and technological shift and pull it all together? There was one: John F. Kennedy, Jr., except that he died on July 16, 1999.
JFK Jr was the owner/editor of a then-influential political magazine called George. It was a late 1990s attempt to bring politics into the popular culture, to bring Washington down to the mainstream in a manner familiar to movie stars, pop stars and athletes. Now, personally, I wasn't a fan of the magazine or of that approach generally--indeed, I think the main problem with Democracy in general is that it leads the populace to think that they are supposed to like everything, which is simply unrealistic and leads to nothing but disappointment and despair and a bratty petulance amongst the electorate. Nonetheless, I think JFK Jr was well on his way to tapping into a paradigm that he might have had the power to dominate. The thing about JFK Jr that I thought at the time was that he would've been happy to remain a media mogul, a political gadfly that didn't actually have to dabble in the brutal world of politics. He was the kind of guy that could've remained above it all while still being quite influential.
So what kind of moves would he have made in the post-9/11 world? Perhaps he would've failed. Perhaps he would've clung to fading paradigm of magazines and print media, perhaps he would've scoffed at the worthwhile impact of newfangled technologies and the new media world would've left him behind. I doubt it, but let's go down that road for a second. Perhaps he would've tried to buy a paper or a cable news outlet but as rich as the Kennedys are, they're not that kind of rich. The Washington Post was bought by Jeff Bezos and the Wall Street Journal was bought by Rupert Murdoch. The Kennedys are rich but they're not internet rich--which actually suggests to me that JFK Jr would've courted the internet wealth and tried to capture some for himself. JFK Jr would've partnered with people like Mark Cuban and tried to get in on the next big thing.
But not for the money. JFK Jr had money, seizing new technologies would've been for the reach, the influence, not the money. So what kind of influence would he have sought? He was a Democrat, to be sure, and in the partisan hardening of the early 2000's, he surely would've opposed George Bush and doesn't it seem plainly obvious that he would've adored the rise of Barack Obama? Think back on it: if JFK Jr was on the scene at the time, doesn't it seem plausible that the two would have been intertwined? (**)
And by 2016, with the Republicans still in disarray, with no reasonable replacement for Mitt Romney, and reaching deep into the media swirl to come out with a reality show star, doesn't it seem quite possible that following the Obama years that JFK Jr could've thought to himself, "I'm the guy, this is my time and I'm not letting no Donald fuckin' Trump become president!"
Yeah...kind of a counterfactual reach--one I did not even expect to make when I sat down to write this! Again, I was working on the notion that JFK Jr would've studiously AVOIDED a life of true politics, preferring to be a removed influencer, a guy floating above it all. But clearly he would've loved Obama, not hard to imagine that he would've wanted to be for Obama what Arthur Schlesinger was for his dad. And unlike Schlesinger, JFK Jr would've had the backing, the gravitas and the money to run in Obama's shadow. Imagine that...it's not hard to imagine.
Now in counterfactuals we are blessed by knowing how the world turned out. It was not predictable in July of 1999 where the media and political (***) scene would've gone. It was not predictable what kind of world JFK Jr would have entered had he not gone down in a plane crash. It easy 20+ years later to look back, see what happened and reimagine how JFK Jr would've fit into it. It's not easy to look ahead from that moment and know.
And that not-knowing is where we find ourselves now with the death of Kobe Bryant. Yeah, this is actually a remembrance of Kobe Bryant--and Gianna Bryant, a name I'd never heard before last Sunday afternoon--because when I first saw the story of his death in a helicopter crash in Los Angeles, the celebrity death it most reminded me of was JFK Jr. I've had this thought experiment about JFK Jr in my head for years but now trying to play it forward to a new out-of-nowhere celebrity death is a totally different thing.
Why Kobe? Because like JFK Jr he was insanely popular, much admired and respected and super fuckin' rich. Kobe was a competitive man, a man interested in the world, in the future and his influence would've most certainly gone beyond sports. It's easy to say Kobe would've been involved in making movies (****) but I think he would've been involved in tech companies, internet start-ups, maybe even apparel or music or other popular culture industries, maybe even medicine or other science interests. Dude, Kobe had money and the interest in the world and the competitive spirit to make big differences in sectors and industries and cultures that we can't even begin to predict.
