Afghanistan: right or wrong?

First, President Trump’s twenty-minute speech on Monday, from Ft Myer, Virginia, regarding the troop expansion to Afghanistan.

The full transcript is below, with my comments in red.

Vice President Pence, Secretary of State Tillerson, members of the cabinet, General Dunford, Deputy Secretary and Colonel Duggan. Most especially thank you to the members of the U.S. military at home and abroad. We send our thoughts and prayers to the families of our brave sailors who were injured and lost after a tragic collision at sea as well as to those conducting the search and recovery efforts.

I am here tonight to lay out our plan going forward in Afghanistan and South Asia. But before I provide the details of our new strategy, I want to say a few words to the service members here with us tonight, to those watching from their posts and to all Americans listening at home.

Since the founding of our Republic our country has produced a special class of heroes whose selflessness, courage and resolve is unmatched in human history. American patriots of every generation have given their last breath on the battlefield for our nation and for our freedom.

Through their lives and though their lives were cut short, in their deeds they achieved total immortality. By following their heroic example of those who fought for their republic, we can find the inspiration our country needs to unify, to heal, and to remain one nation under god.

The men and women of our military operate as one team with one shared mission and one shared sense of purpose. They transcend every line of race, ethnicity, creed and color to serve together and sacrifice together in absolutely perfect cohesion. That is because all service members are brothers and sisters.

They’re all part of the same family. It’s called the American family – they take the same oath, fight for the same flag and live according to the same law. They’re bound together by common purpose, mutual trust and selfless devotion to our nation and to each other

The soldier understands what we as a nation too often forget. That a wound inflicted upon a single member of our community is a wound inflicted upon us all. When one part of America hurts, we all hurt. And when one citizen suffers an injustice, we all suffer together. Loyalty to our nation demands loyalty to one another. Love for our nation demands love for all of its people. When we open our hearts to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice, no place for bigotry, no tolerance for hate.

Sound familiar? That’s from President Trump’s inaugural speech as well.

Roughly the seventh time that President Trump has publicly denounced white supremacists, bigotry and racism in a week.

The young men and women we send to fight our wars abroad deserve to return to a country that is not at war with itself at home. We cannot be a force for peace in the world if we’re not at peace with each other.

As we send our bravest to defeat our enemies overseas — and we will always win — let us find the courage to heal our divisions within. Let us make a simple promise to those we ask to fight in our name, that when they return home from battle, they will find a country that has renewed the sacred bonds of love and loyalty that unite us together as one.

Thank God the era of “leading from behind” and “strategic patience” is over. Only abject morons use phrases like that. There are no such things.

Thanks to the vigilance and skill of the American military and of our many allies throughout the world, horrors on the scale of Sept. 11th — nobody can ever forget that — have not been repeated on our shores and we must acknowledge the reality I am here to talk about tonight, that nearly 16 years after the Sept. 11th attacks, after the extraordinary sacrifice of blood and treasure, the American people are weary of war without victory.

Nowhere is this more evident than the war in Afghanistan. The longest war in American history — 17 years. I share the American people’s frustration. I also share their frustration over a foreign policy that has spent too much time, energy and most importantly lives trying to rebuild countries in our own image instead of pursuing our security interests above all other considerations.

Correct. Which is why I vehemently disagreed with President Bush staying behind in Iraq to “nation build.” We should have gone in, inflicted maximal damage, killed many Iraqi soldiers, laid waste to its military elements, dusted off our hands and left, taking all our toys with us.

That is why shortly after my inauguration, I directed Secretary of Defense Mattis and my national security team to undertake a comprehensive view of all strategic options in Afghanistan and all of South Asia.

My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like following my instincts. But all my life I have heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office – in other words, when you are President of the United States. So, I studied Afghanistan in great detail, and from every conceivable angle. After many meetings, over many months, we held our final meeting last Friday, at Camp David with my cabinet and generals to complete our strategy. I arrived at three conclusions about America’s core interests in Afghanistan.

A lesson Barack Hussein Obama learned early when stepping into office, as in his decision not to immediately close Gitmo though he promised it would be one of the first events occurring in his presidency. Things change in that big seat. Any thinking human being knows this is true.

First, our nation must seek an honorable and enduring outcome, worthy of the tremendous sacrifices that have been made, especially the sacrifices of lives. The men and women who serve our nation in combat, deserve a plan for victory. They deserve the tools that they need and the trust they have earned to fight and to win.

Correct. The moment you unilaterally pull out completely, people rightly ask: were all previous American lives lost in Afghanistan for naught?

Second, the consequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable. 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in our history, was planned and directed from Afghanistan because that country was ruled by a government that gave comfort and shelter to terrorists. But not the only one. A hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum that terrorists including ISIS and Al-Qaeda would instantly fill, just as happened before September 11th and as we know in 2011 when America hastily and mistakenly withdrew from Iraq. As a result, our hard-fought gains slipped back into the hands of terrorist enemies. Our soldiers watched as cities they had fought for and bled to liberate and won were occupied by a terrorist group called ISIS. The vacuum we created by leaving too soon gave safe haven to ISIS to spread to grow, recruit and launch attacks. We cannot repeat in Afghanistan the mistake our leaders made in Iraq.

