I think a good question for Trump to ask is: if we stay, who will we be shooting at and bombing a year or two from now? That's about all we've done for the last seventeen or so years (not counting earlier less strategic uses of force, like the demolition of the pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan in 1998). From today's column, my best guess is the target will be "chaos", and the results will be more chaos.
Using the time warn (pun intended) broken clock analogy, maybe this is one of those times Trump is right.
I suppose it's a shame that Trump can't uses today's column to attack Comey. Trump would be on Comey's side on every issue.
While we are kicking the tall man around, Wasn't he in charge when all those FBI stings were set up to con domestic Muslims into becoming terrorists so they could be easily arrested, and convicted, for trying to carry out an FBI orchestrated and funded "terrorist plots"? e.g. leveling the Sears Tower in Chicago (currently a Jeff Bazos project)
Preempting the OPCW inspectors reminds me of our expulsion of the UN weapons inspectors prior to the Iraq invasion. That very well might have been done because the inspectors were systematically debunking every bit of evidence the US had for the existence of Iraqi WMD, our rationale for the invasion.
Given Trump's visceral hate of proven facts, he might have feared the OPCW inspectors could factually negate or mute the rationale for the airstrikes.
And if Trump wanted to convince Assad that large scale maiming and killing using ONLY conventional weapons was quite feasible, he could point to the Saudis' Yemen bombing, where we lent a little help to our friend.
Sounds like the parties concerned are setting up a harmless "shooting artificial fish in a barrel" exercise. Seems better to me than an attack that ends up adding more corpses to the huge tally, while accomplishing nothing.
Its hard for me to see the context of the "line in the sand" outrage at the at the use of chemical weapons. The estimated deaths in the Syrian war are about 400,000, well over 99% of which were caused by "conventional" weapons.
The establishment message seems to be "we feel your pain if caused by chemical weapons". If not, "war is hell".
Trump, and most of us, had no attacks of conscience when we dropped the 21,000 pound MOAB bomb on the Taliban last April. The militarily and Trump were proud of the operation. I suppose the common understanding is that incineration by MOAB is more humane than strangling from a gas attack.
"Or is he just pleasing his infinitely gullible base, lying to them as he lies to them about his tawdry affairs?"
Yes. This is not only Trump's long suit, it's his only suit. Even if he sincerely wants to pull out of Syria, I don't think he has the the political savvy and knowledge depth to pull it off. Obama was a lot smarter and couldn't close Guantanamo.
Trump's output is akin to a slot machine, with one exception, no jackpots.
"No country under active UN arms inspections has ever developed a bomb."
In away that is the bloodless equivalent of successfully bombing Iran's nuclear capability. So if the reason all those "hawks" want to bomb Iran is to knock out that capability, they can sit back and relax, mission being accomplished by non-violent means.
But the smarter hawks all know this. I doubt that Trump has the staying power or intellect to be in that group. They dislike this UN nonsense because it it is an obstacle to it their real objective, to add Iran to list of failed countries, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, and that horrible work in progress, Syria.
The job for the hawks is made so much easier because the general public has little emotional involvement with whatever death and destruction our forces do because it is "over there".
On the other hand it is virtually a national emergency when several bombs go off in Austin, causing two fatalities. Maybe a little public empathy for the horrors caused by the tens of thousands of bombs dropped in the Middle East, with no promise of long term benefits, would slow the hawks down.
Pence is also a Koch man. I think Trump needs the Brothers a lot more than they need him. Trump is helpless when it comes down to getting things done. A good recent demonstration was his capitulation to the NRA on gun control, just days after he spoke like a gun control advocate, and chided congress for being intimidated by the NRA.
One hat in hand visit to Charles Koch is worth more than a thousand rallies with the lock-er-up deplorables.
( As an aside, I think "Koch Brothers" is misleading. From what I have read, Charles Koch is the brains and muscle. His brother might be on the same page politically, but he is not a driving force in the Koch archipelago.)
Seems to me that we'll have to stop living by the city-state king-of-the- hill paradigm and switch to the were-all-in-this-together mode. Can't do both. Trump thrives on the former and is steadfast that the latter is based on a Chinese concoction designed to bury us. And ironically, China is falling for its own hoax.
McMaster better be careful if he wants that fourth star.Trump has too much faux face to lose if Kushner get excessively tarnished. The tweets will tell.
How about Trump's threat to harm the lives of 690,000 dreamers in order to gain his legislative objectives, the wall and the Norwegian immigration initiative?
Not much objection heard about the Kidapper/ransom scenario for legislative negotiations.
We're transitioning from war fighting to "bombardment". As long as there are no US combat casualties (even one made the headlines https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/24/world/middleeast/syria-warplanes-turkey.html), the civilian casualties, and and turning cities and towns into rubble, have little or no affect on our collective conscience. Even the concept of "victory" is so vague in the ME strife, that military is off the hook when it comes to the scoreboard.
I'm sure that The Chinese Hoax theory can explain all of this, and do it in a few layman oriented tweets. Besides with the advent of ubiquitous "clean coal", what, me worry?
I know we should respect our president, but I'm beginning to think that Trump is a tall and somewhat portly version of a mynah bird. He says what he's heard most recently and/or most loudly.
I feel for the poor Trump defender who has to swing back and forth on the issues as Trump does his 180's. Like he was right to ask for a bipartisan solution that saved the Dreamers (whom he personally pushed of the cliff), and he was right to angrily reject the bipartisan solution, and toss in the "shitholes". Balance that.
What the big mynah says is the least important aspect of his presidency. If the media concentrated on what he does, they would have a much better story, exposing the cruelty and indifference with which he regards, the working class, people of color, immigrants. and anyone living in North Korea.
Personally I'm not all that eager to see a Mike Pence presidency, which would put Charles Koch in one of those White House guest bedrooms. I'm definitely for disconnecting Trump's BIG BUTTON, or rerouting it to a video player programmed to play a Bikini Atoll H-bomb test.
It's really the right that is taking the country apart, bit by wealth transfer/deregulation/degree fahrenheit bit. Trump just signs off on their work.
In my view Trump is just a right wing prop, put out there to distract the media and the citizens from the actions the right wing is taking to drown the government, or rather make it subservient to the rich, powerful, and owners of mineral rights.
I don't mean to say that the MSM avoids covering the right wing agenda, like tax cuts for the rich, endless sniper attacks on Obamacare, helping the fossil fuel industry make global warming a bigger threat, deregulating whatever the private sector wants deregulated, etc. But Trump's burlesque show is so bizarre that it takes the attention away from the constant stream of actions this right wing administration and congress take to bring America back to the good ol' days of plantations and company towns.
