Donald Trump’s transition may have started off slowly but it’s coming at us fast now. He’s announced Mike Flynn as his National Security Advisor, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III as his Attorney General and Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas as his director of Central Intelligence. All three are mind-bogglingly disastrous choices, so how can you give all of them the attention they deserve?
In these cases, I guess the answer is to be methodical. But, I know it will be hard to get enough attention on them because they’re not only in competition with each other, but there will be a new batch of announcements that need examination, and then another batch, and another.
Let me just give the briefest sketch of my problems with these three appointments.
To put it bluntly, I think Mike Flynn’s relationship to Vladimir Putin needs to be examined very, very closely. But what makes me sick to my stomach is that the position of National Security Advisor does not require Senate confirmation. To begin to understand my concerns about Flynn, you should start by reading a Politico Magazine article by Michael Crowley from their May/June 2016 issue. The short version is that Flynn was fired as the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and then wound up eighteen months later sitting two seats from Putin at the 10-year anniversary gala for RT, the Russian’s state-propaganda news network. He then began making (presumably paid) appearances on the network where he took a line that was very pleasing to Putin.
The American intelligence community was not impressed:
Michael Flynn, now a private citizen after a reportedly disgruntled retirement, was not there to gather intelligence. His attendance at the RT gala, before which he also gave a talk on world affairs, appeared to inaugurate a relationship with the network—presumably a paid one, though neither Flynn nor RT answered queries on the subject. Flynn now makes semi-regular appearances on RT as an analyst, in which he often argues that the U.S. and Russia should be working more closely together on issues like fighting ISIL and ending Syria’s civil war. “Russia has its own national security strategy, and we have to respect that,” he said in one recent appearance. “And we have to try to figure out: How do we combine the United States’ national security strategy along with Russia’s national security strategy, despite all the challenges that we face?”
At a moment of semi-hostility between the U.S. and Russia, the presence of such an important figure at Putin’s table startled current and former members of the Obama administration. “It was extremely odd that he showed up in a tuxedo to the Russian government propaganda arm’s party,” one former Pentagon official told me.
It’s not usually to America’s benefit when our intelligence officers—current or former—seek refuge in Moscow,” said one senior Obama administration official.
Those officials were being diplomatic. Perhaps Crowley put it more plainly when he wrote: “Seated next to [RT’s 36-year-old editor-in-chief, Margarita] Simonyan at the dinner and just two seats away from Putin himself was perhaps the most intriguing example of how the Russians have gone about recruiting disaffected members of that establishment…”
In a future post I may detail all the other signs that the Trump campaign is essentially “captured” by the Kremlin, but they obviously include the employment of campaign chairman Paul Manafort, the suspected secret server connection between Trump’s offices and a Kremlin-connected Russian bank, and the penetration of the Democratic National Headquarters, hacking of John Podesta’s email account, and selective divulgence of embarrassing emails by WikiLeaks.
Having Mike Flynn inside the White House at the right hand of the president is a clear national security risk, and it’s not paranoid to say this out loud, and with some volume.
With Sen. Jeff Sessions, I don’t even know where to begin. So, I’ll refer you to something I wrote about him in January 2014.
In 1986 (otherwise known as the year of Iran-Contra), President Ronald Reagan nominated Beauregard the Third to serve as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. During the Judiciary Committee hearings on his nomination, it became clear that Sessions suffered from a common conservative fear: namely, mouth-rape.
Like so many of his Republican brethren, Sessions was terrified of having things “rammed down his throat” by the NAACP, ACLU, or some “un-American” and “Communist-inspired” guy who might decide to attack his home with a small arsenal.
When it became clear that Jefferson Beauregard the Third was not only named for the president of the Confederacy and one its more more effective generals, but actually held the same beliefs in common with those two gentlemen, the Judiciary Committee declined to send his nomination to the floor. Alabama Senator Howell Heflin decided that Sessions was simply too racist to serve on the bench in Alabama, and so Reagan had to go back to the drawing board.
But being too racist to serve as district judge is not the same thing as being too racist to serve in the U.S. Senate, and Sessions got his revenge…
…he serves as the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts.
Because, GOP.
The idea that Jeff Sessions might be our Attorney General is as fearsome as it is despicable. But detailing all my concerns will have to wait for another time.
As for Rep. Mike Pompeo, he has some things to recommend him. He finished first in his class at West Point and served as an editor on the Harvard Law Review. He used his undergrad degree in Mechanical Engineering to launch a successful aerospace company before moving on to oilfield equipment. But he’s a Tea Party member, a climate science denier, and an extreme anti-choicer who doesn’t support rape/incest exceptions. He thinks Edward Snowden should be executed. He thinks the people at Guantanamo Bay look “well-fed” and are well treated. He’s a Benghazi nutcase and he’s a fanatical opponent of the nuclear agreement with Iran. He’s been denounced by the The Council on American-Islamic Relations for saying Islamophobic things on the House floor. What unites him with Mike Flynn is his outrage about Obama’s firing of Gen. Stanley McCrystal for disloyalty.
This troika of appointments is beyond troubling. Collectively, they are catastrophic.
Well, thank god when didn’t support that neolib, DNC forced-on-us, progressive sellout Hillary Clinton. She obviously would have been much worse, right? Plus, now progressives have the contrast we’ve been looking for. The revolution is that much closer!
Exactly. Because there’s no difference between Clinton and Trump.
If I had a $5 for every time I read that before the election . . .
Progressives really need to get their own house in order. We can laugh at Republicans, but way too many people seemed to think the DNC was some all powerful force controlling election processes in multiple states. Eichenwald’s piece on how uninformed many progressives are is pretty eye opening. Alas . . .
Eichenwald isn’t credible. Do you know why he was let go from the New York Times?
Some say the same thing about Seymour Hersh. It doesn’t mean they’re wrong about everything.
Seriously. And progressives need to stop chasing shiny objects (e.g., Bernie) and figure out how the system actually works.
So Supreme Court is gone for a generation, the Executive Branch is going to be full of racist warmongers who love them some Russia, but at least we didn’t get Hillary, who is too cozy with the big banks.
Ugh.
It’s amazing Flynn can get a security clearance
He was being paid to be a lobbyist for Turkey while sitting in for Intelligence Briefings. Supposedly the whole community hates him.
Plus he sent anti Semitic tweets, but bigotry seems to be a prerequisite for working for Trump.
.
Not according to Alan Dershowitz in The Forward …
○ Alan Dershowitz Backs Steve Bannon, Calls Left ‘Anti-Semitic’
And Trump backer billionair Adelson, Netanyahu’s buddy and personal sponsor, would have none of it. Same for billionaire Murdoch, formerly backer of HRC in the NY senate race.
