by Jack Lee
Right at this moment, when I think of Donald Trump in politics, two words come to mind, reckless endangerment. This is of course a legal term used to describe a person who commits a crime of reckless endangerment, i.e., if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person.
Trump the candidate put himself at risk when he went one small step too far with an attack on Sen. John McCain. Here’s how it started: “The reality is that John McCain the politician has made America less safe, sent our brave soldiers into wrong-headed foreign adventures, covered up for President Obama with the VA scandal and has spent most of his time in the Senate pushing amnesty,” Trump wrote in a USA Today op-ed. He would rather protect the Iraqi border than Arizona’s.” And that’s tough, but it’s honest. Trump made points with this part, but he followed up poorly.
Trump stirred up needless controversy with a joke he tried to make during a panel Q & A hosted by the Washington Post. Trump was doing a follow on question to his comments about McCain. Trump acknowledged his (McCain’s) genuine hero status several times, but then he tried to make an off hand joke: “…he was a hero for being captured, but personally I prefer my hero’s not to be captured.” I really think this was a play off Gen. Patton’s famous comment, “Your job isn’t to die for your country, it’s to make that other poor bastard die for his country.” Whatever, the joke didn’t go over well and his audience rendered an uncomfortable groan, reeling at its insensitivity. (Note: Trump didn’t serve during the Vietnam conflict because he had a doctor claim he had a bone spur on his foot.)
The media has since mischaracterized this failed attempt at humor and made it into a full on assault on McCain’s POW status. In review of the full context of Trumps comments, it really wasn’t, it was just a bad joke. However, instead of backing off with an apology, Trump has doubled down and continued his attack on McCain without explaining his faux paux. This exposes one Trump’s major weaknesses, his ego. It makes him look like a bit of an ass. He couldn’t bring himself to say he made a mistake and make it clear that his joke was not intended to be offensive towards POWs.
Today we have, “Trump doesn’t owe me an apology, he owes all veterans an apology,” said McCain. An overstatement, but very clever because he’s just deflected the Trump attack to a jab at all veterans. A homerun for McCain and a foul ball for Trump.
Trump better learn the difference between talking tough and reckless endangerment or he’s going to see his poll numbers slide dramatically.
This reminds me of the camaraderie/rivalry between the military branches.
Service members can make fun of the Navy or Air Force, or chime in on jokes between tankers and infantry, but if someone who has never served tries this it won’t be tolerated. Lots of cultures are protective like this and the military is certainly its own culture. If Trump were a veteran, he might get a pass.
John McCain makes a lot of poor political decisions. Sometimes I think he is trying to gain favor with the press and beltway elites, not realizing that its futile. He should stick to making the people he represents happy. But lets be clear, McCain is a military hero and he paid a huge price for his patriotism. He suffered unbearable agonies so that guys like Donald Trump wouldn’t have too.
Trump would do well to humbly apologize and move on.
Spot on comment Steve.
Trump has insulted his fellow Republicans in pretty nasty ways before. He once tweeted, “#JebBush has to like the Mexican illegals because of his wife,” before deleting it. He never apologized.
This loudmouth racist birther is an embarrassment, and his poll numbers are an embarassment to the entire country.
Have had discussions with McCain 3 times. Terrible temper, and has become a RINO. He thought he should’ve had the nomination when W got it, and moved to the other side of the aisle all through W’s term.
In the last 6+ years, he’s been more concerned with his appearances on talk shows than with anything else. Were I an AZ voter, I would not vote to re-elect him again.
Trump is an ass that is getting more attention than he deserves. Media lunacy and fraudulent polls. Does anyone actually think this clown is POTUS timber?
No, nor do I think he has a prayer of being the nominee, but not for his arrogance and bluster. this guy is opportunistic and has given money to Hillary Clinton. Anyone who thinks she’s an acceptable candidate, even for dog catcher, is no Republican.
Trump is the leading Republican candidate, with about twice the support of of Scott Walker or Jeb Bush.