Someone who is incompetent might still understand a situation and know what needs to be done, but doesn't have the capacity to get things done. A stupid person doesn't doesn't understand a situation.
Our president is a stupid person (or wishes to project that image for political reasons) and incompetent. Of course being incompetent could help sometimes because it hinders him getting stupid things done.
I think it is unfair to criticize Trump for policy failures because I don't think he has the capacity to formulate policy or execute it. He could just as well be a Times Square billboard programmed by Bannon and company. You can't blame the advertising company for the taste of the soup.
Unlike Reagan, the Teflon president, Trump is the hologram president.
I think we need an alternative term for what the US does militarily. War implies us versus them for a tangible goal. In reality it's us punishing them.
My guess is that the well developed plan for "war" against Iran starts out with the biggest, longest, bombing campaign in the history of mankind. Somewhat like the opening bombing campaign on Iraq at the start of Desert Storm, but time 100. Nothing left standing that could conceivably represent the government or viable infrastructure in some way. Then send in the Seals. Then send in Saudi Arabia.
How come we use the term "Middle East Peace" to represent the goal of terminating Israeli apartheid? We never called the ending of apartheid in South Africa "South Africa Peace"?
Maybe if we stopped using that absurd euphemism for the total subjugation and control of the Palestinians and their land, substituting the "A" word, little shaming might help things along.
Maybe we've become accustomed to the notion that "winning" in the Middle East, is more like passing the baton in a relay race. After ISIL what is next? Arabs fighting Kurds, more Sunni vs Shiite blood letting, or maybe a military strongman taking over Iraq as a rightful reward for defeating ISIL.
I think another factor might be that Putin is substantially smarter and world wise than Trump. Trump has not done anything in office that demonstrates the slightest understanding of the extremely complex organism we call civilization. Nor does he publicly indicate a need to study up. So as others have said, Putin gets by by flattering the huge ego and bullshitting the intellectual void (or joking about tapes he's seen of the wild Moscow parties Trump has attended).
Isn't Hizbullah our Iranian terrorist demon also? Seems like the anti Iranian axis, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the US, keeps tightening the bonds that bind it. But what could go wrong with when we have Trump, a self-proclaimed genius, in the mix? Deal baby, deal.
My undocumented theory is that Trump is trying to bring his base to a boil in anticipation of Mueller bringing the hammer down with the Russia investigation. Per my theory, Trump wants millions of raging mad, 2nd Amendment, fellow travelers guarding his back when that happens. Just a theory.
Of course he already has AM talk radio and FUX (spelling??) News ready to help.
How can a powerful, wealthy, modern, democracy turn into a dysfunctional menace in a period of ten months? Answer: elect a rabid dog for president, and throw away the leash. Teeth marks everywhere.
As the rumble of the falls get closer and closer, maybe congress should think about a law or resolution that requires a Declaration of War from congress prior to the start of any military operations against any country that we are not already doing so. Might even mention North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela as specific no no's without the
declaration.
We've got a rabid dog for president, and it seems that there is no way to stop him from taking his next bite. Requiring a Declaration of War is not a sure fire restraint, given that many Republicans have the same inclinations as their pack leader, but maybe force a stop and think.
The notion that we, as a nation, cannot stop a cruel, incompetent, egomaniac, put in place by the electoral college, from starting wars as he sees fit, is more than scary.
My impression is that Trump's government is not at war with science, e.g. global warming, but against mechanisms by which the federal government is informed by science: hear no science, see no science, speak no science.
Science has a major role in protecting the community by discovery, analysis, and developing protective measure regarding a wide range of natural and man made phenomenon that could have an adverse impact.
An informed government is obliged to act against potential harm. In turn this could require public expenditures, an anathema to the Trump administration, unless for military purposes.
But but a know nothing government (by choice with this administration) cannot be expected to react to a phenomenon it knows nothing about, and at the same time create it's own science to respond to any public outcry about the phenomenon. Industries with potential liability are usually eager to help with this creative enterprise.
The legendary Speaker of The House , Tip O'Neill, used to say "all politics are local". A corollary might be "all values are local". No US media outlet would dare make a comparison of the humanitarian hardships in Houston and the hardships in Mosul.
Of course, that makes it much easier for a US president to drop a bomb wherever he so chooses in the "them" world.
Maybe this will enable the media to drop coverage of four star Marine general Kelly. No disrespect for the general, but I'm sure it is easier to get a few hundred thousand Marines to do his bidding, than to influence a DNA verified zombie, who will probably ask him to find a job for his buddy, the sheriff, at ICE.
Sort of an aside, but I think 1%/99% concept is a convenient concept to ignore the poor. The implication is that the bottom 20% with an average annual income around $25,000 is in the same boat as the 80 to 99% group with an average annual income of $265,000. There's got to be a difference in urgency between putting food on the table, and putting a Porsche in the garage.
Of course the conservatives (and many "moderates") are more concerned with the Porsche problem (ugh, taxes) than the food issue (ugh, food stamps).
White Supremacy is like a cosmic Confederate patriotism that survived the Civil War. It's a patriotism that feels so comfortable to those with unfilled needs for superiority, that it finds favor well beyond the borders of the Confederacy, eg President Trump of New York.
Those Confederate statues, flags, and memorabilia reinforce that patriotism, and justify violence, because few events in our history have been as violent as the Civil War. Robert E Lee was an legendary expert at military violence.
Every statue and flag removed is step in the right direction.
Thank you Prof Cole. You'd think from a lot of the media coverage that more order in the White house is good thing.
Since the GOP/ Republicans/ Tea Party/ Charles Koch control congress, the only thing that slows the Trump/Bannon agenda down is the disorder. And that's a good thing.
(second try, couldn't beat the editing clock on first try)
Since Trump is determined to destroy Obamacare because he can’t repeal it, I think an appropriate popular label for this particular sadism is DONTCARE (derived simply from DONald Trump).
We, the UK, and others are waging a very extensive war against ISIL. Tens of thousands of airstrikes dropping tens of thousands of bombs. Plus we are supporting other nations in their fight against ISIL So when a person claiming to be an ISIL agent, operative, ally, sympathizer, commits a violent act in a country at war with ISIL, is that terrorism or the ebb and flow of warfare?
I'm not questioning the validity of going to war against ISIL, but it seems that we ought to expect them to try and attack us with whatever means they have. We've been killing and maiming civilians in the Middle East for fifteen years but console ourselves by calling it collateral damage.
Is global warming an existential threat to the very rich? I think that they can avoid the discomforts and find profitable ventures regardless of the hardships and devastation that will be born by those who don't have the wherewithal to cope. The rich will always find and control that temperate and fruitful archipelago, wherever it happens to be .