Clearly Kobe was a devoted father, clearly spent a ton of time with Gianna in particular and was invested in his children in the way he was invested in himself. And perhaps this attempt at a counterfactual shouldn't be applied to Kobe but to Gianna. She was on her way to a privileged education and upbringing, she would've mingled with the greats because her dad was a man that could go anywhere, therefore she could go anywhere. Was Kobe gonna be president of the USA? No, I don't think he would've ever been interested in the gig (what a fuckin' dead end job!). But these Bryant daughters were built to be assassins and it's not at all hard to imagine that Gianna Bryant may well have transcended all of that and moved into a life of public service. Indeed, the three surviving daughters will miss out on Kobe being in their lives, but they'll still be treated like royalty and will have numerous opportunities to expand on their in-born Mamba mentalities. Perhaps their inspiration going forward isn't a life of sports or entertainment media, perhaps they become great scholars in law or science. Hey, man, I wouldn't put anything past the children of Kobe Bryant, perhaps the most single-minded achiever of my lifetime.
I started this with the thought that the real tragedy of last Sunday is that we're gonna miss out on Kobe's second act and just like JFK Jr, I am convinced he would've had one. Perhaps he would've failed it in his efforts, perhaps even become a laughingstock, but Kobe would've done something and now we'll never know what he might have accomplished. Or what he might have accomplished through Gianna. Likewise, JFK Jr would've done something....I dunno what, but it would've been something. And society missed out and now we're missing again.
And, yes, counterfactuals are a trite thought experiment but I talked myself into believing JFK could, in fact, be POTUS right now. But outside of Seinfeld re-runs, who thinks of JFK Jr these days? The real tragedy of last Sunday is the thought that Kobe's influence might not last beyond the rest of this NBA season. That's fucking tragic, that's a loss for all of us, whether we were fans of Kobe or not.
(*) I remember ABC News, CBS News and CNN on virtually every channel. I suppose Fox News and NBC News must've been there, too, but I don't recall them. Only C-Span (and the Weather Channel?) remained, everything else was pure news. Also, even more shockingly upon reflection, it was commercial-free for at least 2-3 days. Indeed, the first commercial was something like a signal that normality was returning.
(**) This all depends on JFK Jr's reaction to the viability of Hillary Clinton. Either he would've been her main supporter or he would've sought to rid the world of more Clintons and backed away from her. Hard to say where this counterfactual-within-the-counterfactual would've gone.
(***) Check out where George W. Bush was as of July 12, 1999. The morphing of the Republican Party had already begun when JFK Jr perished.
(****) Man, doesn't it seem plainly obvious that once Lebron retired from b-ball and dedicated himself to making movies (which he certainly will) that he and Kobe would've been perfect partners? Man, that's a duo that really could've done a lot for several more decades. Damn!
Tuesday, January 7, 2020
(Part 1) Iran: Who was General Qassem Soleimani?
At the end of 2019 I was contemplating my next post here with the thought that 2020 might be a bad year. Then, on January 3, the USA assassinated General Qassam Soleimani, the leader of the Iranian Quds Force with a drone strike at the Baghdad airport and I knew was I was onto something.
I chose the video above out of a plethora of similar videos because this one is short and to the point. A detail I would add: Soleimani was not a cleric, he was not a religious man that people bowed down to because they think they're supposed to. He was a general, a bureaucrat, a diplomat, a powerful secular man. He was arguably more important than the Iraqi president or even any of the Mullahs. This guy knew where the bodies were buried, he knew the numbers to the bank accounts, he knew all the friends and all the enemies and he moved amongst all of that. For the USA to cut him down in a single sudden move is an amazingly bold stroke that will surely invite a larger war.
....Or will it?
The Trump administration is suggesting that this strike was justified because of reports of possible forthcoming attacks on allied forces. If you will recall, the Brits bristled at similar American paranoia last summer so the idea that imminent danger is a reasonable excuse will be challenged; that said, the Germans did not bristle at such reports and stood by the Americans at the time, so perhaps imminent danger will have its supporters (there's probably a time limit on how long that debate will matter, we'll see if the distinction is even important). The fact that Soleimani was in Baghdad meeting with local militia forces after a similar visit to Syria is probably the only evidence the Americans have (or will offer) to the notion that Soleimani was plotting something big.
Tensions have been simmering between USA and Iran for several months (well, several decades) and I'd say this move is the retaliation for Iran's strike on a Saudi oil refinery back in September (which produced no response at the time). Look at this picture:
Dude, Tom Brady in his prime wasn't this accurate! When seeing the unbelievable accuracy of Iranian missiles (or was it drones?), the Pentagon must have known some real shit was on the way. (My first thought when seeing this pic was, "Oh shit! They can do that?") And this came, as you will recall, after several months of shenanigans in the Persian Gulf and presaged a series of protests across Iraq. When one of those protests finally got into the American green zone in Baghdad, the Americans acted (*) by taking out Soleimani.
