A Personal Review Of Trump and The First Lady's Two Years. The Partial Shut Down Canard. Hanson and WSJ Editorial Board On Mattis.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A woman goes to a counselor, worried about her husband's temper.

The counselor asks, "What's the problem?

The woman says, "I don't know what to do. Every day my husband loses his temper for no reason. It scares me."

The Counselor says, "I have a cure for that....When it seems your husband is getting angry, take a double shot of Jack Daniel's and swish it in your
mouth. Swish and swish, but don't swallow until he either leaves the room or calms down."

Two weeks later, she goes back to the counselor, looking fresh and reborn.

She tells the counselor, "That was a brilliant idea. Every time my husband started to get angry, I swished the “Jack". I swished and swished, and he
calmed down. How does swishing Jack Daniel's in your mouth do that?

The counselor said, … "The Jack Daniel's does nothing. …  Keeping your mouth shut is the trick.” 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The partial government shut down is simply another political canard .  The impact will be negligible, those who do not get paid will eventually get paid.  The mass media will blame Trump because he said he was willing to own it. What nonsense.

We elect adults and what we receive is child's play.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hanson and WSJ Editorial Board re Mattis. (See 1 and 1a below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++
A kaleidoscope review of Trump. (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)

The Departure of Mattis and Engagements in the Middle East By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON The near-destruction of ISIS in a matter of months (losing 99 percent of its landed caliphate), the restoration of sound defense budgeting, a reestablished sense of deterrence, and stable recalibration with allies were the signature achievements of James Mattis. And it seems a mistake not to have him finish a four-year stint at Defense. No doubt continued U.S. deployments in both Afghanistan and Syria loomed large in Trump’s sudden decision to leave the latter even if it would cause Mattis’s departure, as well as the sense that as 2020 looms he wants MAGA orthodoxy throughout the cabinet. The abrupt pulling of U.S. troops out of Syria is likely a mistake — given that for the size (about 2,000 troops on the ground) and cost of the deployment (few casualties), we were keeping ISIS moribund, somewhat checking Iran as well as Russia, and protecting the Kurds and what was left of the democratic Syria resistance. True, Syria was a mess, unlike a relatively stable Iraq in late 2011 (see the comments of Vice President Biden and President Obama), when the U.S. likewise abruptly left and opened the door for ISIS. Yet Syria’s future now is either going to be much more of a mess or soon a calmer colony of Russia and Iran. No doubt the U.S. will likewise be reexamining the soon to be 18-year-long slog in Afghanistan. The problem with all these deployments as they transitioned from emergency interventions to near-permanent stationing was that grand strategists never clearly articulated to the public how such investments kept the U.S. far safer and how long such basing would be necessary, especially in terms of costs to benefits. Both arguments in theory could be made (cf. South Korea), but the public at least never was assured by a series of Afghan deadlines, surges, redirects, recalibrations, withdrawals, and radical changes in command, tactics, and strategies, or by a Syrian tragedy of false red lines, lies about the elimination of poison gas, invitations to the Russians to adjudicate U.N.-enforced WMD compliance and with it entrance back into the Middle East after a 40-year hiatus, ISIS as “jayvees,” the role of NATO “ally” Turkey, and prior restrictive lawfare tactics, etc. Ditto the Clinton “We came, we saw, he [Khadafi] died” misadventure in Libya, ending in Benghazi. The irony is that under Mattis, we were finally getting to a smaller but deadlier footprint abroad and, at least in Syria, fulfilling Trump’s “Bomb the sh** out of ISIS” promise in the sense of more rubble/less trouble realism. Trump’s base is neither pro-isolationist nor pro–nation-building interventionism, which leaves something in the middle like “Don’t tread on me” Jacksonian realism that his generals seemed to be enacting. With the Mattis departure ends the Kelly/Mattis/McMaster troika of generals, who in retrospect served the administration — and the country — honorably and effectively in difficult times.

1a) The Mattis Repercussions

Why Trump’s handling of Syria and the Pentagon this week is so damaging.

The Editorial Board

Cabinet officers come and go in Washington with little lasting political impact, but the resignation of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Thursday strikes us as a major political event that is likely to reverberate for the rest of Donald Trump’s term and damage him in ways the President doesn’t seem to appreciate.

It should be said that the former Marine General resigned in honorable fashion. If a cabinet officer or White House aide can no longer in good conscience serve a President on a matter fundamental to his duties, then resignation is the correct choice. The disreputable course is to write a newspaper op-ed under the byline Anonymous, or remain on the job and sabotage policies like a bureaucratic mole.

The resignation damage isn’t that Mr. Mattis is indispensable or is the last “grown-up” chaperone for Mr. Trump, as the Washington cliche has it. The President will find someone to run the Pentagon, whether out of patriotism as Mr. Mattis did or ambition.