But they will need pervasive security and surveillance to protect them from the rabble. All this is now within reach. We already have the surveillance state, and the police are gradually becoming militarized. I think this is Donald Trump's vision. His attacks on free speech and the news media are essential to suppress ground up democracy. A few good tax cuts for the rich, especially dropping the inheritance tax, and some non-judicious court appointments, will help solidify the oligarchy he envisions.
It's human nature to not really give a damn about other peoples hardships that have no affect on ones self. we've shopped vigorously through fifteen years of war, turmoil, death and destruction in the Middle East. Why expect the oligarchs to sweat coastal flooding, droughts, and monster weather events?
Britain "is currently part of a US-led military coalition bombing ISIL facilities in an attempt to defeat the organization."
An abiding principle of our defense strategy is that the enemy will never be afforded sanctuary. During the Vietnam War the Vietcong sanctuaries in Laos and Cambodia were severely dealt with by US air power. The war against the Taliban included many drone strikes in Pakistan, The war against al Qaeda started with a war against its host country, Afghanistan, and eventually bombing Somalia, Libya, and Yemen. Our enemies can run but never hide.
But we can't imagine our homeland, or Britain's, or France's to be seen by our enemies as sanctuary, and thus legitimate targets. The big difference is that the West has massive military forces that can bomb and destroy virtually any target on earth without losing a drop of Western blood. ISIS resources limits it to doing Manchesters. As horrific as these incidents are, they are part and parcel of asymmetric warfare.
Iran is a "designated enemy", sort of like Cuba was/is. Ever since the Hostage Crisis in '79 we Americans have been conditioned to dislike, distrust, hate Iran. We assisted in Saddam Hussein's unprovoked attack on that country, no problem. We shoot down a Iranian Airliner, killing all 290 people on board, no tears, their fault. And our enduring position that a military attack on Iran is "always on the table". Why don't they like us? The Shah police state liked us.
We like the Saudis need a big capable designated enemies to justify our military budgets (although ,for us, Russia and China are juicer by far for that purpose).
Given Trumps affection for despots and monarchs, I would venture that his anti-terrorism is more directed at those who use violence to upset the status quo in our favored countries. When that sort of thing occurs in a country on our designated enemies list, it's characterized as bravery.
Unless the FBI already has them, a good place for Mueller to start might be getting a hold of Trump's tax returns. Of course he has nothing to hide, but still....
Maybe Russia didn't put Trump in because they needed a friend in the White House, rather they wanted an incompetent bumbler that could screw up a lot of things up in the US, and ruin our international reputation. Couldn't have found a better choice.
"people may end up driving Indian and Chinese electric cars"
and even the Ford, Chrysler, and GM markings on them will be made in either country. Follow the leader, if you can't make it, brand it.
Putin does not deny global warming but he attributes it to natural causes instead of the increase of greenhouse gasses. No indication that he's considering the Chines hoax theory that our leader espouses.
But he does say that those affected must adapt to the climate change, whereas the Trump position is that there will be no adaptation plans and funding. And none of the departments will consider global warming as a factor in their planning and operation.
What a pair. Putin - Burn baby burn, but adapt to natures whims. Trump - Burn baby burn. What, me worry?
Future slang for characterizing ultra warm day - "Hotter than a Chinese hoax"
I agree with you. Why is it taking so long to investigate the Trump-Russia connection. One would think that a case such as this would warrant the FBI's more serious attention and supported with heavy resources. There must have been some evidence of of the connection to justify opening the investigation in the first place. Maybe not a smoking gun, but at least a warm gun.
And at the hearing Comey stated he had no idea how much longer the investigation would take. Almost get the impression that the case has been given to a very busy agent to add to his "to do" list, but no rush.
At the conspiracy theory level, the evidence might be so conclusive and damning that revelation must be delayed until some plan is developed to cope with a leadership problem that makes Watergate look like a parking violation.
I wonder if she read him the riot act on global warming. Must be difficult for one of the world's most competent leaders to sit and chat with the Leader of the Free World, knowing he is a denier.
"To acknowledge this painful historical fact does not “delegitimize” Israel, any more than acknowledging the Trail of Tears delegitimizes the United States of America."
What's the big deal about delegitimizing. We do it all the time. Iraq was legitimate when it attacked Iran, but delegitimized when it attacked Kuwait. We legitimized Gaddafi Libya in 2006, and delegitimized his regime in 2011, using the most physical method. In 1969 Nixon legitimized Rumania, a communist state with strongman leadership.
The context being the Holocaust, Israeli actions against the indigenous Palestinians in the late 40's were blurred into acceptance by the West. The context has since changed but the Israelis treatment of the Palestinians has not. Delegitimization of Israel would be massively extreme in a political sense, but not uncalled for in a humanitarian sense.
From 1963 to 1967 Netanyahu attended and graduated from a US high school in PA. So he was present during the ongoing the civil rights battle to bring Jim Crow to an end. If he was politically curious at the time he couldn't help but notice the highly structured racial segregation in the Southern States, and the proud adherence to, and defense of that structure by most southern whites.
Not to suggest or imply a connection, but it sounds like he and Trump were visualizing an Israeli endpoint goal for the Palestinians very similar to the standing of blacks in any of the Jim Crow states. Of course you could say that the Palestinians are almost at that endpoint now. There are similarities between the racial attitudes of the ardent white segregationists, and the neo-Zionist Israelis attitudes towards Palestinians. Don't have to go all the way to South Africa to find analogous behavior.
Maybe some non-Muslim dominated countries thought they were safe from Trumps wolf pack, but Nikki Haley, our new UN ambassador cleared the air on Friday, Jan 27 in her first UN speech. She spread the inclusiveness quite a bit.
Extract:
“You’re going to see a change in the way we do business,” Ms. Haley said. “Our goal with the administration is to show value at the U.N., and the way we’ll show value is to show our strength, show our voice, have the backs of our allies and make sure our allies have our back as well.”
I think the next show to watch will be the far and wide actions of the Trump administration, and his congressional core of sheep, to shut this thing down. "Please address any question on this matter to Ms Kellyanne Conway.", "Leakers will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law." " The public at large is forewarned that anyone using this fake material to cast doubts on the President shall be publicly humiliated via concatenated tweets using the full NSA, CIA, and FBI dossiers."
Here is the math.
Wisconsin - Clinton would have won the state if she sucked in 1.6% of Trump voters
Pennsylvania - 1.8%
Michigan - 0.5%
Considering that these are swing states with close votes, there were no doubt a good number of fence sitters who could have been swayed to Trump because of the hacking.