Okay, so what now? Well, as I write this there are reports of Iranian rocket launches on American bases in Iraq. That was predictable. I'd say keeping these Iraqi protests going is the next step for both sides, which calls attention to what I've been thinking all along: in the beginning this is about control of Iraq.
In 2003, George Bush invaded Iraq with the intention (I believe) of establishing 1) a battleground for Arab extremists and Americans to go at it and/or 2) a neutral ground between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Iraqi Shia threw off American overtures, forcing the Americans to maintain their Iraqi positions by shielding the Sunnis (which was precisely NOT the original mission). Once Obama removed American forces it sent the Sunnis into a freak tornado that produced Daesh (or ISIS, if you prefer). Daesh was able to grab impressive swaths of territory along the Euphrates River across the Iraq-Syria frontier and, in the end, had no allies whatsoever. Indeed, the emergence of Daesh is what brought Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the Kurds, Israel, NATO, Russia and USA all together and set the stage for where we are now.
Since Obama pulled out American troops and Daesh rose, Iraq has been steadily infiltrated by paramilitary units (PMUs) largely supported by Iran. Over the years the Americans have insisted that the Iraqi parliament must decide how to deal with these PMUs, whether to expel them completely (and...how does that get done?) or incorporate them as a national military (also, a probably impossible task). But for Baghdad to truly control Iraq, they must control or dispel the PMUs. The aforementioned Iraqi protests began in the Shia area and spread because....well protestors often don't know what they really want. The Americans were encouraged by this because they interpreted this as anti-Iran (and it may have been). But outside of ousting the Prime Minister in December, I don't see that much else got accomplished except the communication of a basic unease in the face of the powers that be. The PMUs are still out there, supporting the protests in some cases and brutally suppressing them in others.
So how does Iraq deal with the murder of Iran's greatest soldier on their soil? I don't know. But Iran will ramp up its influence on the PMUs and USA will have to find the weaknesses in Iraqi support of the PMUs to fight back. That is undoubtedly the first step for both sides if a full-on war is actually coming.
(*) Ehh...that was the excuse, anyway. Those protests had been raging for months, it was only a matter of time that protestors ended up at the American embassy. The idea that Americans were truly threatened is probably an exaggeration or that Iran had anything to do with it is probably mostly fabricated.
(Part 2) Will a new gas deal fuel regional rivalry?
So let's re-set the scene: Turkey is advancing in the eastern Mediterranean and North Africa (and we must assume the Red Sea is also in play), by force potentially. This is something that the Iranians absolutely want to stop. But USA has just crippled the Iranian response, while doing nothing to stop Turkey.
In short: Turkey is advancing and Iran is shrinking at the hands of the USA. That's what's going on in the Middle East right now. Iraq will become the battleground that Bush envisioned back in the day but the real war will be (or would have been) the oil fields of the eastern Mediterranean but I'm guessing USA and the EU have already decided to allow Turkey to take over (**). As long as the Iranians are sidelined (and the Saudis remain rich and clueless), the West will allow the Turks to reestablish its Ottoman era claims from the Gulf of Sidra to the Gulf of Aden.
Where does the assassination of Soleimani fit into this? It cripples Iran's chances to curtail Turkish advancement. Again: Soleimani was a powerful and knowledgable guy (***), replacing him will be virtually impossible (indeed, the next few weeks will be a referendum on Soleimani's management style: did he leave behind a crew ready to snap into action or no?). Iran has to respond (and the response has begun as of just a few hours ago) but their fighting capability has already been severely limited. One scary part of that calculus is that since their conventional fighting capability is in shambles, they may resort to unconventional tactics, like attacking embassies (and Trump hotels and resorts) or maybe by busting out the weapons we don't know about. Or by attacking Turkey or Saudi Arabia.
How big will the war be? I dunno. Might be huge, might already be over, hard to tell. But look for Russia to be a peacemaker and don't be surprised if this all ends with China expanding its position in the Middle East right as the Americans are eager to leave.
(**) Well, until they agree to see Turkey as a threat and start chopping them back. The Middle East is about on-going battle between Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. The West has chosen Turkey to be the winner (for now). Iran has seemingly already been check-mated.
(***) Unlike, say, Osama bin Laden. When USA finally assassinated bin Laden, he was just a dude living in a house in the middle of nowhere. He had no power of any kind. Soleimani, on the other hand, was Iran's Eisenhower and J. Edgar Hoover rolled into one.