People want an outsider, not a career politician. He has my support.
Jim, are you a different Jim from the liberal Jim that posts here occasionally? Or are you joking and I just didn’t get it?
Being an “outsider” is certainly not enough of a qualification, especially when one is as incompetent as Trump on the issues. His foreign policy alone would be a disaster as he can’t stop insulting every country under the sun in the stupidest manner possible.
Trump is so petty and ego-driven he even engaged in a Twitter feud with one of the writers from Modern Family lately. He can’t let anything go. Trading insults with a comedy writer wasn’t a smart move, and Trump’s attempts to come back at the writer’s jabs at Trump’s hypocrisy (calling China our enemy while his company manufactures clothes in China) were pathetic and hilarious. The opposite of presidential.
http://uproxx.com/tv/2013/06/donald-trump-twitter-feud-with-modern-family/
Trump will never, ever be president, and I hope more and more companies dump his brand until he doesn’t have a penny to his name.
“His foreign policy alone would be a disaster as he can’t stop insulting every country under the sun in the stupidest manner possible.”
Sounds like you are talking about President George Bush.
Here is what Trump said about the Iraq war 11 years ago:
http://www.rense.com/general54/bushs.htm
Hey Jim, that was a pretty good link! Mind if I put it one page?
Well, yes Jim, President Bush’s foreign policy WAS disastrous (and Obama’s is only slightly better). Trump was right about the Iraq War, but he’s wrong about so many other things. Can you imagine him engaging in even the most basic diplomacy? He calls everyone who even mildly criticizes him a “dummy” and a “loser” and appears to believe the Mexican government is intentionally sending illegal immigrants here as part of some invasion. Anyway, this is all a moot point anyway; the extremists always manage to rile up the base in the beginning but they are never sustainable candidates. Trump will ultimately be a footnote in this campaign season. I don’t even believe he wants to be president, I think he just craves attention.
Chris please explain Obama’s foreign policy. Also how his policy is “slightly better” than Bush’s policy. I see little evidence of either.
Jim please explain the comment about President Bush “insulting every country under the sun in the stupidest manner possible.”
I think that’s an extremely inaccurate statement and would appreciate a few examples.
Tina: “Chris please explain Obama’s foreign policy.”
Hard to do, as it’s pretty hard to get a read on. I think he typically tries diplomacy first and shies away from conflict, but also has engaged and expanded in some of the same practices as Bush, such as indefinite detention, drone strikes and spying on Americans.
“Also how his policy is “slightly better” than Bush’s policy. I see little evidence of either.”
Not starting a war that kills thousands on false premises is automatically better than starting a war that kills thousands on false premises. The rest of Obama’s foreign policy could be extremely incompetent, and I still think it would be better by that criteria alone.
I guess leaving the Middle East in turmoil and Israel and other nations more vulnerable to nuclear holocaust isn’t memorable. Oh well, you see exactly as you wish to.
You can’t “get a read on” Obama’s foreign policy because he flies by the seat of his pants…he has no policy other than to pretend to be brilliant on the world stage. But by now the world sees through that pretense. Our enemies toy with him and our allies are left to endure an anxious state over his bumbling decisions.
Better? Hardly!
Tina: “I guess leaving the Middle East in turmoil”
The Middle East has been in turmoil since before Obama was born. Every president since at least the 50s has “left the Middle East in turmoil.”
“and Israel and other nations more vulnerable to nuclear holocaust isn’t memorable.”
I don’t agree that’s what’s happened, but time will tell.
I’ve said I’m not happy with Obama’s foreign policy– saying it’s slightly better than Bush’s is kinda like saying a kick to the groin is better than being shot. But it seems you won’t be satisfied unless I declare Obama’s presidency the Worst Ever. I doubt that’s gonna happen, but he’s still got a year and a half left, so maybe he’ll change my mind.