In the few months prior to the war there was glaring public information that strongly indicated that there were no WMD. I'm talking about the what the the UN inspectors found when they visited sites in Iraq that the CIA had identified to most likely to have WMD. They found nothing, site after site. Yet somehow the media, the administration and the congress seemed little moved by these first hand observations.
There must have been analysts in the bowels of the CIA that took the UN inspection results seriously. They must have concluded that their WMD intelligence was wrong, or at least highly suspect. But not a peep was heard.
A rational response to the UN findings would be to rethink the whole WMD premise, and grant the inspectors more time and resources for their searches. But rationality would poison the enthusiasm for the easy war to come. The inspectors were told to pack their bags and go home. Let the shock and awe begin.
Why is is Iran so much an enemy of the US that its destruction (our only proven ability) seems a reasonable objective to many senior officials?
My own opinion is that we do not like strong independent nations in regions where we have an interest of some sort. Any death and destruction we must deal out to achieve our ends is something we can get over. Empathy shmempathy.
Good examples of our past mischief. I wonder if we still have a hand in the continued ruination. Venezuela.
Mr. Snowden Gave us a good look at how massively aggressive our superbly equipped computer warriors are. If we think it's important to hack Angela Merkel's cell phone, could there be anything not worth hacking in Russia? Could the Russian intrusion be a quid pro quo for our intrusions and mischief we do to them?
I do think the Podesta email revelations hurt Clinton, at least at the margins. The right has a well honed capability to turn a flea into a rotting whale on the beach. Defiling Clinton has been a 24/7 right wing effort for years, so new material is always welcomed and needed. Right wing radio can spend hours proving the criminality of a misplaced comma.
I think the term "climate change denier" should be changed to "climate change ignorer".
In my view, the deniers who are public figures are smart enough, and alert enough to grasp the reality of global warming and its downstream consequences. The denial is rooted in political, business and economic interests that are threatened by actions to mitigate the affects of the warming.
If we started to call them ignorers instead of deniers, some might get squeamish enough to change their public views.
I think his ego is taking a big hit from the huge Clinton lead in the popular vote. Someone with an ego the size of Trump's cannot cope with the notion that many more people voted for his opponent that for him.
From this time forth US history will note that he is one of the very few presidents that won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote (and by the largest margin ever). The only way he can cope with this is to make up lies like the millions of illegals voting, and claiming he could easily have won the popular vote if just concentrated his campaign on the East and West coasts, which contradicts the illegals story. Professor Cole is so right, Trump can't handle the truth.
I don't think we can expect Trump to become a global warming believer, at least not in public. When he replaced Christie with Pence as his transition boss, he virtually put the transition in the hands of the Koch brothers (mainly Charles) . You can't get much closer to the brothers than Mike Pence https://www.thenation.com/article/vice-president-mike-pence-would-be-a-dream-for-the-koch-brothers/
When Trump won he had no power block watching his back. The Republicans in congress don't like him, and the Democrats don't like him. But now with Spence, a Koch man thru and thru, heading the the transition he has the smartest, biggest, richest political operation in the country on his side. When Donald sits down with Charles to discuss climate change, he will come away less a denier (hoax) but sadly convinced nothing need be done right now. And I think he will be quite impressed with the man.
Many of Trump's supporters are not inquisitive about government and politics in general, but there is a good reason, they get all the information they need from right wing talk radio. And the information they get is presented in dramatic detail. Rush Limbaugh might spend a half hour just explaining the criminality exposed in one of the hacked emails. In my area he is on three hours, followed by a lessor of his ilk for another hour or so.
All ten of the things Juan listed at the top are convincingly explained away by Limbaugh and all. Convincing to those who believe that only right talk wing radio is correct, and have contempt and full distrust for the elite, gun confiscating, socialists that command the rest of journalism.
Right wing talk radio gives its listeners so much hate and conspiracy, that whatever their shortcomings, they have good reason to suspect it's not of their own doing. (The real world journalism would also give them quite a few suspicions, but for reasons beyond the very existence of Hillary Clinton and the rest of the socialists, a euphemism for Communists.)
Assume a nation state that relied on carbon based exports for its wealth, now no longer has a market for its exports. What can it do to create new sources of wealth? Is it possible to be competitive with industrial giants like China in the export of finished goods, or the intellectual resources to compete with an interconnected world full of smart people? If the state does not have the natural resources to feed its population how can it pay to import food and other necessary products for survival?
Going 100% renewable is a good start towards survival when the oil no longer has a market, but what next? The world is full of poverty stricken nation states that are, for a variety of reasons, unable to improve. Maybe a master plan is needed.
Trump is the "What, me worry?" app. As we strive for ever increasing convenience, Trump provides it by eliminating our need to confront details. Just touch the screen in the right spot.
When a non-Muslim commits a mass murder the generally accepted motivations are like mental instability, loner, trouble finding love (same sex or opposite), bad boss, bullied at school or work, affection for Hitler, loss of custody fight, loss of the Civil War......could be all of the above. The public generally accepts these rationals.
When a Muslim does it, it's radicalization. The FBI then intensely looks for the culprit. The popular notion seems to be that a Muslim in America that has family and cultural ties to the countries in the Middle East on whom the US has unleashed its military might, has no reason to be hostile towards us. If such hostility exists, the reason is radicalization by a sinister force. Even when the terrorist says that is the exact source of the hostility.
Maybe with the capture of Mosul and defanging of Daesh, the final bloody solution for Iraq can begin to take shape. The Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds can fight seriously for their own final objectives.
I think that by now the US concept of "stabilization by air strikes" has pretty much run its course, without any stabilization to show for it. The post Mosul/Daesh violence will be among parties that that are not clear enemies of the US, so it's a good time to get out and stay out. Time to pivot towards the plowshare industry.
I think the general public is entirely out of the loop when it comes to Middle East interventions. The objectives are vague, the results indescribable, and to channel Yogi Berra, everyday is "Groundhog Day".
Since US casualties in the more recent interventions, and ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, are virtually non-existent, The whole thing has an air of outsourcing. The military operation is like an "airstrikes on request" open ended administration contract.
Clinton does seem like a perfect fit for continuation of the bombing for peace paradigm. Worse yet it seems like she actually has faith in it, where I doubt Obama does.
The President's hyper-ation console has two big buttons. The red one, marked DESTROY, is directly connected to to the vast Military Industrial Complex to insure that no weapon is left behind.
The other button, white, marked REBUILD, is not actually connected to anything.