Sunday, December 15, 2019
Impeachment (Phase Two)
On Friday (the 13th), the House Judiciary Committee passed a resolution to move forward on two counts of impeachment against President Trump. Now the full House will have a vote, probably some time next week. I think we can assume that the vote will go along party lines, meaning Trump will be impeached in the House and then it will move to the Senate, which I think we can also assume will move along party lines and Trump will not be removed.
The Committee held a number of public hearings leading up to this resolution, mostly with various Ambassadors, in proceedings that I thought were quite sober and tasteful, but didn't illuminate much beyond the original July phone transcription that was released in September. There was the one guy that thinks he may have overheard something in someone else's phone call and another lady that indignantly raged against conspiracy theories and the two guys that had conflicting memories of their various conversations. But none of that told us anything new about the nature of any arrangement between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky (*).
The revelation of a working team centered around Rudy Giuliani (and likely included Sec State Pompeo and VP Pence) wasn't new, although the depth of their participation was eye-opening. That said, it is not uncommon for presidents to have their own Special Envoys or even teams that work directly from the White House on specific topics or actions with other nations. Was Giuliani doing anything criminal? I haven't seen any evidence of that (yet). And while it was clear this ruffled the feathers of the Ambassadors, I don't know that there was anything truly out of the ordinary going on (perhaps there was, perhaps not, no one has bothered to make the case either way). Indeed, the fact that these ambassadors had little to offer shows the very nature of Ambassadorships: they're not particularly involved with foreign policy formation, so why would they know anything?
The most celebrated testimony came from Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland. As PBS Newhour reported on November 20: "“I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a “quid pro quo?” As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes,” Sondland said." The committee wanted to hear the phrase 'quid pro quo' and they got it but this is not in relation to the military aid but to a White House meeting. But in the course of the case being built this is a bait-and-switch. A White House meeting is always a quid pro quo--indeed, the whole point of a meeting with POTUS is so that he can thank the person for doing what POTUS wanted done! There has never been a White House meeting in all of American history that took place merely because the POTUS had time to kill. Meetings with the POTUS are highly scripted affairs where everyone involved knows precisely what is expected of them, they are planned with full knowledge ahead of time that everyone has/will play their part. And these meetings are often purely political with little benefit to the American people or nation as a whole. To wit: where does it say in the Constitution that the POTUS shall invite the winner of the Super Bowl for a photo-op? What is the 'benefit' to the Republic of such a meeting? It happens every year for purely anodyne reasons and no one complains. And is pardoning a turkey at Thanksgiving every year done for the benefit of the Republic or is it just a bland opportunity for the sitting POTUS to enhance his own public relations? And, good God, what is politicized in Washington more than the State of the Union Address (**), where the POTUS gets to pat himself on the back and call attention to his political allies strategically placed throughout the chamber?
If American support of Ukraine is so important, wouldn't Congress want the POTUS to meet with President Zelensky in a very public fashion that acknowledges we stand with Ukraine against Russia? Why would Congress be punishing the President for a meeting when (a) it's the President's right to meet with whomever he chooses for whatever reason and (b) Congress presumably wants this meeting to take place? So while Sondland's quote won the daily soundbite war, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. As for holding up aid, the various ambassadors had their various opinions on aid to Ukraine but none exhibited any particular knowledge of what was at work or why. Again: why would they know anything?
And as for the aid itself being 'held up' check out this CNN story from November 26 (https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/26/politics/ukraine-aid-trump-call-omb/index.html). The first paragraph says: "The White House budget office's first official action to withhold $250 million in Pentagon aid to Ukraine came on the evening of July 25, the same day President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky spoke on the phone, according to a House Budget Committee summary of the office's documents." Then the third paragraph says: "A hold was placed on the Ukraine aid at the beginning of July, and the agencies were notified at a July 18 meeting that it had been frozen at the direction of the President, a week before the Trump-Zelensky call." Wait...what?
So was it held up on July 25? Or July 18? Or the 'beginning of July'? Was it before the phone call or after? Why is this so hard to figure out? And why hasn't this timeline been explicitly laid out if the aid being held up is so central to this proceeding?
And what of Zelensky himself? Did he feel pressure to actually do any of the things Trump wanted from him? On September 25 Time Magazine (***) published (https://time.com/5686305/zelensky-ukraine-denies-trump-pressure/) that Zelensky "Denied Trump Pressured Him to Investigate Biden's Son" based on a joint press conference Zelensky and Trump held that day where Zelensky said: "Nobody pushed me." But on November 18 Time published (https://time.com/5731647/ukraine-trump-biden-investigation-anxiety/) that "US Officials Knew Ukraine Felt 'Pressure' from Trump Administration to Investigate Biden" based on a May 7 closed-door meeting that included then-current US Ambassador to Ukraine Yovanovich. But even the weird CNN article above doesn't suggest that the Ukraine aid was held up in May, so...how does this time line work? And if the 'pressured' person says he wasn't pressured, then...how does...any of this...wait, what?