Looks like the president that was responsible for “killing thousands” wasn’t just Bush. Obama’s death count is higher. And that “false premise” for the Iraq war was believed and voted yea by Democrats in Congress too.
The 12-Year War: 73% of U.S. Casualties in Afghanistan on Obama’s Watch:
“In total, 2,144 U.S. military personnel have given their lives fighting in and around Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.
1,575 of the U.S. military personnel who have sacrificed their lives in this cause were killed during the presidency of Barack Obama.
That means 73 percent of the casualties in the Afghan War have happened on Barack Obama’s watch.
During the now 12-year-long Afghan War, the four deadliest years for U.S. troops were also the four years of Obama’s first term.
Obama also has presided over the top five deadliest months of the war, which include: August 2011, when there were 71 deaths; July 2010, when there were 65 deaths; June 2010, when there were 60 deaths; October 2009, when there were 58 deaths; and August 2010, when there were 55 deaths.
On Feb. 17, 2009, less than a month after taking office, President Obama announced the deployment of 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, fulfilling his campaign promise to shift U.S. military forces to Afghanistan.
During a speech to cadets at the United States Military Academy (USMA), at West Point, on Dec. 1, 2009, President Obama announced an additional increase of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan. The president stated that “it is in our vital interest” to send the additional troops.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/dennis-m-crowley/12-year-war-73-us-casualties-afghanistan-obamas-watch
Obama’s wartime presidency: (2012)
“Are we better off?
Harrison, a defense budget expert, did a couple of cost calculations on the two wars and came up with staggering numbers.
Including the expenses of vehicles, planes, fuel, ammunition, equipment, housing, food, laundry and paying thousands of support contractors, it costs $800,000 per troop per year in Iraq.
In Afghanistan, which has the added challenges of poor roads, limited electrical grids and is landlocked, that figure is $1.2 million.
Per troop, per year.
“It’s been very difficult to get supplies in and very expensive,” Harrison said. “And then those supply routes have to be protected. You have to fly more planes over them, you have to have more vehicles in the convoy to provide protections. And all of those things are using fuel and supplies as well. The expenses are cascading.”
So as operations in both countries wind down, the costs savings are unquestioned. But little else is that clear-cut.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban has made a resurgence, and nearby Pakistan has emerged as a possible terrorist haven.
Robinson, with the Council on Foreign Relations, said that necessitates the United States maintaining a sizable troop presence even past the 2014 deadline.
“I think people unfortunately have set the bar too high for Afghanistan. They’re only going to make progress in a very gradual way,” said Robinson. “It’s worth making some additional investment to help.”
And even Iraq, where the situation is more settled, has its own uncertainties.
“What’s hard to measure is security threats that may come out of Iraq in the future, because we left so abruptly,” said Phillips, from the Heritage Foundation. “Al-Qaida in Iraq is moving arms and people into Syria and could emerge much stronger than it already is, and that could be a price that the U.S. will have to pay down the road.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/aug/05/obamas-wartime-presidency/
Thanks Peggy. There are many opinions about the decisions both Bush and Obama have made. It cannot be argued that the new president in 2009 wasn’t compelled to continue the war which makes me wonder what Obama learned once in office about the threat to America.
The rise of ISIS across several boarders is a result of bad decision making, The greater number of deaths could be attributed to the changed Rules of
Engagement. The Bergdahl exchange for five dangerous terrorists has no reasonable explanation. Benghazi was a shameful blot on our State Department under Hillary Clinton and the deal with Iran (And the UN) is another shameful blot under Kerry. Also several deadly terror attacks on American soil. A poor record for the Obama administration in my estimation and in no way a signal of a better record.
Tina, even back in 2012 the writer expressed foreseeable problems in both Iraq and Afghanistan we are experiencing today.
Obama probably did learn things that changed his mind and decided to extend the war. But he sure didn’t listen to his military advisors after his first couple of years in office. He started doing what Valerie Jarrett told him.