The problem is, US administrators did not follow the BZ Iraqi Policy. Fewer American lives would have been lost and the false promise of the “Democratization” of another country would not have been made.

Third, and finally, I concluded that the security threats we face in Afghanistan and the broader regions are immense. Today, 20 U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations are active in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The highest concentration in any region, anywhere in the world. For its part, Pakistan often gives safe haven to agents of chaos, violence, and terror. The threat is even worse because Pakistan and India are two nuclear-armed states whose tense relations threaten to spiral into conflict — and that could happen.

Now we’re beginning to touch on the true point of the speech, in my opinion. Pakistan — which directly borders Afghanistan and provides aid and comfort to terrorist elements.

No one denies that we have inherited a challenging and troubling situation in Afghanistan and South Asia. But we do not have the luxury of going back in time and making different or better decisions. When I became president, I was given a bad and very complex hand but I fully knew what I was getting into – big and intricate problems. But, one way or another these problems will be solved – I am a problem solver. And in the end, we will win. We must address the reality of the world as it exists right now.

Alright. Being positive is good. Re-stating the issue is good with an aim towards its solution.

The threats we face and the confronting of all of the problems of today and extremely predictable consequences of a hasty withdrawal. We need look no further than last week’s vicious, vile attack in Barcelona to understand that terror groups will stop at nothing to commit the mass murder of innocent men, women, and children. You saw it for yourself. Horrible.

But wait, there’s more. The explosions that occurred were not immediately linked but in fact they were. They were part of a larger plot to kill hundreds more in a larger venue but the bomb-makers, well, frakked up. Plan B? A van.

As I outlined in my speech in Saudi Arabia, three months ago, America and its partners are committed to stripping terrorists of their territory, cutting off their funding, and exposing the false allure of their evil ideology.

Too bad Barack Hussein Obama didn’t have that goal. Instead, he thought it wise to front-load a losing deal for America by literally shipping billions of dollars on huge pallets on a covert C-117 to Iran in the dead of night like a bad Robert Ludlum novel.

Terrorists who slaughter innocent people will find no glory in this life or the next. They are nothing but thugs and criminals and predators, and that is right, losers.

Working alongside our allies, we will break their will, dry up their recruitment, keep them from crossing our borders, and yes, we will defeat them and we will defeat them handily.

Keep them from crossing our borders? That fight internally is every bit as serious a fight as the one overseas. I am not overstating this threat.

In Afghanistan and Pakistan, America’s interests are clear. We must stop the resurgence of safe havens that enable terrorists to threaten America. And we must prevent nuclear weapons and materials from coming into the hands of terrorists and being used against us or anywhere in the world for that matter.

Uh-oh. This is called a clue. As Mr Obama would have said: “Pokky-stahn.”

But to prosecute this war, we will learn from history. As a result of our comprehensive review, American strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia will change dramatically in the following ways:

A core pillar of our new strategy is a shift from a time-based approach to one based on conditions. I’ve said it many times how counterproductive it is for the United States to announce in advance the dates we intend to begin or end military options.

Oh my. Are we going to begin some kind of overall common sense approach to the application of the American military? As in: our tactical planning is our own and belongs to no one else? Not the American Media Maggots? Not our enemies? Unlike Barack Hussein Obama’s directives?

We will not talk about numbers of troops or our plans for further military activities. Conditions on the ground — not arbitrary timetables — will guide our strategy from now on.

America’s enemies must never know our plans or believe they can wait us out. I will not say when we are going to attack, but attack we will.

This is long overdue. Long, long overdue. Example: Obama declaring we’ll be leaving Iraq by the end of 2011. Hello? Earth to terror planners? You listening?

Another fundamental pillar of our new strategy is the integration of all instruments of American power — diplomatic, economic and military — toward a successful outcome. Some day, after an effective military effort, perhaps it will be possible to have a political settlement that includes elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Wait. Trump didn’t pronounce it “Tolly-bahn.” Damn him.

But nobody knows if or when that will ever happen. America will continue its support for the Afghan government and the Afghan military as they confront the Taliban in the field. Ultimately it is up to the people of Afghanistan to take ownership of their future, to govern their society, and to achieve an everlasting peace. We are not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists.

Good words. Words we want to hear. No more “nation building.” That’s what I want to hear. But the devil is not only in the details but the actual execution.

We are a partner and a friend but we will not dictate to the Afghan people how to live or how to govern their own complex society.

Good to hear.

The next pillar of our new strategy is to change the approach and how to deal with Pakistan. We can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe havens for terrorist organizations — the Taliban, and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond. Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan. It has much to lose by continuing to harbor criminals and terrorists.

Roll with it.  .  .

In the past, Pakistan has been a valued partner. Our militaries have worked together against common enemies. The Pakistani people have suffered greatly under terrorism and extremism. We recognize those contributions and those sacrifices.