In this country the most tenacious, pernicious, ubiquitous, and destructive social problem is racial prejudice against blacks, and its consequences. And it all started with the Founding Father's inability or refusal to extend their "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" doctrine to their black slaves. Freedom is an easy word to throw around, by anarchists on up to dictators, but it's not so easy to establish and maintain.
To me it seems peculiar that the findings of the UN WMD inspection team are almost never included in the discussion. The team used the best intelligence the CIA had about where the WMD were, and never found anything.
But instead of considering that their might not be any WMD, Bush, with all the power brokers support, decided to throw the inspectors out and invade. Any pleas to give the inspectors a few more months were summarily dismissed.
Maybe the thinking was that if the inspectors were given a few more months, the WMD invasion rationale would evaporate. Good for the millions of Iraqis, but not for our neocon leadership (including a sitting lady senator of some note).
What a different world we would have today if we trusted Hans Blix instead of George W Bush.
I would say say that slavery is a bit more severe curtailment of freedom than religious intolerance. Freeing slaves does not appear to have even been an agenda item, but it certainly appears that freedom from religious persecution was of the utmost concern.
What American values were at work when we cheered the invasion of Iraq, then basically ignored the consequential destruction of the country. President Obama can order the destruction of any target, or person, in the Middle East (except any in Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Israel, and Egypt) and most Americans, and 99% of our politicians would not bat an eye.
Likewise no eye batting if Daesh, or some other activity blows up a market place , killing 50 shoppers.
America has very strong positive values, but they end at the shore, where "don't tread on me and my national interests" begin.
Is it conceivable that Daesh, having been on the receiving end of thousands of US air strikes ( about 40,000 bombs or other munitions), would contemplate a retaliation on the US homeland? Without getting into strategies and individuals, isn't that part of warfare?
It looks like "our protectorate right or wrong" just went a little more wrong. No doubt that, during the election campaign, the candidates will still double-down on our sworn allegiance.
I remember a comment Clinton made when Mubarak was overthrown. She said the Mubaraks were like family to the Clintons. She seemed quite comfortable with his ilk.
Though maybe not a prime mover in the birthing of Daesh, she certainly lent her prestige (manufactured rather than earned, in my opinion) to all the neocon rhetoric and actions that brought the Middle East to where it is today. Never the lone or lonely voice of dissent.
"Syria’s al-Qaeda reports directly to 9/11 mastermind Ayman al-Zawahiri, who now leads al-Qaeda."
Slightly off topic but it seems that the US hunt for al-Zawahiri , which must be huge, doesn't get any media or political play. The hunt and capture/killing of bin Ladin was always on the mind, and the his killing was immortalized somewhat like the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima.
You would think that at least the GOP candidates would be nagging Obama (and Clinton of course) about not getting al-Zawahiri, even though he was running al Qaeda at the time bin Ladin was done in. The reason could just be lack of name recognition on the public's part.
My personal choice for the hunt's code name: "Is there a doctor in the house?" (droned if affirmative)
extract:
"His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable."
My reading of this is that "expansive" is the key word. It implies that a modest use of torture is OK, not zero torture as required by law. Gives Trump the green light as long as his war crimes do not rise to the "expansive " level, however you measure that metric.
Obviously these GOP National Security Leaders inserted "expansive" to give Bush, Cheney, Tenet, Yoo, Addington, et al breathing room. Presumably their use of torture was modest, as opposed to "expansive".
I think it's hard for politicians that pray at the wall of tax cuts to discuss a subject that may require a lot of public spending. Unless of course it's for "defense". There was no political outrage when Obama proposed modernization of the nuclear arsenal that could cost a trillion dollars over the next 30 years, https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/USNuclearModernization. No "where's the money coming from?" screaming.
The commercial mass media knows that it's better all around, for advertising revenue and candidate comfort, to stage food fights instead of challenging the candidates to come to grips with a very significant and unpleasant reality.
To get things moving it will probably require that some very politically powerful conservative deniers switch sides and take the herd along with them. Sort of a "NIxon goes to China" moment. Hate to say it, but right now only the seriously deficient Trump/Christie combo have that potential, and Christie happens not to be a denier.
Just one more thing that has to wait till the genetic engineers can get those pigs in the air.
Obviously Mr Trump gets political correctness (PC) right, in the SC Republican context.
If there is any money left in the Bush PAC, it should be spent to on John Kasich. I'd still vote for Sanders, but if he loses the country will be better off if it's not to the fascist or the hate-Cuba-Cubans.
I don't think the pope was trying to influence the voting. And I think he was casting a wider net than just Trump. Politicians and many others wear their religion like a brand, like wearing a Green Bay Packers warm up jacket.
I feel the pope's "Christian" is not a brand but one abiding a social code, i.e. love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, do unto others.... Those Christians are hard to find. And they are not necessarily branded Christians. They could be Jews, Muslims, atheists, or any other identification. You'll know them when you meet them.
I agree completely that the truth is nuanced. And the mechanism the court has used to address nuance is simple: eight judges ponder in terms of black and white, One judge, O'Connor, then Kennedy, handle(d) nuance, aka the "swing" vote.
Scalia was a smart, charming, witty, boat anchor. He saw nuance as a lazy reluctance to read 240 year old tea leaves.
Seems like having the first primaries in Iowa and NH forces the GOP candidates to play "who's the most feral cat in the alley?". Then it's hard to shake off the alleycat image as the campaigns progress.
And why don't any of the candidates jump Trump (great name for rhymers) when he brags about his intent to be a serious war criminal when he takes office? At least Kasich and Bush have the creds to do this. That alone should disqualify him for consideration.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
"Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell still has the ability to bring a vote on Pompeo to the floor of the full senate....."
Against six good reasons to reject Pompeo, Mitch has one to support the nomination, partisan domination. What, him worry?
I think a good question for Trump to ask is: if we stay, who will we be shooting at and bombing a year or two from now? That's about all we've done for the last seventeen or so years (not counting earlier less strategic uses of force, like the demolition of the pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan in 1998). From today's column, my best guess is the target will be "chaos", and the results will be more chaos.
Using the time warn (pun intended) broken clock analogy, maybe this is one of those times Trump is right.
I suppose it's a shame that Trump can't uses today's column to attack Comey. Trump would be on Comey's side on every issue.
While we are kicking the tall man around, Wasn't he in charge when all those FBI stings were set up to con domestic Muslims into becoming terrorists so they could be easily arrested, and convicted, for trying to carry out an FBI orchestrated and funded "terrorist plots"? e.g. leveling the Sears Tower in Chicago (currently a Jeff Bazos project)
Preempting the OPCW inspectors reminds me of our expulsion of the UN weapons inspectors prior to the Iraq invasion. That very well might have been done because the inspectors were systematically debunking every bit of evidence the US had for the existence of Iraqi WMD, our rationale for the invasion.