Best to stop reposting nonsense, too much going around during the campaign already. Phony news has spread on the Internet through social media.
Btw, I’ve been warned for my “Jewish traits”, accused here at BT for my anti-semitism and received a blog death threat during my dKos year. Foolish accusations doesn’t effect me whatsoever. I know how people interreact with me in real life and the extensive volunteer work I do. Nothing shakes me anymore.
Both Dershowitz and Adelson are extremely focused on no statehood for Palestine. Their lens has proven to be if you support a 2 state solution or call out Israel for its bad acts you are an anti-semite. Bannon agrees with them ergo to them he isn’t an anti-semite.
Using that definition he may not be on the state level but I have read enough of his writing to feel comfortable saying he is on the individual level.
Probably best not to feed the republican trolls.
.
You just dont quit he asshole.
NOT HEEDING BOOMAN’S EXPLICIT WARNING!
I agree! And if Sanders had won the primary then lost the general, I’d blame Clinton. Blaming is fun!
And progressives need to stop chasing shiny objects (e.g., Bernie) and figure out how the system actually works.
Progressives know how it works. The system obviously isn’t working!! How do you think we got here?
They do? Then why did progressive candidates like Zephyr Teachout lose? Why did Colorado Care lose by 80-20?
No doubt progressive policies and messaging need to be a large party of our party going forward but please lets dispense with the progressive win of the party has all of the answers. Neither does the centrist wing of the party.
Single payer by a state seems a stretch.
That is how Canada got nationwide single payer. Saskatchewan instituted it and it spread from there. They were able to do that because they didn’t have an entrenched employer system. The US does so instead of keeping on pushing for single payer (when it has proven it is not popular once actual numbers are shown) we take what we have and use that to get to universal coverage. Strive towards the German system.
Still all of this is details. The point is that single payer has proven to be a stinker of an election issue which tells me that the way out of this wilderness is not to simply adopt Sander platform wholesale.
Scale matters. Canada adopted this in a time when their population was a lot more homogeneous and with healthcare costs not likely comparable to any modern US state. We’re at a much greater disadvantage getting single payer passed due to these realities.
Compare rhetoric with the War on Coal to what we’ll see if there are serious threats to the insurance system. Most with decent-paying jobs are happy with their health insurance and coverage.
Then why did progressive candidates like Zephyr Teachout lose?
Did Clinton carry the district she ran in? And by what amount if she did. I have no idea what the PVI for that district is.
Why did Colorado Care lose by 80-20?
Because a lot of the Democrats campaigned against it. Whether corruption or what you can argue about. Also, too, the way the SoS phrased the ballot question probably had an effect.
I am going to add just a little to your circular firing squad. Maybe, just maybe if the democrats had talked more about what they would do to help people they would have gotten a few more votes – as opposed to appealing to the ” moderate” republicans. It may be time to chase that shiny object a little more. It’s what got us here to begin with. it could be why we need a new face like Tim Ryan in the house.
I hear she sent emails. I saw it in diaries.
So both sides ARE the same.
.
I assume you have links. (just kidding. since this is obviously made up sh*t.
“I blame Cassandra!”
Boo: how much can lower-level bureaucrats and civil servants affect what happens in the various agencies?
I think Chaney showed that if you look around, you can find ambitious lower tier people to sign off on any thing. The people who won’t go along are forced out.
.
I was pretty sure Nixon showed this with the promotion of Robert Bork to AG to fire the special prosecutor.
That said, I do think Chaney proved that it’s so much easier to do now.
Yes,
And I’m sure it goes further back.
.
Honestly I am tired of re-litigating the primary wars already. Clinton lost. The fact that progressives Senator Sanders supported lost by a larger margin and the fact that Colorado Care got hammered tells me he would have lost too.
What does that mean? That neither arc in this circular firing squad has all the answers. Of course we need to modulate our policies and messaging to be more like Sanders but on the flip side the Sanders wing of the party should face that single payer has proven time and again that here in the states it is only popular in theory. When people see actual numbers it gets shot down handily.
My post got cut off. Why is that important (that single payer has proven to be unpopular)? Because it shows that the way forward is not to adopt Sanders policies wholesale. Neither is it to keep the party and platform as it is. It is to really do an autopsy and figure out what works and what doesn’t for the broad coalition that is the D party
If you’re so tired of re-litigating the primary wars, how come you’re still doing it? Well, you’re not the only one who can do it.
Trump won because there was such a huge desire for an “outsider”, that even a prick like him could beat Hillary, because there was no other “outsider” alternative. Sanders WAS an outsider alternative to Trump. Trump would have gotten the racist vote and everybody else would have voted for Sanders.
You cannot equate the democratic primaries to the general. In the primaries, Sanders did very well in the rural counties, and with minorities in the northern cities. Then we were told, “oh, he just does well in the rural counties, not the places that matter.” But if all those people who voted for him in those places had come out for him in the general, it would have seriously cut the Trump margins and we would have won states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
They would have called Sanders ‘socialist’. Well deary me. They called Trump everything they could think of and it didn’t make a damn bit of difference.
Actually I am not still doing it because I happen to think that while Clinton was obviously a losing candidate Sanders would have been as well. I also think that neither “side” in this debate has all the answers and we all have something to learn from each other.
You have to consider the dynamic of the race. The most important characteristic was anti-establishment. Bernie was certainly that.
No way to prove it, but I also don’t think it’s anywhere near as obscure as you make out.
And his favorables were (and are still ) MUCH higher than Trump’s. 54.1/37/5 vs 41.7/54.7 as of Nov.1st (and by that time, Sanders was long since out of the race). Doesn’t translate directly into votes but gives you an idea. Other polls consistently showed Sanders trouncing Trump (not even close).
I hear he also has a very nice lake front home.
.
Those polls are meaningless given Sanders was no longer in the race and not subjected to the endless puke funnel.
Those are not election forecasts, they are favorable ratings. Totally different. Not meaningless at all. Sanders was the only candidate that had net favorables throughout the entire campaign season. Clinton had bad negative favorables throughout, and Trump had even worse.
So while they don’t correlate with actual election results, they do add to the mix with regard to a matchup, because his favorables were vastly higher than Trump’s.
More to the point though, there were innumerable matchup polls between Sanders and Trump, and Clinton and Trump, and Sanders ALWAYS did significantly better than Clinton against Trump.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/29/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-he-polls
-better-against-donald/
They have a lot of caveats as to what this means for the general, but as we now have had the election, that’s all been exploded.
Don’t tell me it’s impossible to prove Sanders would have beat Trump. I’m just saying the arguments that he would have are a lot stronger than some people make out.