Was the aid actually held up? We've long since accepted that this as a basic fact but the 'prosecution' (re: the House Judiciary Committee) has not explicitly put the details forward and the defense (re: POTUS) has yet to participate in the proceedings, so are we sure this even happened? And if the person who has been pressured has said publicly he was not pressured, then has anything actually happened? How is it possible for a President to hold up aid? And what particular mechanisms did Trump employ and what was his stated rationale at the time and to whom? This should be quite easy to figure out, I don't understand why we don't know this yet.
What it looks like to me is that Trump tried to extort a gratuity for himself based on an already approved deal. The bi-partisan support for Ukraine suggests that this particular aid package was ironclad and Trump saw an opportunity for himself to get a little something extra out of Zelensky. Has the case been proved? The circumstantial evidence doesn't look good but I'd say there's enough legal room to reach an acquittal, which all serves to remind us that this is not a courtroom trial but a purely procedural vote that is more often than not just a party line expression. At the end of the day, Trump did not get the investigation he sought and Ukraine got the aid they were earmarked, so did anything actually happen? Is the attempt to possibly commit a crime really worth this much time and energy?
Assuming Trump is guilty of this attempted extortion, is this worthy of an impeachment in the House? Again, it doesn't matter whether it is 'worthy', all that matters is the vote itself. Thus, impeachment is, or can be, a relatively meaningless piece of agitprop. Is this worthy of removal of the POTUS? No. Now if the House showed that Trump had done this before or that this kind of grease was a pattern of behavior, then you'd have something. If Trump was systematically abusing power with, say, Lebanon, Taiwan, Poland, etc., then that would be worthy of shipping him out. But I don't see that case being made.
Indeed, the most galling thing about this procedure is the suggestion that this is the worst thing Trump has done in office. Seriously? Trump has completely warped USA's trade relations, most specifically with China, based on some minuscule, vague wording about national defense and the House thinks needling the President of Ukraine for something that means very little to Ukraine (or I would suggest to the American electorate) is worthy of impeachment? This is an abrogation of responsibility dressed up as an attempt do the right thing. *smh*
Trump's approval ratings are a stunning anomaly: no amount of Trump success makes them go up and no amount of Trump failures make them go down. Truly amazing and probably indicative of what future Presidents must have. Has the impeachment damaged Trump? I'd say not at all. People who don't like Trump are eager to rush for any excuse to get him out of office but this impeachment proceeding only makes him stronger, I think.
So here's the new conspiracy theory: the House likes Trump's bizarre trading rationale vis-a-vis China and they know no one else is dumb enough to maintain such a potentially suicidal policy. President Hillary would've talked tough but wouldn't really have done much (especially since she, too, was backing away from TPP during the 2016 campaign), likewise with President Warren, President Biden would soft pedal China, President Bernie absolutely wouldn't treat China this way. Congress likes Trump's belligerent, haphazard treatment of China and they want him to keep doing it--they likely even see it as the most important thing on our current agenda. So they're rousting up Trump's base heading into the 2020 election. Honestly, I can't see any other rationale. Pelosi gets to say, 'Trump was evil and we tried to get him out'? Uhh, not really, as this does very little to make that happen. Or does this presage another impeachment in the future? Is a POTUS that has been impeached but not removed multiple times look like a big win for the Democrats? It doesn't to me but I'm not a Democrat.
I just don't get this. The case is not a slam dunk, the victim has claimed no victimhood, the Republic is not advanced by this impeachment any more than it was advanced by an investigation into Hunter Biden, the House has spent all of its political capital on a whimper rather than actually ginning up some interesting or useful legislation and the Democrats are really just beating the same dead horse they were going to be beating even this impeachment never happened. I think the whole point of this was to create enough ongoing controversy around Trump that Republicans in the House and the Senate up for reelection would have to deal with in a thorny uncomfortable way, potentially influencing those elections or at least interrupting the ability for the Republicans in general to raise funds. But I don't see that taking place. The only silver lining for Democrats: with Trump in office, donations to Dems are probably gonna be way up. What else gets achieved here? I...don't...see anything.