Given Trump's visceral hate of proven facts, he might have feared the OPCW inspectors could factually negate or mute the rationale for the airstrikes.
And if Trump wanted to convince Assad that large scale maiming and killing using ONLY conventional weapons was quite feasible, he could point to the Saudis' Yemen bombing, where we lent a little help to our friend.
Sounds like the parties concerned are setting up a harmless "shooting artificial fish in a barrel" exercise. Seems better to me than an attack that ends up adding more corpses to the huge tally, while accomplishing nothing.
Its hard for me to see the context of the "line in the sand" outrage at the at the use of chemical weapons. The estimated deaths in the Syrian war are about 400,000, well over 99% of which were caused by "conventional" weapons.
The establishment message seems to be "we feel your pain if caused by chemical weapons". If not, "war is hell".
Trump, and most of us, had no attacks of conscience when we dropped the 21,000 pound MOAB bomb on the Taliban last April. The militarily and Trump were proud of the operation. I suppose the common understanding is that incineration by MOAB is more humane than strangling from a gas attack.
"Or is he just pleasing his infinitely gullible base, lying to them as he lies to them about his tawdry affairs?"
Yes. This is not only Trump's long suit, it's his only suit. Even if he sincerely wants to pull out of Syria, I don't think he has the the political savvy and knowledge depth to pull it off. Obama was a lot smarter and couldn't close Guantanamo.
Trump's output is akin to a slot machine, with one exception, no jackpots.
How about offshore nuclear powered desalinization plants. Even ship based ones for crisis to crisis mobility. Capetown could use one right now.
Note: I have no expertise in any of the technologies that would involve. But a little pie-in-the-sky from a layman can't do much damage.
Luckily we have a very stable genius at the helm. What could go wrong?
I think part of it is our subconscious aim to globalize the Second Amendment.
"No country under active UN arms inspections has ever developed a bomb."
In away that is the bloodless equivalent of successfully bombing Iran's nuclear capability. So if the reason all those "hawks" want to bomb Iran is to knock out that capability, they can sit back and relax, mission being accomplished by non-violent means.
But the smarter hawks all know this. I doubt that Trump has the staying power or intellect to be in that group. They dislike this UN nonsense because it it is an obstacle to it their real objective, to add Iran to list of failed countries, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, and that horrible work in progress, Syria.
The job for the hawks is made so much easier because the general public has little emotional involvement with whatever death and destruction our forces do because it is "over there".
On the other hand it is virtually a national emergency when several bombs go off in Austin, causing two fatalities. Maybe a little public empathy for the horrors caused by the tens of thousands of bombs dropped in the Middle East, with no promise of long term benefits, would slow the hawks down.
Pence is also a Koch man. I think Trump needs the Brothers a lot more than they need him. Trump is helpless when it comes down to getting things done. A good recent demonstration was his capitulation to the NRA on gun control, just days after he spoke like a gun control advocate, and chided congress for being intimidated by the NRA.
One hat in hand visit to Charles Koch is worth more than a thousand rallies with the lock-er-up deplorables.
( As an aside, I think "Koch Brothers" is misleading. From what I have read, Charles Koch is the brains and muscle. His brother might be on the same page politically, but he is not a driving force in the Koch archipelago.)
Seems to me that we'll have to stop living by the city-state king-of-the- hill paradigm and switch to the were-all-in-this-together mode. Can't do both. Trump thrives on the former and is steadfast that the latter is based on a Chinese concoction designed to bury us. And ironically, China is falling for its own hoax.
McMaster better be careful if he wants that fourth star.Trump has too much faux face to lose if Kushner get excessively tarnished. The tweets will tell.
How about Trump's threat to harm the lives of 690,000 dreamers in order to gain his legislative objectives, the wall and the Norwegian immigration initiative?
Not much objection heard about the Kidapper/ransom scenario for legislative negotiations.
.
We're transitioning from war fighting to "bombardment". As long as there are no US combat casualties (even one made the headlines https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/24/world/middleeast/syria-warplanes-turkey.html), the civilian casualties, and and turning cities and towns into rubble, have little or no affect on our collective conscience. Even the concept of "victory" is so vague in the ME strife, that military is off the hook when it comes to the scoreboard.
I'm sure that The Chinese Hoax theory can explain all of this, and do it in a few layman oriented tweets. Besides with the advent of ubiquitous "clean coal", what, me worry?
I know we should respect our president, but I'm beginning to think that Trump is a tall and somewhat portly version of a mynah bird. He says what he's heard most recently and/or most loudly.
I feel for the poor Trump defender who has to swing back and forth on the issues as Trump does his 180's. Like he was right to ask for a bipartisan solution that saved the Dreamers (whom he personally pushed of the cliff), and he was right to angrily reject the bipartisan solution, and toss in the "shitholes". Balance that.
What the big mynah says is the least important aspect of his presidency. If the media concentrated on what he does, they would have a much better story, exposing the cruelty and indifference with which he regards, the working class, people of color, immigrants. and anyone living in North Korea.
Personally I'm not all that eager to see a Mike Pence presidency, which would put Charles Koch in one of those White House guest bedrooms. I'm definitely for disconnecting Trump's BIG BUTTON, or rerouting it to a video player programmed to play a Bikini Atoll H-bomb test.
It's really the right that is taking the country apart, bit by wealth transfer/deregulation/degree fahrenheit bit. Trump just signs off on their work.
//''
//
In my view Trump is just a right wing prop, put out there to distract the media and the citizens from the actions the right wing is taking to drown the government, or rather make it subservient to the rich, powerful, and owners of mineral rights.
I don't mean to say that the MSM avoids covering the right wing agenda, like tax cuts for the rich, endless sniper attacks on Obamacare, helping the fossil fuel industry make global warming a bigger threat, deregulating whatever the private sector wants deregulated, etc. But Trump's burlesque show is so bizarre that it takes the attention away from the constant stream of actions this right wing administration and congress take to bring America back to the good ol' days of plantations and company towns.
Someone who is incompetent might still understand a situation and know what needs to be done, but doesn't have the capacity to get things done. A stupid person doesn't doesn't understand a situation.
Our president is a stupid person (or wishes to project that image for political reasons) and incompetent. Of course being incompetent could help sometimes because it hinders him getting stupid things done.
I think it is unfair to criticize Trump for policy failures because I don't think he has the capacity to formulate policy or execute it. He could just as well be a Times Square billboard programmed by Bannon and company. You can't blame the advertising company for the taste of the soup.
Unlike Reagan, the Teflon president, Trump is the hologram president.