Roll with it.  .  .

But Pakistan has also sheltered the same organizations that try every single day to kill our people. We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars at the same time they are housing the very terrorists we are fighting. But that will have to change, and that will have to change immediately.

No partnership can survive a country’s harboring of militants and terrorists who target U.S. service members and officials. It is time for Pakistan to demonstrate its commitment to civilization, order, and to peace.

This is both the nugget and the bullet buried deep within his speech, in my opinion.

Another critical part of the South Asia strategy for America is to further develop its strategic partnership with India, the world’s largest democracy, and a key security and economic partner of the United States

We appreciate India’s important contributions to stability in Afghanistan, but India makes billions of dollars from trade with the United States, and we want them to help us more with Afghanistan especially in the area of economic assistance and development.

A bone thrown to India in an effort to assist us more closely in reigning in Pokky-stahn.

We are committed to pursuing our shared objectives of securing peace and stability in South Asia, and the broader Indo-Pacific region. Finally my administration will ensure that you, the brave defenders of the American people, will have the necessary tools and rules of engagement to make this strategy work, and work effectively, and work quickly.

I have already lifted restrictions the previous administration placed on our warfighters that prevented the Secretary of Defense and our commanders in the field from fully and swiftly waging battle against the enemy.

Wait wait wait wait. Oppressive ROEs being lifted? That in and of itself is a massive and positive step forward away from, say, LBJ’s micromanagement of Vietnam, Nixon’s, Reagan’s, Bush’s and, of course, Obama’s constricted throttling of our military.

Micromanagement from Washington, DC does not win battles. They are won in the field drawing upon the judgment and expertise of wartime commanders and front line soldiers acting in real time – with real authority – and with a clear mission to defeat the enemy.

This is a huge turn of events. Proving again that Trump is not a politician. Good or bad. This is part of the “good” side.

That’s why we will also expand authority for American armed forces to target the terrorist and criminal networks that sow violence and chaos throughout Afghanistan. These killers need to know they have nowhere to hide – that no place is beyond the reach of American might and American arms.

Trump trusts his generals. He is pushing power down and away from the Oval Orifice.

Retribution will be fast and powerful as we lift restrictions and expand authorities in the field we are already seeing dramatic results in the campaign to defeat ISIS including the liberation of Mosul in Iraq.

Since my inauguration we have achieved record breaking success in that regard.

We will also maximize sanctions and other financial and law enforcement actions against these networks, to eliminate their ability to export terror. When America commits its warriors to battle, we must ensure they have every weapon to apply swift decisive and overwhelming force.

Let me state this now. I firmly believe that President Donald Trump truly cares about his military warriors and his law enforcement professionals at home, unlike the previous president — who possessed nothing but disdain for them and their backgrounds. They weren’t “his people.”

Our troops will fight to win. We will fight to win. From now on, victory will have a clear definition: attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al-Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge. We will ask our NATO allies and global partners to support our new strategy with additional troop and funding increases in line with our own. We are confident they will.

Uh-oh. Objectives. Are these real objectives or are they fanciful objectives? Can they truly be obtained?

Since taking office I have made clear that our allies and partners must contribute much more money to our collective defense. And they have done so.

Angela Merkel is spinning in her office right about now, enamel flecking off her perfect capped teeth. Pass me the amalgam.

In this struggle, the heaviest burden will continue to be borne by the good people of Afghanistan and their courageous armed forces. As the Prime Minister of Afghanistan has promised, we are going to participate in economic development to help defray the cost of this war to us.

Oh no. You mean that, unlike Obama, any and every “deal” isn’t front-loaded against the United States from the beginning? How oppressive and judgmental of President Trump. 

Afghanistan is fighting to defend their country against the same enemies who threaten us.

The stronger the Afghan security forces become the less we will have to do. Afghans will secure and build their own nation, and define their own future. We want them to succeed.

But we will no longer use American military might to construct democracies in faraway lands, or try to rebuild other countries in our own image — those days are now over.

When President Bush said that all people and all nations wish to be free and to have their own democracies, well, no they don’t. Witness Islam and its adherents. He was wrong then and he is wrong now because, frankly, we think we understand the minds of others but we sometimes do not. To our own detriment.

Instead, we will work with allies and partners to protect our shared interests. We are not asking others to change their way of life, but to pursue common goals that allow our children to live better and safer lives. This principled realism will guide our decisions moving forward.

Military power alone will not bring peace to Afghanistan or stop the terrorist threat arising in that country.

True. Just consult the Russians.

But strategically applied force aims to create the conditions for a political process to achieve a lasting peace – America will work with the Afghan government as long as we see determination and progress. However, our commitment is not unlimited, and our support is not a blank check. The government of Afghanistan must carry their share of the military political and economic burden. The American people expect to see real reforms, real progress and real results.

Our patience is not unlimited, we will keep our eyes wide open. In abiding by the oath I took on January 20th , I will remain steadfast and protect American lives and American interests. In this effort we will make common cause with any nation that chooses to fight alongside us against this global threat.