The more lasting damage will derive from the shoddy, humiliating way Mr. Trump treated the secretary and his generals on such a core military issue as deployments in Syria. Jim Mattis is not some neoconservative bent on staying in Syria for years. He is less hawkish on Syria and Iran than national security adviser John Bolton or Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Yet in deciding to withdraw all U.S. troops from Syria, Mr. Trump acted on his own impulses with little more than cursory consultation with his military advisers. Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has let it be known he wasn’t consulted at all. A month ago Gen. Dunford told Congress that Islamic State wasn’t defeated, but on Thursday Mr. Trump declared victory.

It’s one thing to advise a President and be overruled. But it undercuts the Pentagon’s authority to learn after the fact that the Commander in Chief has acted without so much as fare thee well. As Gen. Dunford’s immediate supervisor in the chain of command, Mr. Mattis must have been embarrassed as well.

This is about more than two egos, though both the general and Mr. Mattis are modest men. This is about the message Mr. Trump is sending to the men and women under their command. He is telling soldiers that he will act on uninformed impulse, after a phone conversation from a Turkish dictator, without deliberation or due respect. Mr. Trump should know that tens of thousands of his “deplorables” are in uniform or are veterans. He has stuck a finger in their eye.

Then there is the disdain his Syrian withdrawal shows for allies, especially the Kurds and Arabs in the Syrian Democratic Forces. These have been our ground forces in clearing out the Islamic State caliphate. They took the casualties. Yet now, and without any warning, the U.S. President is telling these comrades-in-arms to fend for themselves. If they are slaughtered by Turkish tanks or Iranian barrel bombs, Mr. Trump will share responsibility.

As Mr. Mattis wrote in his resignation letter, “My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues.”

If Mr. Trump were wise, he would ruminate on these words from an adviser who has worked hard and long to reassure allies around the world that Mr. Trump’s word is good. The alarm many of Mr. Trump’s voters feel—men and women who have stuck with him so far—is that the President will instead interpret this only through the lens of his own ego.

Journalist Robert Merry, who is sympathetic to Mr. Trump’s overseas restraint, wrote recently with regret that Mr. Trump is likely to lose re-election through “behavioral incontinence” and that the “biggest losers” will be his voters. Mr. Trump should ruminate on that too.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Trump is the first president, since Reagan, to touch third rails on many fronts.  For this, he is due a lot of credit because he is one of the few presidents who enacted, or tried to, many of his campaign pledges.

Having said that, enactment of campaign pledges does not necessarily mean  all is good because some of the pledges could prove wrong.

Trump was correct to:

a) Seek new trade changes, restrict N Korea's efforts to intimidate the region with missile launches, penalize Iran for its terrorist activities, address China's continued efforts to steal our intellectual property,call Russia's hand for interfering in our election and efforts to destabilize our republic.

He was partially correct to call attention to the corruption within our various agencies, particularly those dealing with intelligence, and he was not totally off base to suggest there was too much corruption in voting.

He was correct to jump start the economy in a variety of ways, namely through tax relief and re-shaping some of the rules and he was more than justified in cutting Obama's crippling red tape and rules and regulations.

He did not have the votes needed to accomplish as much as he would have wished. Therefore,  the fact that his avowed Republican party controlled all branches made for a good sound bite but was total nonsense and a distortion of  reality.

There other pluses but those cited , to me, are the main ones.

Where did Trump fail?

He failed in a personal way by going overboard in trying to please his core base and in the process he turned off some of his more tepid but numerically important supporters.

Renegades in his own party cut his legs out from under him when it came to Obamacare, as did overly liberal Federal District Judges when it came to his efforts in a variety of other areas.  We. also, must never forget the barnstorming efforts of the opposition party and their cousins in the mass media to beat him up at every turn.  Their vicious and distasteful attacks extended to The First Lady and his entire family.

When it comes to results, the China issue regarding trade and property theft remains unresolved and time will tell what he will actually accomplish. The same is true regarding N Korea and , personally, I always thought his characterization was overblown if not actually dangerous. "Fat Boy" might relish our seeding his nation with capital benefits but not at the cost of his nuclear program.

Trump's comments regarding NATO funding and our various allied alliances threw some salt in wounds that have raised various  concerns with  respect to our reliability of continuing to carry the load regarding defending those who are unwilling to measure up to their own responsibilities.

His latest move with respect to withdrawing from Syria is questionable.  I only see unwarranted  benefits to our adversaries.

His Oval Office personnel turnovers and the way he has spoken publicly of those whose performance has not suited/displeases him raises questions about his ability to entice the best to serve. Furthermore, his headstrong attitude may not allow more cogent advice to penetrate his thick skull. enlarged ego and defensive nature.

Overall, I give him some what of an A for effort,  B and C in areas of accomplishments depending upon the topic and a D for his own person.

As for The First Lady I would give her an A in virtually every category.  She is beautiful, she is stylish, she is intelligent, she is articulate and she has been a great representative of our nation.She also seems to be a caring , responsible mother, a devoted wife under difficult, and embarrassing situations,  and someone who is in touch and more than capable of standing up to the "crap" throwny at her because she is married to The Democrat and mass media's favorite "Pinata."

When it comes to the Trump Haters and his deranged detractors they have neither, in most cases, served the nation's interests or acquitted themselves with aplomb. I give them little standing because they have come to court with dirt, biased and vengeful hands.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++