If this is the worst thing Trump has done in the last three years then he is officially the cleanest POTUS we've ever had. All this sturm und drang to convince us that Trump is a self-aggrandizing sleazy guy...dude, I already knew that. This has done nothing at all for anyone except Trump's chances for re-election. (****)
(*) Honestly the part I find most vexing is that Trump didn't seem to care about an investigation, he merely wanted an announcement of an investigation. I don't really know what to make of that. If the investigation will yield damning evidence about Hunter Biden, don't the American people to deserve to know? Likewise, if an investigation completely exonerates Hunter Biden, don't the American people deserve to know that? Seems like an investigation of Hunter Biden would only be damaging to the candidacy of Joe Biden if--and only if--it reveals disturbing revelations about Hunter Biden (and even then: do people really give a shit about what Hunter Biden does in Ukraine?). It seems to me there really can't be any effect on the 2020 USA election until AFTER the investigation is completed and revealed. And even then, it would only potentially effect how people vote, which is not an effect on the election itself. So what good/bad/otherwise is accrued from an announcement of an investigation if no subsequent investigation is performed? WTF, dude? I don't understand how any of this effects anything in any way and the fact that Trump only wanted the appearance of an investigation makes even less sense.
(**) The Constitution says an annual State of the Union shall be given to the Congress by the President. But it doesn't say it has to be televised in prime time for the sake of the POTUS tooting his own horn or making a display of his political cronies. This is an annual disgrace the Republic would be better off getting rid of.
(***) I've generally been trying to link to Left-wing media sites but, honestly I had no idea Time Magazine still existed, so not sure whether they'd be right or left at this point. When I was kid Time and Newsweek were the only political magazines around, they always seemed rather bland in that softly Left way that for-real 'journalism' used to pride itself on. Now I dunno what Time is like or who reads it. Although, if the November 18 article went back to a May 7 meeting, why didn't Time know about that on September 25?
(****) As a voting American I assure you I couldn't care less what Hunter Biden was doing in Ukraine. If the Ukrainians were so offended by his conduct that they had to indict him or deport him or whatever, that is entirely their business. But even then, Hunter Biden's activities would have no effect whatsoever on my vote. Also, for what it's worth, now seems like the most perfectly awkward moment to admit that Joe Biden is one of the very very very few politicians of my life time that I actually like. And watching Democrats shy away from not merely their best candidate in general but the only one that I think can actually beat Trump...and, well, the Pelosi-wants-Trump-to-win conspiracy theory begins to look plainly obvious.
The Committee held a number of public hearings leading up to this resolution, mostly with various Ambassadors, in proceedings that I thought were quite sober and tasteful, but didn't illuminate much beyond the original July phone transcription that was released in September. There was the one guy that thinks he may have overheard something in someone else's phone call and another lady that indignantly raged against conspiracy theories and the two guys that had conflicting memories of their various conversations. But none of that told us anything new about the nature of any arrangement between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky (*).
The revelation of a working team centered around Rudy Giuliani (and likely included Sec State Pompeo and VP Pence) wasn't new, although the depth of their participation was eye-opening. That said, it is not uncommon for presidents to have their own Special Envoys or even teams that work directly from the White House on specific topics or actions with other nations. Was Giuliani doing anything criminal? I haven't seen any evidence of that (yet). And while it was clear this ruffled the feathers of the Ambassadors, I don't know that there was anything truly out of the ordinary going on (perhaps there was, perhaps not, no one has bothered to make the case either way). Indeed, the fact that these ambassadors had little to offer shows the very nature of Ambassadorships: they're not particularly involved with foreign policy formation, so why would they know anything?
The most celebrated testimony came from Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland. As PBS Newhour reported on November 20: "“I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a “quid pro quo?” As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes,” Sondland said." The committee wanted to hear the phrase 'quid pro quo' and they got it but this is not in relation to the military aid but to a White House meeting. But in the course of the case being built this is a bait-and-switch. A White House meeting is always a quid pro quo--indeed, the whole point of a meeting with POTUS is so that he can thank the person for doing what POTUS wanted done! There has never been a White House meeting in all of American history that took place merely because the POTUS had time to kill. Meetings with the POTUS are highly scripted affairs where everyone involved knows precisely what is expected of them, they are planned with full knowledge ahead of time that everyone has/will play their part. And these meetings are often purely political with little benefit to the American people or nation as a whole. To wit: where does it say in the Constitution that the POTUS shall invite the winner of the Super Bowl for a photo-op? What is the 'benefit' to the Republic of such a meeting? It happens every year for purely anodyne reasons and no one complains. And is pardoning a turkey at Thanksgiving every year done for the benefit of the Republic or is it just a bland opportunity for the sitting POTUS to enhance his own public relations? And, good God, what is politicized in Washington more than the State of the Union Address (**), where the POTUS gets to pat himself on the back and call attention to his political allies strategically placed throughout the chamber?