“But if all of those people who voted for him in those places had come out for Clinton in the general, Clinton would have won states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.” FTFY
You can’t entertain the counterfactual of Bernie running without accounting for his weaknesses. Could he have peeled off enough wwc to offset his weakness with african americans?
And yeah, if they only called Sanders “socialist” he could probably overcome. Pretty sure they would go much darker with Bannon at the helm.
His weakness with African-Americans when running against Trump? Give me a break.
You have evidence that he would do better than Clinton with African-Americans? Didn’t work out that way in the primary. FWIW, I would have supported him were he the nominee but I believe that he also would have lost.
There is a big difference between a Democratic primary and the national. Like most Sanders supporters, I voted for Clinton in the national — not because I like Clinton but because I dreaded the thought of a President Trump even more.
For the same reasons it defies common sense to believe that AA voters wouldn’t have come out strongly for Sanders had he been the candidate, including the ones who had supported Clinton.
In my comment, I referred specifically to Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, because these were the states that won Trump the election.
Sanders did comparatively well with AAs in Wisconsin and Michigan. CNN Exit polls gave him 31% of the non-white vote in MI. Overall he beat Clinton 56.59 to 43.05 in WI.
CNN Exit polls gave Sanders 34% of the non-white vote in MI. Overall he won WI 49.68 to 48.26.
Pennsylvania is interesting because even though Clinton won 55.6 to 43.5, the non-white vote for Sanders was 30%, almost the same as MI.
Most important, Sanders beat Clinton nationwide among non-white AS WELL AS white voters 29 and under; a lot of these people did not come out to vote in the general.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/huge-split-between-older-younger-blacks-democratic-primary-n58099
6
Remember, this is only an INDICATION of how Sanders would have done in the general. My point is, he didn’t rather well with AAs in those states. You were the one who brought up supposed weakness of Sanders with AAs and I said that would hardly be a factor in the general. But it’s even more so with rural whites. If you them in, I doubt Trump could have won.
Compare that with this:
http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sanders-would-have-crushed-trump/
Trump won in large part because a lot of voters were just not enthusiastic enough to go to the polls for Clinton. To counteract the actual Trump vote. As it is, Hillary won the popular vote decisively. It’s just she lost a few key states.
Sorry, I meant to write, “CNN exit polls gave Sanders 34% of the nonwhite vote in WI.”
No, that’s not right either — I got the WI and MI figures botched up. Let me try this again. It should read:
Sanders did comparatively well with AAs in Wisconsin and Michigan.
CNN Exit polls gave him 31% of the AA vote in WI, 43% of the nonwhite vote. Overall he beat Clinton 56.59 to 43.05 in WI.
CNN Exit polls gave Sanders 28% of the AA vote in MI, 34% of the non-white vote. Overall he won MI 49.68 to 48.26.
Maha’s got an excellent piece today that’s relevant to this question:
http://www.mahablog.com/2016/11/18/racism-is-no-excuse/
I voted for Sanders. It’s nice to play the hypothetical game but confirmation bias colors our analysis here and every side has something to point to as justification.
Still, assuming Sanders would prevail requires a few variables to break his way. For example, maybe white working class voters would have preferred Sander’s positive attitude. Or maybe they really don’t like cultural liberalism.
Would Sanders have loudly opposed open borders? Would corporate and centrist Democrats have fled to a more restrained GOP ticket? Would minorities have turned out to support Sanders?
It’s hard to tell what themes would have dominated the election.
seems to me you guys are re-litigating the primary b/c you can’t face the fact that voters disliked HRC more than they did the crazy T. and HRC ran an atrocious campaign. much easier to attack Sanders and Sanders supporters than try to learn from yr mistakes
RE:
Plus also too, polls consistently had his unfavorable/favorable deficit worse than hers IIRC.
That “fact” is thus in fact not a fact.
Favorables are not the same as vote forecasts, that’s the thing.
It IS a fact in the sense that anecdotal evidence suggests that a lot of Trump voters do not actually like Trump. It’s just that they dislike Hillary even more.
When you add that to the voters who actually did like Trump, that explains how he won.
That’s why this election was so putrid. It was a contest between two deeply unpopular candidates to see which one people wanted the least as president. Not likely to produce a result many people are happy with either way. Had Hillary won, I would have only been happy that Trump didn’t, not that she did. As it is, I consider it an absolute catastrophe that Trump won, and yet the one consolation is that the power of the Clintons has been broken in the Democratic Party.
I thought they were done for in 2004 when Bush won his second term and Dean got leadership of the party. But no, there she was running in 2008. Then I thought they were done for when Hillary lost that campaign to Obama. But no. He appointed her SoS and then when he won his second term in 2012, she resigned literally the day after his inauguration and began the campaign for 2016. They’re probably plotting something else now. But God do I hope they’re done.
I don’t think very many Trump voters expect anything good from Trump. At most I would say I doubt they appreciate just how rough a ride this is going to be.
“Vote forecasts” are meaningless at this point. We voted (or didn’t you notice?). Bizarre you’d even bring them up.
I refuted your false claim (identified by you as “fact”, LOL!!!) “that voters disliked HRC more than they did the crazy T” with two items of actual data (the only two items of data available and relevant-to-your-falsely-alleged-“fact” that I’m aware of).
Against this, you offer
First, it shouldn’t be necessary, but evidently it is, to review what you initially pretended was a “fact”:
(As noted, already refuted . . . with facts! Your attempted save fails because it’s irrelevant to whether your initially claimed “fact” is in fact a fact . . . it isn’t! [Kinda hilarious that Marie thinks that fail merits an uprate!])
Also too, apparently you’ve never read my signature line. Now might be a good time.
Finally and most importantly,
There, FTFY (“fixed that for you”).
You will not be permitted to disappear the facts of how Trump won, nor the implications of what that says about this country.
yes, T won, ppl are trying to figure out the nuts and bolts of it; no one’s disappearing anything. did ppl who disliked H more than they disliked T vote for T, whereas many neutral about H didn’t vote? I’d suggest that is what happened in some places. also think it varies by region of the country what the dynamic was.
You don’t seem to be particularly familiar with the post-election data. abut I’ll be a little nicer to you than you’ve been to me by pointing out that it’s not even been two weeks yet. The pre-election polling data was wildly off, and the post-election data is being interpreted now. It doesn’t interpret itself, but one thing does seem to be clear, and that is that a lot of former Obama voters either didn’t vote or switched to Trump.
So the plural of bad data is lots of bad data, and anecdotal evidence is a preliminary step in correcting that. But only preliminary.
“But for the top ranks of the Clinton campaign, the failure is not so much about poor decisions as it is about poor data. Their models showed that the best way to defeat Trump was to paint him as unqualified for the office of the presidency, which they successfully did. Voters just ended up not caring. As one top official asked: When your own polling shows you are likely to win and the public polling says the same, what would you have done differently?”
