The Clinton Saga Continues… Will It Ever End?

Maybe sooner than anyone thinks.  Coming from the Sensible Conservative, that sentiment may be more wishful thinking than realistic expectations. 

Sure, like the seemingly innumerable scandals (Travelgate, Monica Lewinsky, Benghazi, etc.) that have dogged both Hillary and Bill, the latest uproar over the possible quid pro quo involving Clinton Foundation contributions and the ex-president’s foreign speech fees may blow over.  But maybe not this time.

Consider that the main assault on the “appearance of impropriety” is not coming from the right.  Yes, the catalyst was, in part, an as-yet unpublished catalogue of suspicious Clinton transactions written by a conservative.  But the media focus has come from liberal publications, The New York Times and the Washington Post, in particular. 

Why now, you might ask?  Is the liberal media casting a baleful eye on the Clintons’ machinations where previously blindness had been the preferred affectation?  Has the accumulation of episodes involving Benghazi stonewalling, email defiance and now, the (at least) questionable foundation funding simply become too much to defend?  Do certain media outlets still possess some semblance of integrity which not even left wing bias will allow them to stomach the Clintons any longer?

We shall see.  If so, “mainstream” press coverage will no longer grant Hillary Clinton fawning attention as the presumptive Democratic nominee and first female American president.  This can only help the GOP nominee.  With a Republican victory next November, the Clintons will finally, one hopes, be relegated to a political trash heap.

************

A lawyer’s observation:

Mrs. Clinton’s defenders attack suggestions of “quid pro quo” by saying that there’s not a shred of evidence to support that.

They misconstrue what constitutes evidence.  A smoking gun is not necessary.  Criminal defendants, as a matter of fact, are frequently convicted “beyond a reasonable doubt” based solely on circumstantial evidence.  (“If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it’s likely to be one.”)

It’s entirely reasonably to infer - to conclude – that there’s a connection between the receipt of money and the performance of deeds desired by the source of that money... especially when there are numerous such events.  The old fashioned term “corruption” is applicable.

What’s the Problem with Brilliant Presidents?

At first impression, one would think America would be better off the smarter our President is.  After all, intellectual ability should translate into better performance, right?

Evidently not.

Consider the twentieth century presidents who are widely acclaimed –at least in retrospect :  Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan.  All accomplished and effective but none considered an intellectual heavy-weight.

How about some other presidents from the last century considered decidedly less successful:  Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter.  Brilliant all, and largely failures in the White House.

Why?

The job of the president is to make decisions; he has a staff to come up with ideas and present options.  Of course, a certain level of intelligence is a prerequisite to making wise decisions since one must have sufficient brain power to understand the choices presented and critically evaluate them.  But surely, common sense and experience have important roles to play as well.

 

Ironically, if our roll of successful chief executives is illustrative, it seems that high intelligence results in an inverse relationship with the presence of common sense and a willingness to profit from experience. 

Ironic, yes, but not really surprising.  Brilliant people are relatively rare so they seldom encounter their intellectual equals, much less their superiors.  The temptations of arrogance are strong indeed.  We’ve all met individuals in our lives who strike us as “know-it-alls”.  Most, as they mature, lose at least some of that conceit as life’s experiences humble them.  But there are exceptions, particularly if a person becomes president of the United States.    A highly intelligent person who is president can, on a personal level, be forgiven for believing that he is special indeed.  In fact, he is.  But this individual is likely to think, still, that he more than anyone else, knows what is best.  For if he didn’t, why is he sitting “on top of the world”?  Isn’t the arrogance he feels entirely justified?

So, the arrogant president  doesn’t need to listen to others or pay attention to the lessons of experience.  He knows what to do and acts accordingly.  With that attitude, disaster looms.  Think of Woodrow Wilson and post World War I or Barack Obama in the Middle East.

Please note that these observations are not meant to be partisan.  There are troubling reports that freshman Senator Ted Cruz, a prominent conservative and recently declared GOP presidential candidate, suffers from such arrogance.   Interestingly, like Obama, Cruz is a Harvard Law School graduate widely praised for his brilliance while also criticized for his aversion to advice.

 

Maturity and judgment are not matters of ideology.

Bloom Already Off Obama’s Iran Deal Rose

It sure didn’t take long for the petals to start falling.  Ten days ago, the Obama Administration was patting itself on the back for having reached an accord with Iran on a framework for slowing that country’s nuclear bomb development activities.

A few voices on the American front – not just conservative ones – urged caution rather than optimism, noting that Iran’s interpretation of the agreement differed from the Administration’s.

 

Well, it would appear that Iran’s “Supreme Leader” Ali Khamenei has denuded the flower.  He has just announced that all economic sanctions must be lifted immediately as a part of any deal.  This is contrary to Secretary of State Kerry’s “understanding” that sanctions would be phased out incrementally as Iran complied with the prospective agreement.  Further, the head mullah denied the claim by the Administration that Iran had agreed to inspectors having unfettered access to its nuclear program facilities.

 

So what now?

Undoubtedly, President Obama will insist that Iran’s leader’s declarations are not to be taken seriously:  he’s acting intransigently merely to quell the angst of the “death to America” crowd in his country.

 

Oh really?  Why will Obama not take the leader of the world’s biggest supporter of terrorism at his word?  Because our president believes in his ideological heart of hearts that he must try to befriend America’s foes with the expectation that their animosity toward us will dissipate (remember the Russian re-set button?).  So he’s strongly inclined to think that the hostility – and contempt – such efforts generate can’t really be sincere.  Any benefit of doubt  goes to them.  For those not committed out of loyalty or ideology to support whatever Obama wants, Iran’s rebuff should persuade America’s political leaders to kill, sooner or later, the promised accord.

What then?

Sanctions should not only continue, they should be strengthened.  And the objective U.S. policy must return to seeking cessation of Iran’s nuclear program, not merely slowing it.

Interestingly, Obama still claims that a military option remains if negotiations fail.  But you know he doesn’t mean it.  Be confident that Iran’s leaders know that, too.  So they recognize that they have nothing to fear.

 

What other conclusion could they draw from the President’s comments that the sole option to his deal with the Mullahs is war (and he makes abundantly clear that he doesn’t want that)? Rather, he seems obsessed with getting an agreement – any deal, regardless of the apparent obstacles the foe (our enemy) constructs.

It is noteworthy that in a span of only two years, President Obama has gone from saying Iran with a bomb “would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations and the stability of the global economy” and on the eve of the 2012 Presidential election promises that America would “do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from producing an atomic bomb.”

But now he concedes the right of Tehran to do exactly that.

[It is fair to observe that in light of the President’s frequent deviation from truthfulness (e.g. false descriptions of Obamacare and proclaimed opposition to gay marriage) that he didn’t mean to keep that pledge made during the presidential campaign.]

On one level, the “Supreme Leader’s” disavowal of key tenants of the framework accord seems foolish.  Doesn’t it risk an undesirable reaction from the U.S. which could be avoided simply by allowing more time to pass?  And, in the meantime, Iran could continue with its accelerated bomb production activities.  If the President were someone more realistic – less ideologically naïve – the clear answer would be yes.  But Barack Obama is our president so Tehran sees little to lose.  After all, he does want a deal, any deal, doesn’t he?

How pathetic – and potentially lethal for America and its allies.  What do you think Israel will do when it believes that Iran finally has the capability to destroy it?  The war Obama sought to avoid will come, and he will be a key reason why.

Happy Easter

Happy Easter!

See you next week.