If American support of Ukraine is so important, wouldn't Congress want the POTUS to meet with President Zelensky in a very public fashion that acknowledges we stand with Ukraine against Russia? Why would Congress be punishing the President for a meeting when (a) it's the President's right to meet with whomever he chooses for whatever reason and (b) Congress presumably wants this meeting to take place? So while Sondland's quote won the daily soundbite war, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. As for holding up aid, the various ambassadors had their various opinions on aid to Ukraine but none exhibited any particular knowledge of what was at work or why. Again: why would they know anything?
And as for the aid itself being 'held up' check out this CNN story from November 26 (https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/26/politics/ukraine-aid-trump-call-omb/index.html). The first paragraph says: "The White House budget office's first official action to withhold $250 million in Pentagon aid to Ukraine came on the evening of July 25, the same day President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky spoke on the phone, according to a House Budget Committee summary of the office's documents." Then the third paragraph says: "A hold was placed on the Ukraine aid at the beginning of July, and the agencies were notified at a July 18 meeting that it had been frozen at the direction of the President, a week before the Trump-Zelensky call." Wait...what?
So was it held up on July 25? Or July 18? Or the 'beginning of July'? Was it before the phone call or after? Why is this so hard to figure out? And why hasn't this timeline been explicitly laid out if the aid being held up is so central to this proceeding?
And what of Zelensky himself? Did he feel pressure to actually do any of the things Trump wanted from him? On September 25 Time Magazine (***) published (https://time.com/5686305/zelensky-ukraine-denies-trump-pressure/) that Zelensky "Denied Trump Pressured Him to Investigate Biden's Son" based on a joint press conference Zelensky and Trump held that day where Zelensky said: "Nobody pushed me." But on November 18 Time published (https://time.com/5731647/ukraine-trump-biden-investigation-anxiety/) that "US Officials Knew Ukraine Felt 'Pressure' from Trump Administration to Investigate Biden" based on a May 7 closed-door meeting that included then-current US Ambassador to Ukraine Yovanovich. But even the weird CNN article above doesn't suggest that the Ukraine aid was held up in May, so...how does this time line work? And if the 'pressured' person says he wasn't pressured, then...how does...any of this...wait, what?
Was the aid actually held up? We've long since accepted that this as a basic fact but the 'prosecution' (re: the House Judiciary Committee) has not explicitly put the details forward and the defense (re: POTUS) has yet to participate in the proceedings, so are we sure this even happened? And if the person who has been pressured has said publicly he was not pressured, then has anything actually happened? How is it possible for a President to hold up aid? And what particular mechanisms did Trump employ and what was his stated rationale at the time and to whom? This should be quite easy to figure out, I don't understand why we don't know this yet.
What it looks like to me is that Trump tried to extort a gratuity for himself based on an already approved deal. The bi-partisan support for Ukraine suggests that this particular aid package was ironclad and Trump saw an opportunity for himself to get a little something extra out of Zelensky. Has the case been proved? The circumstantial evidence doesn't look good but I'd say there's enough legal room to reach an acquittal, which all serves to remind us that this is not a courtroom trial but a purely procedural vote that is more often than not just a party line expression. At the end of the day, Trump did not get the investigation he sought and Ukraine got the aid they were earmarked, so did anything actually happen? Is the attempt to possibly commit a crime really worth this much time and energy?
Assuming Trump is guilty of this attempted extortion, is this worthy of an impeachment in the House? Again, it doesn't matter whether it is 'worthy', all that matters is the vote itself. Thus, impeachment is, or can be, a relatively meaningless piece of agitprop. Is this worthy of removal of the POTUS? No. Now if the House showed that Trump had done this before or that this kind of grease was a pattern of behavior, then you'd have something. If Trump was systematically abusing power with, say, Lebanon, Taiwan, Poland, etc., then that would be worthy of shipping him out. But I don't see that case being made.
Indeed, the most galling thing about this procedure is the suggestion that this is the worst thing Trump has done in office. Seriously? Trump has completely warped USA's trade relations, most specifically with China, based on some minuscule, vague wording about national defense and the House thinks needling the President of Ukraine for something that means very little to Ukraine (or I would suggest to the American electorate) is worthy of impeachment? This is an abrogation of responsibility dressed up as an attempt do the right thing. *smh*
Trump's approval ratings are a stunning anomaly: no amount of Trump success makes them go up and no amount of Trump failures make them go down. Truly amazing and probably indicative of what future Presidents must have. Has the impeachment damaged Trump? I'd say not at all. People who don't like Trump are eager to rush for any excuse to get him out of office but this impeachment proceeding only makes him stronger, I think.