“The next Democratic presidential nominee will … be left to decide to what extent campaigns can work off of hard data and statistical models and how much the old ways should be reintroduced into strategic considerations.
“Sometimes I worry, as we’ve embraced more of the science of politics and less of the art, we draw boxes around people and have algorithms for determining how they will vote,” said Schale. “In reality, I’m not sure it is the most efficient way to win.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-campaign-politics_us_5833866de4b030997bc10520
Thank god we got a coronation of a shitty candidate. Thank god all the incrementalism of the past 8 years leaves a flimsy network easily swept away and results in a presidency with a miniscule.legacy.
Because of course there was a choice apart from that horrible incrementalism during the Obama administration. I mean, remember when Lieberman was just pining for single payer during the ACA’s legislative discussion? That’s why he threatened to caucus with Republicans if a public option was in the bill, he wanted it so bad. And remember when Obama was just like LBJ and had a 68 seat Senate majority and 295 seat House majority to work with? He could just work his will because he had so much flexibility?
Oh, you don’t remember any of that? Hmmm . . . I wonder why?
It’s almost like he wants us to forget the six years of total republican obstruction.
Hmmm…I wonder why?
I’m concerned at how well these picks seem to have been thought out politically. The two elected officials are from bloody red states and are unlikely to cost the Republicans seats – most of us can remember that Obama stripped a lot of politicians from the Senate and governorships and gave us some real electoral headaches in 2010.
In addition, they’re well chosen to actually get appointed in spite of problematic policy issues. Pompeo looks bad, but not in a way that Republican Senators are likely to vote to oppose. Sessions could be a problem, except that as a sitting Senator any Republican who denied him the nomination would be looking at a decade or more in caucus with him, so he probably gets through too. Now Flynn might be a problem even for Republican Senators (I’m betting McCain won’t be happy) – but that’s not a confirmed position.
Sessions could be a problem, except that as a sitting Senator any Republican who denied him the nomination would be looking at a decade or more in caucus with him, so he probably gets through too.
Sessions will likely get confirmed. Why? Traditions of the Senate. The Senate isn’t about to vote down one of their own, whether a present or former member of that chamber, for a new job
Plus, republicans have the numbers and they WILL vote in lockstep. Dems will have one or two vote to confirm. Bet on it.
Regarding Flynn, I’ve heard the same things from the more anti-war people here. And maybe it is time to end the Cold War. It’s been going on my whole life and I’m sick of it! Why should I give a damn about who runs Syria and what he does? If there is a reason, is it big enough to risk nuclear holocaust by shooting down Russian aircraft?
You condemn me for not supporting Clinton, but her hyper-aggressive foreign policy is one big factor, since you don’t want discussion of personal failings. This is policy, not personal. It’s reckless to propose shooting down Russian warplanes going about their lawful occasions. Kennedy did the same placing missiles in Turkey. I’m all for resisting Russian aggression but vehemently opposed to provoking it!
Admittedly, we are less likely to provoke Russian aggression if we just hand the White House over to them. Guess there’s that…
I was sure he would go in the ‘how is Sessions so bad? Isn’t it time to put the Civil War acrimony behind us?” direction.
Shows what I know.
.
All rational discourse is gone from this site. Now it’s just hyperpartisanship non-stop. No wonder you lost the election. The American people want answers not slogans!
Okay. I know I really shouldn’t feed the troll, but I just can’t stop myself.
They American People want answers not Slogans, so they elected the living Slogan machine who has never articulated a single coherent answer about anything?
Your reply assumes many fact not in evidence.
VITW: 5175
Beahmont: 338875
You got some fucking gall calling a person like VITW a troll. The standard Lunatic Liberal Wacks lost their fucking pants this time. VITW, like myself, is skeptical of the Politics de Jur in the Demo wack side.
Don’t toss around terms like troll, fool.
Since the election, it’s been Double Down on Identity politics on all liberal web sites. It’s like Election Day never happened.
Hillary was not going to get into a war with Russia. Sessions, however, is still an enthusiastic supporter of Bush’s invasion of Iraq, and Flynn has “been at war with Islam … for the past decade”.
This batch is going to get us into a real shooting war. They want it to be Iran, although the Russians may stop that. They’ll probably revert to the usual Republican playbook of looking for pushovers.
I never liked Clinton’s hawkish attitude and I also had serious misgivings about her no fly zone. But in the end, I never thought she was a sociopath on the order of Trump, nor that she would actually shoot down a Russian plane. The most important thing, however, is exactly what happened and what we are seeing now. We now have the true crazies running the place and we have lost the Supreme Court for a generation and maybe a good piece of SSMM and related social programs. Clinton may not have added much but she would maintain what we have, er had.
Exactly. But to advocate for normalcy just wasn’t exciting. It was go all in or go backwards for many progressives. Well, those many got one of their preferred options.
They got the reset they wanted.
Now they want to rewrite their history.
.
We’ll see how it goes. It is no secret that Putin maintains his internal legitimacy in party by depicting the world to Russia as one surrounded by America and CIA dalliances. Sometimes, true. Sometimes false. What he wants is for the US to stop developing anti-ballistic defenses and to stop placing them in Poland. I can’t really see Republicans giving up on Star Wars and not placing it wherever the US sees fit.
Just because the US will probably just end whatever its trying to accomplish by supporting the overthrow of Assad, doesn’t mean that there aren’t a number of ways to start assaulting the Mideast in new and exciting ways.
Trump is far too bellicose to stay out of things and seems just as prone as anyone else who has been in the office the past 30 years to be concerned that the US isn’t “projecting” properly.
We seem to headed back to 2000 where if the intelligence did not match the ideology, it was ignored. That’s what got us 911.
Not good working in a Republican administration with president-elect Trump!
Michael Flynn has written a book: The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies
○ Fixing Intel: A Blueprint for Making Intelligence Relevant in Afghanistan By Matt Pottinger, Michael T. Flynn, and Paul D. Batchelor
Ex-DIA head Flynn in my diaries …
○ US Creating a Sunni Principality in Syria
○ Ex-DIA Head: ‘White House Knowingly Backed Al Qaeda In Syria’
○ Early 2012, U.S. Intelligence Envisioned ISIL as a Strategic Asset
○ Obama Says ‘We Don’t Have a [Military] Strategy Yet’ for Fighting ISIS | TIME – Aug. 2014 |
I have a satelite receiver and have reception of numerous international networks. This includes RT and Al Jazeera. Since the proxy wars in the Middle East started in 2011, both stations have become mouthpieces of their respective governments: Russia and Qatar. The reception of Al Jazeera in English has been blocked across Europe, RT I hardly look at because of worsening propaganda.