I think we need an alternative term for what the US does militarily. War implies us versus them for a tangible goal. In reality it's us punishing them.
My guess is that the well developed plan for "war" against Iran starts out with the biggest, longest, bombing campaign in the history of mankind. Somewhat like the opening bombing campaign on Iraq at the start of Desert Storm, but time 100. Nothing left standing that could conceivably represent the government or viable infrastructure in some way. Then send in the Seals. Then send in Saudi Arabia.
I just hope that when the company towns and plantations come back, my grandkids will at least have indoor plumbing.
How come we use the term "Middle East Peace" to represent the goal of terminating Israeli apartheid? We never called the ending of apartheid in South Africa "South Africa Peace"?
Maybe if we stopped using that absurd euphemism for the total subjugation and control of the Palestinians and their land, substituting the "A" word, little shaming might help things along.
Trump told us we would get tired of winning.
Maybe we've become accustomed to the notion that "winning" in the Middle East, is more like passing the baton in a relay race. After ISIL what is next? Arabs fighting Kurds, more Sunni vs Shiite blood letting, or maybe a military strongman taking over Iraq as a rightful reward for defeating ISIL.
I wonder if Trump instinctively thinks of Puerto Ricans as American citizens, or deserving of help that would be due to American citizens.
In terms of feeding his base, starving Puerto Ricans is a no-brainer.
To paraphrase Marie Antoinette, let them drink champagne.
I think another factor might be that Putin is substantially smarter and world wise than Trump. Trump has not done anything in office that demonstrates the slightest understanding of the extremely complex organism we call civilization. Nor does he publicly indicate a need to study up. So as others have said, Putin gets by by flattering the huge ego and bullshitting the intellectual void (or joking about tapes he's seen of the wild Moscow parties Trump has attended).
Great Twitter opportunity for Trump. He can insult the whole world with one blast.
Isn't Hizbullah our Iranian terrorist demon also? Seems like the anti Iranian axis, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the US, keeps tightening the bonds that bind it. But what could go wrong with when we have Trump, a self-proclaimed genius, in the mix? Deal baby, deal.
My undocumented theory is that Trump is trying to bring his base to a boil in anticipation of Mueller bringing the hammer down with the Russia investigation. Per my theory, Trump wants millions of raging mad, 2nd Amendment, fellow travelers guarding his back when that happens. Just a theory.
Of course he already has AM talk radio and FUX (spelling??) News ready to help.
How can a powerful, wealthy, modern, democracy turn into a dysfunctional menace in a period of ten months? Answer: elect a rabid dog for president, and throw away the leash. Teeth marks everywhere.
I guess these countries don't share Mr Trump's empathy for Appalachian coal minors.
As the rumble of the falls get closer and closer, maybe congress should think about a law or resolution that requires a Declaration of War from congress prior to the start of any military operations against any country that we are not already doing so. Might even mention North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela as specific no no's without the
declaration.
We've got a rabid dog for president, and it seems that there is no way to stop him from taking his next bite. Requiring a Declaration of War is not a sure fire restraint, given that many Republicans have the same inclinations as their pack leader, but maybe force a stop and think.
The notion that we, as a nation, cannot stop a cruel, incompetent, egomaniac, put in place by the electoral college, from starting wars as he sees fit, is more than scary.
Prof Cole, I'd like to hear your views on the the legitimacy of the Kurdish and Iraqi positions. And your prognosis.
I'm beginning to think that Trump's ardent supporters might be deplorable.
NYT has a very good editorial on Trump's war against science. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/09/opinion/sunday/trump-epa-pruitt-science.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
My impression is that Trump's government is not at war with science, e.g. global warming, but against mechanisms by which the federal government is informed by science: hear no science, see no science, speak no science.
Science has a major role in protecting the community by discovery, analysis, and developing protective measure regarding a wide range of natural and man made phenomenon that could have an adverse impact.
An informed government is obliged to act against potential harm. In turn this could require public expenditures, an anathema to the Trump administration, unless for military purposes.
But but a know nothing government (by choice with this administration) cannot be expected to react to a phenomenon it knows nothing about, and at the same time create it's own science to respond to any public outcry about the phenomenon. Industries with potential liability are usually eager to help with this creative enterprise.
The legendary Speaker of The House , Tip O'Neill, used to say "all politics are local". A corollary might be "all values are local". No US media outlet would dare make a comparison of the humanitarian hardships in Houston and the hardships in Mosul.
Of course, that makes it much easier for a US president to drop a bomb wherever he so chooses in the "them" world.
Maybe this will enable the media to drop coverage of four star Marine general Kelly. No disrespect for the general, but I'm sure it is easier to get a few hundred thousand Marines to do his bidding, than to influence a DNA verified zombie, who will probably ask him to find a job for his buddy, the sheriff, at ICE.
Sort of an aside, but I think 1%/99% concept is a convenient concept to ignore the poor. The implication is that the bottom 20% with an average annual income around $25,000 is in the same boat as the 80 to 99% group with an average annual income of $265,000. There's got to be a difference in urgency between putting food on the table, and putting a Porsche in the garage.
Of course the conservatives (and many "moderates") are more concerned with the Porsche problem (ugh, taxes) than the food issue (ugh, food stamps).
I'm a 100% Bernie rooter too.
White Supremacy is like a cosmic Confederate patriotism that survived the Civil War. It's a patriotism that feels so comfortable to those with unfilled needs for superiority, that it finds favor well beyond the borders of the Confederacy, eg President Trump of New York.
Those Confederate statues, flags, and memorabilia reinforce that patriotism, and justify violence, because few events in our history have been as violent as the Civil War. Robert E Lee was an legendary expert at military violence.
Every statue and flag removed is step in the right direction.
Thank you Prof Cole. You'd think from a lot of the media coverage that more order in the White house is good thing.
Since the GOP/ Republicans/ Tea Party/ Charles Koch control congress, the only thing that slows the Trump/Bannon agenda down is the disorder. And that's a good thing.
(second try, couldn't beat the editing clock on first try)
Since Trump is determined to destroy Obamacare because he can’t repeal it, I think an appropriate popular label for this particular sadism is DONTCARE (derived simply from DONald Trump).
We, the UK, and others are waging a very extensive war against ISIL. Tens of thousands of airstrikes dropping tens of thousands of bombs. Plus we are supporting other nations in their fight against ISIL So when a person claiming to be an ISIL agent, operative, ally, sympathizer, commits a violent act in a country at war with ISIL, is that terrorism or the ebb and flow of warfare?
I'm not questioning the validity of going to war against ISIL, but it seems that we ought to expect them to try and attack us with whatever means they have. We've been killing and maiming civilians in the Middle East for fifteen years but console ourselves by calling it collateral damage.