I believe that is Trump’s goal. Say what you will about him, he is nothing but pro-American. A stance America wants from her president.

Terrorists: take heed. America will never let up until you are dealt a lasting defeat. Under my administration many billions of dollars more is being spent on our military, and this includes vast amounts being spent on our nuclear arsenal and missile defense.

A small note to North Korea. But also to China and Russia.

In every generation we have faced down evil. And we have always prevailed. We prevailed because we know who we are and what we are fighting for.

Not far from where we are gathered tonight, hundreds of thousands of America’s greatest patriots lay to rest at Arlington. National. Cemetery. There is more courage, sacrifice and love in those hallowed grounds than in any other spot in the face of the earth. Many of those who have fought and died in Afghanistan, enlisted in the months after September 11, 2001.

They volunteered for a simple reason, they loved America and they were determined to protect her. Now we must secure the cause for which they gave their lives. We must unite to defend America from its enemies abroad. We must restore the bonds of loyalty among our citizens at home and we must achieve an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the enormous price that so many have paid. Our actions, and in the months to come, all of them will honor the sacrifice of every fallen hero. Every family who lost a loved one. And every wounded warrior who shed their blood in defense of our great nation.

With our resolve we will ensure that your service and your families, will bring about the defeat of our enemies and the arrival of peace. We will push onward to victory with power in our hearts, courage in our souls, and everlasting pride in each and every one of you.

Thank you. May God bless our military, and may God bless the united states of America. Thank you very much. Thank you.

In an interesting interview with Sean Hannity, former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, provided his thoughts about the speech.

Was this thoughtful reconsideration, or a possible betrayal of conservative votes?

Do people who thought Trump promoted a foreign policy of restraint feel abandoned? Has the mission in Afghanistan “lost its purpose”? Is it an endless war? Is this Citizen Trump vs President Trump?

Is this the result of a perspective that has changed since installation in the Oval Office which would include access to more information?

For me, the bottom line is this: I think most everyone read his speech wrong. Is this only about Afghanistan, or is it more about sending a message to Pakistan?

Not A. But B.

BZ

 

Hypocrisy and hyperbole; the aftermath of Comey’s firing

If you’d been listening to the American Media Maggots the past 24 hours, you’d think the sky had indeed fallen all across the United States of America.

President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey on Tuesday, and the world has, literally, stopped rotating on its axis.

It all started with a letter by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

May 9, 2017

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

FROM: ROD J. ROSENSTEIN

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

SUBJECT: RESTORING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE FBI

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has long been regarded as our nation’s premier federal investigative agency. Over the past year, however, the FBI’s reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice. That is deeply troubling to many Department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens.

The current FBI Director is an articulate and persuasive speaker about leadership and the immutable principles of the Department of Justice. He deserves our appreciation for his public service. As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives.

The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General’s authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution.

It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation’s most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.

Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.

In response to skeptical question at a congressional hearing, the Director defended his remarks by saying that his “goal was to say what is true. What did we do, what did we find, what do we think about it.” But the goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference. The goal is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then – if prosecution is warranted – let the judge and jury determine the facts. We sometimes release information about closed investigations in appropriate ways, but the FBI does not do it.

Concerning his letter to the Congress on October 28, 2016, the Director cast his decision as a choice between whether he would “speak” about the decision to investigate the newly-discovered email messages or “conceal” it. “Conceal” is a loaded term that misstates the issue. When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open a criminal investigation, we are not concealing anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing non-public information. In that context, silence is not concealment.

My perspective on these issues is shared by former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from different eras and both political parties. Judge Laurence Silberman, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Ford, wrote that “it is not the bureau’s responsibility to opine on whether a matter should be prosecuted.” Silberman believes that the Director’s “Performance was so inappropriate for an FBI director that [he] doubt[s] the bureau will ever completely recover.” Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton, joined with Larry Thompson, Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush, to opine that the Director had “chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, departing from the department’s traditions.” They concluded that the Director violated his obligation to “preserve, protect and defend” the traditions of the Department and the FBI.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served under President George W. Bush, observed the Director “stepped way outside his job in disclosing the recommendation in that fashion” because the FBI director “doesn’t make that decision.”

Alberto Gonzales, who also served as Attorney General under President George W. Bush, called the decision “an error in judgement.” Eric Holder, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton and Attorney General under President Obama, said the Director’s decision“was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season.” Holder concluded that the Director “broke with these fundamental principles” and “negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI.”

Former Deputy Attorneys General Gorelick and Thompson described the unusual events as“real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation,” that is “antithetical to the interests of justice.”

Donald Ayer, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President H.W. Bush, along with former Justice Department officials, was“astonished and perplexed” by the decision to “break[] with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties during past elections.” Ayer’s letter noted, “Perhaps most troubling… is the precedent set by this departure from the Department’s widely-respected, non-partisan traditions.”

We should reject the departure and return to the traditions.

Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.