So here's the new conspiracy theory: the House likes Trump's bizarre trading rationale vis-a-vis China and they know no one else is dumb enough to maintain such a potentially suicidal policy. President Hillary would've talked tough but wouldn't really have done much (especially since she, too, was backing away from TPP during the 2016 campaign), likewise with President Warren, President Biden would soft pedal China, President Bernie absolutely wouldn't treat China this way. Congress likes Trump's belligerent, haphazard treatment of China and they want him to keep doing it--they likely even see it as the most important thing on our current agenda. So they're rousting up Trump's base heading into the 2020 election. Honestly, I can't see any other rationale. Pelosi gets to say, 'Trump was evil and we tried to get him out'? Uhh, not really, as this does very little to make that happen. Or does this presage another impeachment in the future? Is a POTUS that has been impeached but not removed multiple times look like a big win for the Democrats? It doesn't to me but I'm not a Democrat.
I just don't get this. The case is not a slam dunk, the victim has claimed no victimhood, the Republic is not advanced by this impeachment any more than it was advanced by an investigation into Hunter Biden, the House has spent all of its political capital on a whimper rather than actually ginning up some interesting or useful legislation and the Democrats are really just beating the same dead horse they were going to be beating even this impeachment never happened. I think the whole point of this was to create enough ongoing controversy around Trump that Republicans in the House and the Senate up for reelection would have to deal with in a thorny uncomfortable way, potentially influencing those elections or at least interrupting the ability for the Republicans in general to raise funds. But I don't see that taking place. The only silver lining for Democrats: with Trump in office, donations to Dems are probably gonna be way up. What else gets achieved here? I...don't...see anything.
If this is the worst thing Trump has done in the last three years then he is officially the cleanest POTUS we've ever had. All this sturm und drang to convince us that Trump is a self-aggrandizing sleazy guy...dude, I already knew that. This has done nothing at all for anyone except Trump's chances for re-election. (****)
(*) Honestly the part I find most vexing is that Trump didn't seem to care about an investigation, he merely wanted an announcement of an investigation. I don't really know what to make of that. If the investigation will yield damning evidence about Hunter Biden, don't the American people to deserve to know? Likewise, if an investigation completely exonerates Hunter Biden, don't the American people deserve to know that? Seems like an investigation of Hunter Biden would only be damaging to the candidacy of Joe Biden if--and only if--it reveals disturbing revelations about Hunter Biden (and even then: do people really give a shit about what Hunter Biden does in Ukraine?). It seems to me there really can't be any effect on the 2020 USA election until AFTER the investigation is completed and revealed. And even then, it would only potentially effect how people vote, which is not an effect on the election itself. So what good/bad/otherwise is accrued from an announcement of an investigation if no subsequent investigation is performed? WTF, dude? I don't understand how any of this effects anything in any way and the fact that Trump only wanted the appearance of an investigation makes even less sense.
(**) The Constitution says an annual State of the Union shall be given to the Congress by the President. But it doesn't say it has to be televised in prime time for the sake of the POTUS tooting his own horn or making a display of his political cronies. This is an annual disgrace the Republic would be better off getting rid of.
(***) I've generally been trying to link to Left-wing media sites but, honestly I had no idea Time Magazine still existed, so not sure whether they'd be right or left at this point. When I was kid Time and Newsweek were the only political magazines around, they always seemed rather bland in that softly Left way that for-real 'journalism' used to pride itself on. Now I dunno what Time is like or who reads it. Although, if the November 18 article went back to a May 7 meeting, why didn't Time know about that on September 25?
(****) As a voting American I assure you I couldn't care less what Hunter Biden was doing in Ukraine. If the Ukrainians were so offended by his conduct that they had to indict him or deport him or whatever, that is entirely their business. But even then, Hunter Biden's activities would have no effect whatsoever on my vote. Also, for what it's worth, now seems like the most perfectly awkward moment to admit that Joe Biden is one of the very very very few politicians of my life time that I actually like. And watching Democrats shy away from not merely their best candidate in general but the only one that I think can actually beat Trump...and, well, the Pelosi-wants-Trump-to-win conspiracy theory begins to look plainly obvious.
Monday, October 21, 2019
Violence rocks Barcelona after 500,000 Catalans rally | DW News
Weird: Barcelona loves pro basketball, so why isn't this a bigger story?
"Violence gets more media attending than marches."
Hundreds of thousands protest corruption in Beirut | Capital Connection
Just think: if Lebanese people liked pro basketball, this is all we'd be talking about right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)