He fired so many of his top brass or they resigned it was a constant revolving door.
This was just too good to not share. Millennials learning on the street what they weren’t taught in the classroom.
‘I Was Not Expecting That’: See How Millennials React When They Learn Who Gets Most Wall Street Cash:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/21/i-was-not-expecting-that-see-how-millennials-react-when-they-learn-who-gets-most-wall-street-cash/
“Jim please explain the comment about President Bush “insulting every country under the sun in the stupidest manner possible.”
I think that’s an extremely inaccurate statement and would appreciate a few examples.”
I’ve tried my best for forget those years, perhaps you have too.
The war in Iraq and his lack of knowledge and difficulty speaking english was ridiculed by most of the world.
“Opinions of Bush from outside the U.S. are less than favorable. For example, a global sampling in 2005 of 21 nations found that 58% of those sampled believed that the president’s reelection would have a negative impact on their peace and security; only 26% believed it would have a positive one.
In 18 of the 21 countries surveyed, a majority of respondents held an unfavorable opinion of Bush. Respondents indicated that they judged his administration as “negative” for world security.
In specific countries: The United Kingdom’s Daily Mirror newspaper ran the following headline the day of Bush’s reelection: “How Can 59,054,087 People Be So Dumb?”, underlining Bush’s unpopularity in some sections of the British press. Among the population of Britain, two-thirds of the population holds[when?] a dim view of Bush, a figure that is duplicated in Canada.
After his reelection in 2004, Bush was viewed favorably by 38% and unfavorably by 53% in Italy, but much worse in other countries: “Three-quarters of those in Spain and more than 80% in France and Germany had a negative view of President Bush’s role in world affairs.” In Turkey, 72% of those polled said that Bush’s reelection made them “feel worse about Americans”. In November 2006, a survey taken in Great Britain, Mexico, and Canada showed that they believe Bush is more dangerous than North Korean leader Kim Jong-il and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush
Here are just a few highlights off the top of my head.
There was this: http://www.bronek.org/weblog/images/makelovenotwar.jpg
Bush was seen kissing a Saudi Prince (no it’s not photoshop) https://melaniekillingervowell.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/bush-kisses-saudi-prince-4-15-09.png
and this from Ireland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush#/media/File:Bush_belfast.jpg
Thats enough for now.
“The war in Iraq and his lack of knowledge and difficulty speaking english was ridiculed by most of the world. ”
These are perceptions created by a biased negative press. Agree or disagree with his decisions but “ridicule” is just a tool of propagandist. Ridicule is not awareness! Ridicule is not truth!
GWB is much smarter than the critics who demeaned him realize or care to know. His accomplishments in college and the National Guard far exceed that of many Democrats. Sure he mangled the language but no more than others that speak in public. He was humble enough to laugh at himself for mangling the language occasionally and even titled his memoir, “Misunderestimated.” Anyone who’s read that book understands this was a man of substance, depth, and integrity. There’s video of Obama speaking without a teleprompter and he was completely lost saying “uh” every two words and bumbling his response to the question. The press didn’t bother to cover that. Bush spoke plainly, a virtue in my book, as there was never confusion or doubt about what he was saying. Contrast that with the smooth political speech used by many politicians that shields themselves from being on the record or held accountable.
GWB worked with leaders all over the world and had good relationships with them. That is a verifiable fact.
“The United Kingdom’s Daily Mirror newspaper ran the following headline the day of Bush’s reelection: “How Can 59,054,087 People Be So Dumb?”
That headline reflects a biased, political opinion. It would appear that The Daily Mirror had an agenda. The story is sour grapes meaningless and typical of the lefts adoption of personal destruction as a means to power.
When newspapers and television news commentators spend years criticizing and demeaning the president is it any wonder that perceptions in the people are influenced against him? Contrast that with the way Obama has been coddled, promoted, shielded, and admired by the same media.
You’re right, that is enough, Jim. Thank you for responding to my question.