I set out my objections to now-former Director James Comey last year with his horribly flawed reasoning for failing to forward the Hillary Clinton case to the DOJ last year, and also in this post. I was heartened to see that the bulk of my objections were quite similar to those of the Deputy Attorney General.

We all know that President William Jefferson Clinton fired his FBI Director, William Sessions, back in 1993 for essentially political reasons. That was fine with Demorats.

Many Demorats themselves were calling for the severed head of William Comey quite recently.

Yes, two words: what changed?

We all know the answer, quite obviously. Judicial Watch’s CJ Farrell had this to say from last year.

Maxine Waters at least had the guts to come out and say what every other Demorat and Leftist is thinking about the situation.

From RealClearPolitics.com:

Maxine Waters: I Don’t Support Trump Firing Comey, I Would Support Hillary Clinton Firing Comey

by Ian Schwartz

NBC’s Peter Alexander grills Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Cali.) for her displeasure at President Trump firing FBI Director James Comey after she had announced in January that he has lost all credibility after attending a classified briefing conducted by the now-former director.

In March, Waters issued a press release that read Comey “advanced Russia’s misinformation campaign.”

However, in the interview Wednesday on MSNBC, asked if she would be okay with a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton dismissing Comey from his position, Waters said yes.

“If she had won the White House, I believe that given what he did to her, and what he tried to do, she should have fired him. Yes,” the California Democrat said.

“So she should have fired him but had he shouldn’t fire him. This is why I’m confused,” Alexander said to Waters.

Honesty and clarity, for once, coming from Maxine Waters in terms of her clear bias.

But it wasn’t just politicians who became unhinged over the firing of James Comey. The so-called “celebrities” did so as well.

Steven Colbert was not amused.

Neither was our favorite moonbat, Keith Olbermann.

So what really happened in the White House? What was the final straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back? I wrote back on Tuesday that Comey’s final waffling on the number of emails found in Weiner’s laptop was the kicker. Oddly enough, Dr Sebastian Gorka highlighted that same issue.

The New York Times wrote this about the White House decision.

‘Enough was Enough’: How Festering Anger at Comey Ended in His Firing

by Maggie Haberman, Glenn Thrush, Michael S Schmidt and Peter Baker

WASHINGTON — By the end, neither of them thought much of the other.

After President Trump accused his predecessor in March of wiretapping him, James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, was flabbergasted. The president, Mr. Comey told associates, was “outside the realm of normal,” even “crazy.”

For his part, Mr. Trump fumed when Mr. Comey publicly dismissed the sensational wiretapping claim. In the weeks that followed, he grew angrier and began talking about firing Mr. Comey. After stewing last weekend while watching Sunday talk shows at his New Jersey golf resort, Mr. Trump decided it was time. There was “something wrong with” Mr. Comey, he told aides.

The problem, you see, was that Donald Trump waited too long. As I believed and wrote numerous times, on January 20th at noon, President Trump should have demanded Comey’s resignation letter.

The collision between president and F.B.I. director that culminated with Mr. Comey’s stunning dismissal on Tuesday had been a long time coming. To a president obsessed with loyalty, Mr. Comey was a rogue operator who could not be trusted as the F.B.I. investigated Russian ties to Mr. Trump’s campaign. To a lawman obsessed with independence, Mr. Trump was the ultimate loose cannon, making irresponsible claims on Twitter and jeopardizing the bureau’s credibility.

The other problem was that Comey wasn’t obsessed with any independence other than his own, and not that of the bureau itself. The only person who jeopardized the FBI’s credibility was James Comey.

The White House, in a series of shifting and contradictory accounts, first said Mr. Trump decided to fire Mr. Comey because the attorney general and his deputy recommended it. By Wednesday, it had amended the timeline to say that the president had actually been thinking about getting rid of the F.B.I. director as far back as November, after he won the election, and then became “strongly inclined” after Mr. Comey testified before Congress last week.

Mr. Comey’s fate was sealed by his latest testimony about the bureau’s investigation into Russia’s efforts to sway the 2016 election and the Clinton email inquiry. Mr. Trump burned as he watched, convinced that Mr. Comey was grandstanding. He was particularly irked when Mr. Comey said he was “mildly nauseous” to think that his handling of the email case had influenced the election, which Mr. Trump took to demean his own role in history.

Director Comey was grandstanding.

At that point, Mr. Trump began talking about firing him. He and his aides thought they had an opening because Mr. Comey gave an incorrect account of how Huma Abedin, a top adviser to Mrs. Clinton, transferred emails to her husband’s laptop, an account the F.B.I. later corrected.

As I wrote on Tuesday, that element was the final straw. And yes, it did provide an opening.

At first, Mr. Trump, who is fond of vetting his decisions with a wide circle of staff members, advisers and friends, kept his thinking to a small circle, venting his anger to Vice President Mike Pence; the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II; and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who all told him they generally backed dismissing Mr. Comey.

Then President Trump finally did the right thing.