RT in the news:
○ State Department spokesman, retired Admiral John Kirby, calls out RT reporter during briefing
Me too.
Also CNN, CBS, Al Jazeera, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, Fox News, PBS, etc.
I trust none of them. I take a little survey of the day’s news from Google, Drudge, Huffington Post (center, alt. right and weak left respectively) and other aggregators, then navigate to whatever none of them have reported upon or recommended.
That’s usually the only glimpse of truth that you will find.
The rest?
Blatant propaganda.
AG
Interesting that Trump is raiding the Senate and the House for appointments. Too bad that Democrats don’t have a way to pick up those seats.
too bad Darrel Issa doesn’t want a cabinet job.
That is what happens when you raid your uber-safe Senate and House Seats. No opportunity for an opposing party pick-up and bonus points for being able to return someone just as crazy back to the house or Senate.
Of course if Sessions leaves the Senate, I’m fairly sure the Alabama State Gov. gets to just make an appointment, no votes required. Given the nature of politics in play in Alabama, I’m really interested in how much worse of a person than Sessions they can find. Because they will find someone worse, that’s just a given.
These appointments have Bannon’s finger prints all over them. Sessions for AG is a dream come true for him.
.
Yes, perhaps Trump’s lack of interest is revealing itself at a very early stage. “Whatever, Steve-o!”
Hitler at least cared, haha.
As for Rep. Mike Pompeo, he has some things to recommend him. He finished first in his class at West Point and served as an editor on the Harvard Law Review. He used his undergrad degree in Mechanical Engineering to launch a successful aerospace company before moving on to oilfield equipment. But he’s a Tea Party member, a climate science denier, and an extreme anti-choicer who doesn’t support rape/incest exceptions. He thinks Edward Snowden should be executed. He thinks the people at Guantanamo Bay look “well-fed” and are well treated. He’s a Benghazi nutcase and he’s a fanatical opponent of the nuclear agreement with Iran. He’s been denounced by the The Council on American-Islamic Relations for saying Islamophobic things on the House floor. What unites him with Mike Flynn is his outrage about Obama’s firing of Gen. Stanley McCrystal for disloyalty.
Pompeo is also a Koch Brothers stool pigeon.
It would seem the name of the game for Der Trumper is rewarding those fawning courtiers who announced for the pretender early on. This is the sign of a foolish man who thinks “loyalty” is the chief attribute for a lieutenant, not merit.
Trumper’s historical role model had this same flaw, hence the elevation and (somewhat shortened) lifetime high appointments for lifelong loyal comrades Goring, Himmler, Hess and Goebbels. (Speer was the great meritocrat who of course ultimately betrayed Der Fuhrer–looks like Der Trumper is having none of that!)
Preening autocrats seem to surround themselves with mediocrities or malevolents—the malevolents have greater ability but hold the same brutal positions as the Great Leader, whereas the mediocrities are weak-mined lackeys who spend most of their time trying to determine and carry out the will of the Leader.
Bannon is obviously a malevolent, and needs no special training to be a “special counsel” to the prez. The rest of these guys don’t seem to have the qualifications for the positions announced, and indeed in the case of Gen. Flynn have been previously fired from comparable positions. He is also a Muslim hater, and possibly an anti-Semite. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III wasn’t qualified to be a federal judge and has never shown himself to be anything other than a spite-filled dummy. And what exactly are Pompeo’s qualifications for the position? Harvard Law Review? What expertise or knowledge does he bring to the CIA?
Trump is a mean-spirited incomptent, and we know from the campaign that he is motivated by hate, anger and contempt toward many groups of American citizens. He will have not the slightest concern for the niceties of the law and is going to bring a Nixonian retribution style back to the WH (the Nixon scholars here such as Marie will have a field day!)
With a small-minded and mean-spirited narcissist as the prez, the officials close to him need to be both competent and good in order to head off the middle-of-the-night-follies that he couldn’t resist as a candidate. I foresee these guys will be presented with many dangerous and boneheaded ideas from the (very small) mind of Der Trumper. They do not look to be the type of qualified and decent public servant who will find a way to derail Trump’s insanity. Instead, they likely think he is a political genius, ala Hitler. None of these guys will object to or seek to restrain the proposed Muslim “registry”, for example.
The world is in very great danger as a result of our failed “election”, and it will be interesting to see how soon buyer’s remorse kicks in for our incompetent white electorate. The sensible people of the country knew they hated their new prez last Wednesday. What will be worse, his malevolence or his incompetence? The curtain on our great national tragedy will be rising very soon….
Maybe not because the Trump gang has so far operated out in the open; whereas, the Nixon gang (and many others since them) operated in the shadows, behind closed doors, and sent out its magicians to subvert the media (not so difficult since the Fourth Estate is mostly lazy and gullible) which in turn bamboozled the public.
This may a be a good test of “the cover-up is worse than the crime” proposition. We’ll see if Americans are offended by the crimes because the crimes will be out there. Delaying exposure of Bush/Cheney WMD lies, torture, and spying on Americans gave them a pass on their crimes, but could they have escaped unscathed if not for the delay?
Well Trumpco hasn’t taken office yet so that may be a bit premature. It seems to me the modern executive branch is run in an inherently secretive manner, certainly on the (very broadly defined) issues of national security, and the Congress is usually complicit in this. A Repub Congress will be particularly complicit here: completely unwilling to examine and oversee a Repub admin, as we saw with Bushco. They are apologists, and certainly will not be a “check” on executive abuse.
Trump has not the slightest experience in gub’mint and operates based on stereotypes, so spy novels and “covert operations”. He sees (absurd) conspiracies everywhere. He ran professing to having plans that he couldn’t reveal, such as his “solutions” to Syria, ISIS. He spoke approvingly of secret military strikes and of not “announcing” strategic plans. He imagines that he was unjustly targeted for audits. He seems clearly of the paranoid mindset and that is also secretive. He sees the press as biased against him already. He is appointing third rate WH counselors as well–no internal check there.
If it looks Nixonian and sounds Nixonian….unfortunately the Congress of 1973 is from a bygone era; an artifact of the past, never to return.
heh He ran professing to having plans that he couldn’t reveal, such as his “solutions” to Syria, ISIS.
1968: Nixon ran on a secret plan to end the Vietnam War. May be where Trump got the idea from.
Not sure I’d describe Trump’s coterie as measuring up to third-rate standards. Regardless, third-raters don’t last long because they screw up too much from day one.
Again, Nixon’s paranoia, secrecy, and racist language would never have been seen by the public at large if not for his secret Oval Office recordings having been made public. Since then, the public hasn’t seen the private POTUS. I can’t rule out that any of them haven’t been paranoid, and no opinion is required to recognize that all of them have been secretive.
The Congress of 1973 probably wasn’t the Congress of 1973 that people remember. Democratic majority control and burglars had been convicted of breaking into the DNC headquarters and then began to squeal that they had been working for CREEP. Congress didn’t have much choice as to whether or not to look into it. Evidence (and I mean actual evidence and not evidence-free allegations) that Trump and/or GOP operatives broke in and stole DNC-files and/or PodestaFiles and the GOP congress can choose to act or not, but if they don’t, the public can choose to take the law into their own hands by ousting every last one of them at the ballot box.
Trump is mentally ill. He has a severe psychiatric disorder. He is a danger to himself and others.
I am not saying that to divest him of responsibility for his actions. I’m saying that because we need to understand what’s going on and not mislead ourselves. The man is very sick.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all
He’s being manipulated by Bannon and the Russians, it’s as simple as that.
It’s very easy to manipulate Trump if that’s what you want to do.
Perhaps — cons are known to be easy marks.
However, at the moment, I think we’re all being punked by Trump. He knows exactly what it takes to get the establishment, and particularly the Democratic establishment, all riled and over-reacting. The nincompoops that like the guy may or may not like his outrageous comments/actions, but the establishment over-reaction reinforces that they don’t want be associated with thin-skinned, intellectual elites.
Trump has the kind of street-smarts that extends to getting reactions from people, but it stops short of thinking about the consequences of his words and actions. He doesn’t know or care why people do what they do, other than how it can be good for him, so he suffices himself with getting them to react so he can use the reactions to take advantage of them. He plays it from moment to moment. And every chance he gets, scores points for himself. That’s the whole shtick in a nutshell.
Most of the establishment have no street smarts at all, so they’re easy pickings. Look at what he did to Hillary. You might think he was some kind of a genius until you realize that all it consists of is having no compunction whatsoever to act within the boundaries of the “establishment” way of doing things. And they, as destructive as they can be, do it ONLY within the establishment way of doing things.
From his point of view, this whole cabinet thing is just a giant “fuck you” to the people who voted against him. He doesn’t care about any other consequences.
He does care. Like all narcissists he wants respect and acclaim. Right now his sitting on the top of the world because as a political neophyte he put the kibosh on a political dynasty and took out the political dynasty in the making that was positioned to supplant the other one.
Bullies like to rub salt in the wounds of the defeated and that’s what he’s now doing. He’s never had to pay the price for doing that in the past when he ends up one done by his own actions because his adversaries were lost less by letting him off the hook. And he has no reason to expect that party officials and office-holders, Democrats and Republicans, and the general public will suddenly grow a spine and cut him down to size.
“Like all narcissists he wants respect and acclaim.”
True. As is your second paragraph.
But what I said was, he doesn’t know or care WHY people do what they do. All he understands is effects. This is a well-known characteristic of psychopaths. They have zero empathy, even when people do what the psychopaths want.
From “Psychopath Victim Support Community” forum:
“Normal human motivations e.g. love, fatherhood, friendship ( I don’t think the Psychopath has real friends – acquaintances and accomplices, maybe) pity, altruism, honour, trust, the satisfaction of a job well done, etc etc. are viewed as weaknesses to be twisted and exploited to the benefit of the Psychopath. The Psychopath satisfies its motivations by aping normal motivations ( often not very convincingly when seen up close and personal – words and deeds do not match) , pretending to be a person.
http://www.psychopath-research.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3673/What_motivates_the_psychopath_
read the whole thing. EVERY WORD fits Trump to a T. America has just elected a psychopath as president. BTW, his cronies are psychopaths as well. Bannon, Giuliani, Sessions … they tend to flock together, as other psychopaths are the only ones that they can identify with.
pressing this point when it mattered, before it’s now too late!
I beg your pardon?
I never said anything about Trump other than that he was an asshole, totally unsuitable to be president.
http://www.boomantribune.com/comments/2016/7/6/152219/5330/29?mode=alone;showrate=1#29
http://www.boomantribune.com/comments/2016/9/10/15218/8223/104?mode=alone;showrate=1#104
comments on the above comment:
http://www.boomantribune.com/comments/2016/9/10/15218/8223/114?mode=alone;showrate=1#114
http://www.boomantribune.com/comments/2016/9/10/15218/8223/125?mode=alone;showrate=1#125
And these:
http://www.boomantribune.com/comments/2016/3/9/165348/5151/52?mode=alone;showrate=1#52
http://www.boomantribune.com/comments/2016/8/5/17280/22684/15?mode=alone;showrate=1#15
Bush IV — the dregs take over.
A bit of a problem for Democrats with Flynn considering that he was an Obama appointee. However, he appears to be in-line with the winners in the GWB administration: let’s kill Muslims and not bother with baiting The Bear.
If Senate Democrats do their jobs in the confirmation hearings, Sessions and Pompeo are just wacky enough to reveal how nutty they are on camera.
With some luck, the first round of appointees won’t last long and won’t do too much damage during the interim. Then they’ll be replaced with more mainstream appointees from recent prior administrations because they haven’t reached their failing upward peak.
Rep Yvette Clarke
May not be one of the things that a majority disliked/diaapproved of about the GWB administration, but every little bit helps in defining TrumpGangInc as BushCo, with only the nasty bits.
Kobach has for years been one of the GOP lower profiles guys that scares me the most. He wears the mask of sanity ever so much better than his fellow travelers.
Here is what the Flynn appointment means:
It means that Trump is going to ally with Russia in the fight against radical Islam. It also probably means that he is going to try to make that alliance work somewhat against Russia’s alliance(s) with China. In the tit-for-tat, you-scratch-my-back-and-I’ll-scratch-yours world of big-time deal making, no alliances are forever. They only last as long as both parties consider them to be profitable, and/or one party finds a more profitable alliance that dictates ending the prtevious one..
Is Trump a Russian stooge? (Consciously or unconsciously?)
I doubt it.
It’s more like this:
Was Trump’s alliance with Christie permanent?
Only until it became unprofitable to Trump.
Then it wasn’t.
Quickly!!!
Like dat.
Only on a larger scale.
Is Putin a better negotiator than is Trump?
I dunno.
We shall see, soon enough.
Won’t we.
AG
are virtually unimaginable.
So seems to me that aspect has to be deliberate, on the part of Bannon et al. even if not necessarily (but maybe!) on the part of the 4-year-old about to occupy the Oval Office.
Look how far demonizing Putin got Hillary.
The American people see militant Islam as the enemy, not Russia. Until Democrats realize that, they will lose more and more elections, and become more and more irrelevant.
Russia is a problem only if you want to rule the world, as the neocons do.