But wait; hold up on that car wash. Isn’t this the same New York Times that wrote in 1993:

DEFIANT F.B.I. CHIEF REMOVED FROM JOB BY THE PRESIDENT

By DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: July 20, 1993

WASHINGTON, July 19— President Clinton today dismissed William S. Sessions, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who had stubbornly rejected an Administration ultimatum to resign six months after a harsh internal ethics report on his conduct.

Mr. Clinton said he would announce his nominee to replace Mr. Sessions on Tuesday. He was expected to pick Judge Louis J. Freeh of Federal District Court in Manhattan; officials said Judge Freeh had impressed Mr. Clinton favorably on Friday at their first meeting.

Mr. Clinton, explaining his reasons for removing Mr. Sessions, effective immediately, said, “We cannot have a leadership vacuum at an agency as important to the United States as the F.B.I. It is time that this difficult chapter in the agency’s history is brought to a close.”

But in a parting news conference at F.B.I. headquarters after Mr. Clinton’s announcement, a defiant Mr. Sessions — his right arm in a sling as a result of a weekend fall — railed at what he called the unfairness of his removal, which comes nearly six years into his 10-year term.

“Because of the scurrilous attacks on me and my wife of 42 years, it has been decided by others that I can no longer be as forceful as I need to be in leading the F.B.I. and carrying out my responsibilities to the bureau and the nation,” he said. “It is because I believe in the principle of an independent F.B.I. that I have refused to voluntarily resign.”

It appears, according to the New York Times, that President William Clinton, a Demorat, was perfectly well within his rights and abilities to fire Director Sessions who insisted that the FBI be independent. That same newspaper now states that President Donald Trump, a Republican, is not perfectly well within his rights and abilities to fire Director Comey who insisted that the FBI be independent.

The difference? Political parties. Simply that.

James Comey, in a letter to his office the day after his firing, said the president was within his authority to fire a sitting FBI director. From TheHill.com:

Comey farewell: ‘A president can fire an FBI director for any reason’

Former FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday sent a letter to agents and friends following President Trump firing him the previous day.

“I have long believed that a President can fire an FBI director for any reason, or for no reason at all,” he wrote, according to CNN. “I’m not going to spend time on the decision or the way it was executed.”

Leftist attorney and professor Alan Dershowitz came in on the side of President Trump. From Breitbart.com:

Dershowitz: Comey Firing ‘Appropriate,’ No Special Prosecutor

by Joel B Pollak

Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz told CNN’s Don Lemon on Tuesday night that President Donald Trump was well within his rights to fire former FBI director James Comey, and that there was no need for a special prosecutor in the investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.

Dershowitz appeared next to CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who was apoplectic. “The fact that he did this will disgrace his memory for as long as this presidency is remembered. There is only one date that will be remembered after Januarth 20th so far in the Trump presidency, and it is the day of the ‘Tuesday Night Massacre,’” Toobin said, referencing President Richard Nixon’s firing of Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox during the Watergate scandal.

Toobin had also told CNN’s Anderson Cooper earlier that Trump would likely name a “campaign stooge” as Comey’s replacement at the FBI.

But Dershowitz disagreed.

“Should Comey be the director of the FBI? The answer to that is no,” he said, noting that he had called earlier for Comey to resign. “He lost his credibility. … A lot of this is his fault.”

When Toobin objected that Trump had fired former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara as well as Comey, “all three of whom had the potential to investigate and trouble the Trump presidency,” Dershowitz argued that they were all Democrat appointees and had all been dismissed appropriately by a Republican president.

Perquisites of the job that have been replicated time and again by Demorat presidents.

Where is John McCain on this because, after all, when the story appears to be about someone else, well, it’s really about John McCain, isn’t it? From the WashingtonPost.com:

John McCain on Comey firing: ‘There will be more shoes to drop’

by Josh Rogin

President Trump’s sudden firing of FBI Director James B. Comey is bad for the country and will not be the end of the Trump-Russia affair, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told a group of foreign diplomats and experts Tuesday night.

Although McCain did not directly accuse the White House of firing Comey to thwart the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s possible Russia ties, he did say that if that was the intention, it would fail.

Again, news about truth isn’t news. News about specious insinuation is news.

“This scandal is going to go on. I’ve seen it before,” McCain told a meeting of the Munich Security Conference core group. “This is a centipede. I guarantee you there will be more shoes to drop, I can just guarantee it. There’s just too much information that we don’t have that will be coming out.”

He called Trump’s actions against Comey “unprecedented” and said the position of FBI director has held special meaning in American public life dating back decades.

Ooooh, scary, John, very scary.

“Probably the most respected individual in all of the American government is probably the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” McCain said. “I’m very sorry that this has happened.”

The event was off the record, but McCain gave me permission to place his comments on the record. He said that Trump had the legal basis to fire Comey but that his decision would have long-term negative consequences.

“I regret it, I think it’s unfortunate,” McCain said. “The president does have that constitutional authority. But I can’t help but think that this is not a good thing for America.”

I refer to this article solely to illustrate how terribly out-of-touch is John McCain with the law and with reality. However, even McCain isn’t yet sufficiently addled to refute the authority of a president to fire an FBI director.