Of course because over two decades ago TPTB replaced Russia (for ordinary people it was always Russia and not the formal name or USSR) as the big bad enemy with “militant Islam.” There was GHWB’s Gulf War (Muslims). WJC was buds with Yeltsin (an instantaneous mega-whoosh of neoliberalism). The 1993 WTC bombing was defined as an attack by radical Muslims. In the immediate aftermath of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, law enforcement and the media were looking for radical Muslim terrorists. 1998 Tanzania and Kenya bombings — Muslims. Millennium bombing plot and USS Cole bombing — Muslims. Americans were fully primed to see Muslims as the enemy before 9/11 and has been fully engaged in wars with Muslims since then.
(Also note that three decades earlier they had freaked about domestic AA Muslims.)
As much effort as the Clinton campaign put into pivoting from Muslims and back to Russia as the enemy, it didn’t resonate with the general public that had forgotten/erased that “we’d always been at war with Eurasia.” And it did seem to come out of nowhere for the general public unless we count the big bad enemy of USG/NSA spying, Snowden, who ended up stuck in Russia. Enemy narratives take time to build if a politician expects to exploit an “enemy” to get elected. (The Russia/USSR as the enemy was nearly three decades old by the time Tricky Dicky first used it to unseat a fine US House Rep.)
Yeah, exactly. I don’t see how Hillary thought she could pivot so quickly from militant Islam back to Russia. Especially since the Western corporate media was having a very hard time obscuring the fact that Russia was doing much better at killing jihadis in Syria since it started bombing there than the US with its vast coalition did.
After Russia finally intervened in Syria, the US propaganda machine lost the plot there. Sure, inside the Beltway, Russia is the enemy. Jihadi headchoppers are just people we use to topple secular Arab regimes. But it is hard to get ordinary Americans to think that way.
Speaking of ordinary Americans, you wrote, “for ordinary people it was always Russia and not the formal name or USSR”. It is not just ordinary people. It is also Hollywood. If you watch movies from the Cold War, the USSR opponent is very rarely referred to as the “Soviets” (or “Bolsheviks” for that matter). It is almost always the “Russians”.
So today, with our current Democrats, it is as if the Soviet Union never existed. The enemy was always the Russians. Communism never had anything to do with it.
As to your first point, I think the media has done a damn fine job in obscuring Russia’s role in Syria. Mostly by not covering that aspect and it’s too confusing for casual news consumers to follow.
On your last point, communism had everything to do with casting Russia as the enemy beginning with the Russian Revolution. (Put on ice during WWII because Russia was critical to the Allies succeeding.) Not that the ordinary person had much of a grasp of what communism, Marxism, and Socialism are and that the terms aren’t interchangeable. They just knew they must be bad because they had been told so.
Wow you’re an Islamophobic bigot. So now the way to victory is to support the war on terror? Russia is certainly successful over there — its killing civilians way faster than the US ever could.
Leftists for imperialism — if it’s the Russians doing it.
So, wanting to defeat Al Qaeda and ISIS is Islamophobic bigotry. No wonder Hillary lost the election.
Russia isn’t “defeating” ISIS or al Qaeda. Russia is bombing civilians to help their buddy and butcher Assad.
Since when did the left start to support bombing campaigns for peace? What changed? The only thing that changed is who is dropping the bombs. I thought the left opposed imperialism and war. Turns out they only opposed it because it was supported by he US. What a fucking farce.
::SIGH::
They are NOT ‘the left’!
.
You keep saying that, but it’s not necessarily true. Would you say Max Blumenthal is of the left? Because he has the same thoughts as this poster — the only people on the left (not the liberals because they’re always willing to get behind bombing on behalf of the US) that’s been consistent are anarchists.
No post is an island of itself.
.
We’ve deviated our opinions about the Near East ever since the Arab Uprising of 2011. From the Eurpean side of the Atlantic, I’ve scrutinized each step from the Libyan attacks initiated by the NATO alliance to NATO’s role in supplying intelligence [and arms by individual states] to the Syrian rebels in its aftermath. NATO and the US used the Al Qaeda jihadists in the overthrow of the regimes in Libya and Syria. Very much similar to the 1980s fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan with funds/fighters from Saudi Arabia and partnership with ISI intelligence of Pakistan.
Turkey played a dubious role as partner by permitting travel of extremists from across the globe into northern Syria. Same for arms / munition shipments by thousands of tons destined for the FSA [minor player], Al Nusra extremists and turning a blind eye to the Islamic State leaders and fighters. All was in coordination with the White House, CIA and the Pentagon. Assad was to be removed in weeks, Obama stated in 2011 and later years. HRC came and went. With John Kerry there was some hope, but there was never a thought out plan from the National Security team and Obama got complete opposite signals from diplomats and the military. See the consequences of Michael Flynn.
Difference between Russia and the US allied forces in bombing runs across Syria: Russians bomb areas with pockets of extremist groups which includes Al Nusra. Lavrov had accepted the agreement with Kerry that in the Idlib and Aleppo province, the moderate and extremists would be separated. This could not be done or was never feasible thus Russia and Syria bombed the areas where the extremists were mixed with moderates. Civilians stay put as they are not allowed to leave and function as a shield for the extremists.
The US won’t bomb these areas because they might hit the moderate rebels who belong to their Gulf State Sunni alliance forces.
Furthermore, for 5 years there have been a full propaganda campaign funded by the UK, USA and allied nations to set the framing of Syrian and Russian atrocities. It was from the start a fool’s campaign to overthrow Assad, just playing by the neocon playbook of the 1990s under WJC and later GWB. Obama went with those dark forces in this misadventure. Quite fortunate, the P5+1 made the nuclear deal with Iran to offset the Sunni dominance of power in the region. The industrial military complex of Great Britain and the US made massive profits from the tens of billions arms sales to the Gulf States.
With NATO and Europe, the UK and USA fsre following the same pattern by their forced agreement to double military spending/investment in military goods. The former Soviet occupied states of Eastern Europe, Rumsfeld’s New Europe, are used to offset the moderate western European nations which wanted to leave the genocides of WWII behind them.
The Dutch have suffered at the hands of Nazi Germany for 5 years [1940-45], especially the hundreds of thousands of its Jewish citizens who were slaughtered. We are friends now with the strongest of economic and political ties. Western Russia to the Ural mountains is an European state with ties going back for centuries to Peter the Great. The US and NATO in their policy for the 21th century wanted to divide the growing economic block of the EU with Russia. They used the Georgia War and the Ukraine coup d’état of 2014 to proceed with their aim to make Russia a pariah state.
Luckily for the Brexit vote, the UK will stay close with the US in partnership but the EU will be relieved from British militancy.
See my previous post here.