Former FBI Assistant Director James Kallstrom weighs in on the Comey situation and likewise concludes that President Trump acted appropriately. “I’m glad it happened.”

As I’ve said, I still have law enforcement contacts across the fruited plain and I know that the bulk of line-level agents, not necessarily supervisors or managers, were relieved to see the dismissal of William Comey. Judge Andrew Napolitano confirms this.

Newt Gingrich also weighs in on the issue with Sean Hannity.

Let us not forget the 10 major scandals that occurred on the 3.5-year watch of Director Comey.

The bottom line is this: former FBI Director James Comey made quite a number of flawed decisions based not upon the law but instead on politics. He placed himself in front of cameras frequently as he enjoyed the limelight. He did so for self-aggrandizing reasons. Having a self-righteous and poor decision-maker in charge of the FBI is not a formula for success or for ensuring confidence in the bureau.

The firing of James Comey was long overdue.

BZ

 

BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, Tuesday, April 4th, 2017

My thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to broadcast in their studio and over their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursdays, as well as appear on the Sack Heads Radio Show™ each Wednesday evening.

Tuesday night at the Saloon we discussed:

  • Happy Stories: grandfather upset that home invasion victim killed his grandson and two other suspects with an AR-15 — as opposed to a pellet pistol or a butter knife?
  • How I conduct business at the Saloon; thanks be to those in chat;
  • Mother talks about how her son was tortured and killed at the hands of an illegal alien who systematically killed her son and set his body on fire;
  • Victims of illegal immigrant crime speak to Donald Trump;
  • Who is REALLY sitting next to your child in the classroom: is it an illegal alien or a 30-year-old man who shares a bathroom with 10-year-old kids? Your school probably couldn’t care less and it won’t tell you any way;
  • No Shaun at the Sack Heads Radio Show tomorrow night?
  • Nancy Pelosi: we actually have nothing on Trump and Russia;
  • In depth: an extended update on the surveillance of President Donald Trump
  • We go into 7 minutes of overtime;

Listen to “BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, Tuesday, April 4th, 2017” on Spreaker.

Please join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin (on Twitter @BZep and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the drinks are not.

As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening via podcast. Thanks also to the BBS bouncer Fluffy for kicking all the louts out of Mary Brockman’s chair at the bar.

Want to listen to all the Berserk Bobcat Saloon archives in podcast? Go here.

BZ

 

CNN is fake news: story about Hannity refuted by Juan Williams

CNN and the rest of the mainstream media — whom I term the American Media Maggots — just don’t get it. Nor will they ever.

First, the story from CNN:

Sources: Sean Hannity once pulled a gun on Juan Williams

by Dylan Byers

Sean Hannity is surrounded by jackasses.

The Wall Street Journal columnist who called Hannity the “dumbest anchor” on Fox News is a “jackass,” according to Hannity. The forensic psychologist who suggested a blood vessel had popped inside Hannity’s brain is a “jackass.” Even the conservative MSNBC host who sometimes criticizes President Donald Trump is a “jackass.”

If you criticize Hannity, or the Trump administration, there is a fair chance he will call you a “jackass” on Twitter. The chances of being called a “jackass” by Hannity are significantly higher late at night. Of the 21 people Hannity called a “jackass” in the last year, nearly half were told off between 9 p.m and 2 a.m.

Seems to me that Byers is calling Hannity a “drunk Twitterer.” Isn’t that what you make of it as well?

Hannity, Trump’s biggest backer on television, has said this is entertainment for him: “I am a counterpuncher,” he told one Twitter user who asked why he was so antagonistic. “I do not start fights but I finish them. This is pure entertainment for me. If people take cheap shots I hit back.”

Still, Hannity’s version of entertainment can go too far. Last year, after ending one of his many spirited on-air arguments with liberal contributor Juan Williams, Hannity pulled out a gun and pointed it directly at Williams, according to three sources with knowledge of the incident. He even turned on the laser sight, causing a red dot to bob around on Williams’ body. (Hannity was just showing off, the sources said, but the unforeseen off-camera antic clearly disturbed Williams and others on set.)

So is this true? And did the author, Dylan Byers, go directly to the first-hand source, Juan Williams himself? I would have. I’m certain you would have. I was a journalist at one time in my callow youth, working for McClatchy Broadcasting and also stringing as a photographer for the Sacramento Bee.

Williams issued a statement. Hannity issued a statement. But as a CNN journalist or, hell, any journalist in general, wouldn’t you want to get a statement yourself directly from the sources involved? Who knows what you’d get?

Because, after all, what an amazing “get” it would be to have Hannity refuse to make a comment and, simultaneously, after a bit of time had passed, Juan Williams decide to actually open up to you. An admission. Perhaps a confession.

But no. CNN is just pleased as punch that Mr Byers stopped being inquisitive. As George Bush was accused of, so possesses, apparently, Mr Byers. An incurious mind.

But wait; there’s more. From Breitbart.com, I found these copies of associated Tweets.

These are the Tweets written by Juan Williams.

Williams refutes the nature of the incident. Further, this is Juan Williams supporting and defending Sean Hannity.

If it were true that Hannity pulled a gun on Juan Williams as alleged, after all, how grand would it be to have Williams completely confirm the story of Dylan Byers, tell all that he was forced to support Hannity by the Fox administration if he wished to keep his job, and then leave Fox News for refusing to play along?

Trust me: it would make Juan Williams the new darling of Leftists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots nationally. The story would be covered for weeks, non-stop.

Williams would be able to name his network, name his show and name his salary.

But it didn’t go that way.

Why not?

BZ

 

Rachel Maddow massively assists President Trump

Proving that she and the rest of the American Media Maggots very much believe that Barack Obama’s book was correct; it’s about the Audacity of Hype.

All of the American Media Maggots embraced hype regarding the northeast’s Snowmageddon, then proceeded to embrace Rachel Maddow’s hype regarding President Trump’s Taxmageddon.

Rachel Maddow did her level best — not her goal, I’d wager — to prove herself and her shabby MSNBC network imbecilic and, simultaneously, helped elevate President Donald Trump. Please watch the segment I call “Let’s Laugh At Leftists.”

A startling revelation, yes? A literal bombshell of information? Revelatory beyond words, beyond human ken? Something that left America gobsmacked and reeling?

Not quite. What we discovered is that the two pages of a 1040 document with Trump’s name on it indicated — as diametrically-opposed as possible to what Hillary Clinton claimed in the presidential debates — is that in 2005 Donald Trump made $150 million dollars and subsequently paid $38 million dollar in taxes. We also discovered this:

It took Rachel Maddow 23 minutes to actually get to the point of “revealing” the documents, so much time in fact that the Trump White House actually scooped her with this Tweet.

What occurred on her show was, well, nothing. She possessed two pages of a 1040 tax document which, by the way, is illegal to acquire by way of 26 USC 7213 and 26 USC 6103, both federal felonies, absent permission of the person named. How did Maddow receive the documents? From a man named David Cay Johnston, who stated he “found” the documents in his mailbox. He now says he thinks Donald Trump himself may have sent them. If so, both Johnston and Maddow and MSNBC took a large bite out of a shit sandwich camouflaged as a tasty burger.

And as AMNewYork,com breathlessly reported:

What the documents show:

– Trump paid $38 million in taxes on more than $150 million in income in 2005.

– That amount translates to a tax rate of about 25%.

– Trump reported $103 million in losses to reduce his federal taxes.

– Trump paid most of his taxes under the alternative minimum tax, which is designed to prevent wealthy individuals from paying no taxes at all.

What the documents don’t show:

– Whether or not Trump paid taxes in other years and how much he paid in other years.

– Why he had $103 million in losses.

– Whether or not he has financial ties to Russia or others.

– Any new information about his business or where his income came from.

Once again: the Russians! Except that, wait, wasn’t it the Demorats who recently concluded there is no evidence of Trump colluding with Russia? Why yes, they did.

As a result of this Nothing Burger, the internet proceeded to mock and destroy Rachel Maddow from all sides; please check the articles here and here, just for starters. And when you find fellow Leftist Stephen Colbert mocking you, well, you’ve lost your chops.

You’ve also lost it when avowed Communist Van Jones think you pooped in the punchbowl.

The New York Times also took a proverbial hit, continuing to prove its official Fake News status, from the DailyCaller.com:

NYT Eats Crow After Trump Tax Return Proves Major Story Wrong

by Alex Pfeiffer

The White House released President Trump’s tax return from 2005 on Tuesday, which showed that he paid $38 million on $150 million in income. This disproves the premise of a major New York Times story in the lead-up to the November election.

The Oct. 1 Times story was headlined: “Donald Trump Tax Records Show He Could Have Avoided Taxes for Nearly Two Decades, The Times Found.” The New York Times reporters wrote: “Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years, records obtained by The New York Times show.”

But what of the actual issue of legality, privacy, the deep state? Sean Hannity from Fox News had this to say:

Hannity spoke about NBC because, of course, MSNBC is an arm of that network, which is owned by NBCUniversal, all of which is owned by Comcast. All of which leads to some very important dot-connecting as laid out by Tucker Carlson.

Ladies and gentlemen, the American Media Maggots continue to bleat that they and only they can be the one, the true, the honest, the forthright and trustworthy purveyors of news in the United States of America. No one else can be consigned with such a weighty responsibility; only the Fourth Estate can carry out this monumental task with regularity, efficiency and veracity.

Except that, they continue to prove, serially, that they really are Fake News themselves by serially pulling bonehead moves as with all of the preceding. They are pissed, they are frightened, they are hemorrhaging both readers and cash, and they are quakingly desperate because they are also losing this all-too-important element: POWER. The power to make you fear their might, the power to lord it over you, the power to restrict and craft and fundamentally determine what is important across the United States.

The American Media Maggots are scared, they are desperate, and it shows.

BZ

P.S.
This is why you pay me the big bucks, ladies and gentlemen. To put it all together.