I don’t know if it’s your ignorance or young age that handicaps you in reading the Syrian situation properly. Those of us who struggled with sorting out the Vietnam War in real time when decent and reliable information was hard to come by but managed to stumble our way to getting it right (and consumed the wealth of information that later surfaced and confirmed what we had pieced together) have somewhat of an advantage. Still it wasn’t enough for most to properly sort out the Iranian Revolution and hostage crisis and what was billed as civil wars in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Afghanistan, and Lebanon. However, having that under our belt by 1990 has made getting an accurate read from faulty, conflicting, and complete official hogwash reports on everything since then much easier.
If US allies (with US assistance) quit supplying all the so-called moderate and extremists so-call rebels in Syria, those fighters would flee back to wherever they came from and the conflict would in a short amount of time. Then Syrians, those in the country, could peacefully sort out their differences and make their own decisions about their own country.
They won’t stop until Bashar Assad steps aside. Stop your patronizing bullshit.
Who are “they?” And how do you know what they will or will not do in the future? Talk about patronizing.
OK, since you insist:
From the MPL (Marie3 Patronization Lexicon)–
ǂ”properly”: the way Marie reads it.
Another MPL entry–
“accurate read”: Marie’s read . . . duh!
Compare and contrast with
It’s kind of amazing that you seem congenitally incapable of understanding how all that patronizing (see also: arrogant, dismissive, condescending, obnoxious, etc.) reads to someone else (hint: as patronizing! Often insufferable. As now [this comment representing me reaching the limits of my sufferance of it]).
with regard to knowing what others will do, iirc you didn’t know that your fellow Americans would elect Trump and yet somehow you know what the people in Syria will do? Are you hanging out with Syrian expats these days? Expats are almost never a good source of information.
I love the ageism angle here.
What this argument boils down to is… any US involvement is illegitimate because Syria is a sovereign nation. Russian involvement is justified because it is at the “lawful” Syrian government’s request in crushing what is an entirely Al Qaeda/ISIS/Islamist insurgency.
Therefore, Russian and Syrian war-crimes and war “accidents” are excused while US versions of these are magnified. A far cry from the attention paid to potential and actual US warcrimes from the Iraq war.
What’s laughable is the analysis that the Syrian people would resolve their issues peacefully were it not for US allies and US involvement.
You know what that looks like?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Hama_massacre
Truly pitiful in shallow thinking.
Pitiful group … keep om (t)rolling!
NALBAR and BEAHMONT
Hi, Oui. Please don’t drag me into your fights with other commenters here. I don’t have time for that.
If you take issue with a specific point do challenge it and I will do my best to respond or back it up.
I happen to appreciate your contributions here even if we don’t agree on every issue.
The pathetic trio: nalbar, Beahmont and marduk account for 90% of trolling behavior at the pond.
BooMan’s quote: STFU! Pls heed his advice.
Hama massacre– not even a footnote from a global perspective. Not on equal footing of the 400k deaths and millions of displaced persons or millions of refugees in today’s Syria being used by America’s fascist allies to blackmail the EU for Turkey’s membership in the future.
Hama been discussed before here @BT: conflating Bashshar with his father.
○ Pope’s travel and visit to the Holy Land, Jerusalem, Amman, Beirut, Cairo and Damascus (2005)
○ John Kerry meets with Syria’s president Assad (2005)
○ Israel in secret talks with Syria, agreed to full Golan Heights withdrawal (2010)
To nemesis nalbar, digging your hole deeper and deeper by
continuing to downgrade my comments. What a pitifull bunch of
people You have gathered nalbar. Reflects badly on all your previous
posts. Recentful, disingenious and such frustration. Get a life man!
See my diary in 2013 …
○ Fall and Rise of the Muslim Brotherhood
Oui, try to to understand the comment before responding with a diary-length post.
The point I was addressing was whether the Syrian people could handle their differences peacefully were it not for the US and US allies’ involvement in the Syrian civil war.
My thoughts are that this is quite unlikely, to the extent that I consider it absurd to suggest otherwise considering we are in the ~6th year of a violent civil war. I think this is unlikely due to Assad’s need to prevail to secure his position and that of those he represents. The easiest way to do this is by a crushing military victory. The notion I’m challenging is that there will be peace in the absence of US involvement.
Why are you bringing up US misdeeds from the past in a post that addresses Assad’s behavior as a ruling dictator in the present? I have never defended nor will I defend terrible US actions. It’s not relevant to the issue we are discussing here but allows you to deflect and distract. Stop doing this.
Good point, thx Marie3.
In the 60s, critical thinking was part of our education at high school and college level. During the Kennedy years, the administration opened the windows towards other nations with the peace corps and exchange in culture and sports. Even towards Moscow and the Soviet Union which represented a closed society (think North Korea or as Albania was) and truly inhumane.
Europe had gained great access in economic and political ties towards Russia and Syria in the first decade of the 21st century. Netanyahu of Israel was on a mission to solve the Golan Heights issue with Assad of Syria late in 2010. The EU had agreements signed with Syria for further economic ties under scrutiny of human rights and steps towards democracy.
The decision of George Bush to go into Iraq with approval of US Congress, representatives who feared a back lash from voters in the mid-term election of 2002 if they didn’t support the president, created the chaos and imbalance between the regional powers of Sunni and Shia nations.
Lebanon was already a conflict zone between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The UN used Syria to provide stability after the chaos from Israel’s invasion and occupation of southern Lebanon followed by a civil war. The biased participation by US forces in the conflict led to great loss of US lives.
I abhor the decisions made by the NSC, Pentagon and White House in handling the Arab uprising and participation in the raging proxy wars that ensued. No, a large part of the Syrian people want Assad to stay and offer security and protection. People should try to grasp there is always another side of the propaganda spoon fed by western media.
That was the lesson I learned in the 60s and Vietnam War. The turning point came in Feb. 1968 with the TET offensive which exposed the lies by the military and McNamara about the US gaining ground in the war. The loss of US lives, yes the body bags, became an issue and the protests were unstoppable. Martin Luther King spoke out against the war early in 1968. The two assassinations truly shook my belief in justice and “democracy” as we were taught in civics class.
Obama’s adjustment not to put US lives on the line in using military might and economic sanctions to settle international issues, is a great failure in policy. Not thanking all R2P war hawks in the choice of his advisors.
Hilly didn’t lose or gain any voters from “demonizing” Putin. Democrats were seen as the more pro-Russia party in 2012 so these shifts are meaningless and temporary.
What you’re right about is that attacking Trump by virtue of his support from Putin led nowhere. Voters didn’t care. But that is very far down on the list of reasons she lost. You overstate the importance for your own reasons.
We would currently have two parties antagonistic towards Russia had Trump lost the election. Even so, he’ll be getting lots of push-back from the neocons in his own party.