Is global warming an existential threat to the very rich? I think that they can avoid the discomforts and find profitable ventures regardless of the hardships and devastation that will be born by those who don't have the wherewithal to cope. The rich will always find and control that temperate and fruitful archipelago, wherever it happens to be .
But they will need pervasive security and surveillance to protect them from the rabble. All this is now within reach. We already have the surveillance state, and the police are gradually becoming militarized. I think this is Donald Trump's vision. His attacks on free speech and the news media are essential to suppress ground up democracy. A few good tax cuts for the rich, especially dropping the inheritance tax, and some non-judicious court appointments, will help solidify the oligarchy he envisions.
It's human nature to not really give a damn about other peoples hardships that have no affect on ones self. we've shopped vigorously through fifteen years of war, turmoil, death and destruction in the Middle East. Why expect the oligarchs to sweat coastal flooding, droughts, and monster weather events?
Britain "is currently part of a US-led military coalition bombing ISIL facilities in an attempt to defeat the organization."
An abiding principle of our defense strategy is that the enemy will never be afforded sanctuary. During the Vietnam War the Vietcong sanctuaries in Laos and Cambodia were severely dealt with by US air power. The war against the Taliban included many drone strikes in Pakistan, The war against al Qaeda started with a war against its host country, Afghanistan, and eventually bombing Somalia, Libya, and Yemen. Our enemies can run but never hide.
But we can't imagine our homeland, or Britain's, or France's to be seen by our enemies as sanctuary, and thus legitimate targets. The big difference is that the West has massive military forces that can bomb and destroy virtually any target on earth without losing a drop of Western blood. ISIS resources limits it to doing Manchesters. As horrific as these incidents are, they are part and parcel of asymmetric warfare.
Iran is a "designated enemy", sort of like Cuba was/is. Ever since the Hostage Crisis in '79 we Americans have been conditioned to dislike, distrust, hate Iran. We assisted in Saddam Hussein's unprovoked attack on that country, no problem. We shoot down a Iranian Airliner, killing all 290 people on board, no tears, their fault. And our enduring position that a military attack on Iran is "always on the table". Why don't they like us? The Shah police state liked us.
We like the Saudis need a big capable designated enemies to justify our military budgets (although ,for us, Russia and China are juicer by far for that purpose).
Given Trumps affection for despots and monarchs, I would venture that his anti-terrorism is more directed at those who use violence to upset the status quo in our favored countries. When that sort of thing occurs in a country on our designated enemies list, it's characterized as bravery.
Unless the FBI already has them, a good place for Mueller to start might be getting a hold of Trump's tax returns. Of course he has nothing to hide, but still....
Maybe Russia didn't put Trump in because they needed a friend in the White House, rather they wanted an incompetent bumbler that could screw up a lot of things up in the US, and ruin our international reputation. Couldn't have found a better choice.
"people may end up driving Indian and Chinese electric cars"
and even the Ford, Chrysler, and GM markings on them will be made in either country. Follow the leader, if you can't make it, brand it.
'It warned the US that if it continued its war on Daesh, it would “drown in the quagmire of death.” '
Sounds a lot like our doctrine of "no sanctuary is permitted", e.g. Laos, Cambodia, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Sudan.
Putin does not deny global warming but he attributes it to natural causes instead of the increase of greenhouse gasses. No indication that he's considering the Chines hoax theory that our leader espouses.
But he does say that those affected must adapt to the climate change, whereas the Trump position is that there will be no adaptation plans and funding. And none of the departments will consider global warming as a factor in their planning and operation.
What a pair. Putin - Burn baby burn, but adapt to natures whims. Trump - Burn baby burn. What, me worry?
Future slang for characterizing ultra warm day - "Hotter than a Chinese hoax"
I agree with you. Why is it taking so long to investigate the Trump-Russia connection. One would think that a case such as this would warrant the FBI's more serious attention and supported with heavy resources. There must have been some evidence of of the connection to justify opening the investigation in the first place. Maybe not a smoking gun, but at least a warm gun.
And at the hearing Comey stated he had no idea how much longer the investigation would take. Almost get the impression that the case has been given to a very busy agent to add to his "to do" list, but no rush.
At the conspiracy theory level, the evidence might be so conclusive and damning that revelation must be delayed until some plan is developed to cope with a leadership problem that makes Watergate look like a parking violation.
I wonder if she read him the riot act on global warming. Must be difficult for one of the world's most competent leaders to sit and chat with the Leader of the Free World, knowing he is a denier.
"To acknowledge this painful historical fact does not “delegitimize” Israel, any more than acknowledging the Trail of Tears delegitimizes the United States of America."
What's the big deal about delegitimizing. We do it all the time. Iraq was legitimate when it attacked Iran, but delegitimized when it attacked Kuwait. We legitimized Gaddafi Libya in 2006, and delegitimized his regime in 2011, using the most physical method. In 1969 Nixon legitimized Rumania, a communist state with strongman leadership.
The context being the Holocaust, Israeli actions against the indigenous Palestinians in the late 40's were blurred into acceptance by the West. The context has since changed but the Israelis treatment of the Palestinians has not. Delegitimization of Israel would be massively extreme in a political sense, but not uncalled for in a humanitarian sense.
From 1963 to 1967 Netanyahu attended and graduated from a US high school in PA. So he was present during the ongoing the civil rights battle to bring Jim Crow to an end. If he was politically curious at the time he couldn't help but notice the highly structured racial segregation in the Southern States, and the proud adherence to, and defense of that structure by most southern whites.
Not to suggest or imply a connection, but it sounds like he and Trump were visualizing an Israeli endpoint goal for the Palestinians very similar to the standing of blacks in any of the Jim Crow states. Of course you could say that the Palestinians are almost at that endpoint now. There are similarities between the racial attitudes of the ardent white segregationists, and the neo-Zionist Israelis attitudes towards Palestinians. Don't have to go all the way to South Africa to find analogous behavior.
Maybe some non-Muslim dominated countries thought they were safe from Trumps wolf pack, but Nikki Haley, our new UN ambassador cleared the air on Friday, Jan 27 in her first UN speech. She spread the inclusiveness quite a bit.
Extract:
“You’re going to see a change in the way we do business,” Ms. Haley said. “Our goal with the administration is to show value at the U.N., and the way we’ll show value is to show our strength, show our voice, have the backs of our allies and make sure our allies have our back as well.”
“For those who don’t have our back,” she added, “we’re taking names; we will make points to respond to that accordingly.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/world/americas/nikki-haley-united-nations.html
I think the next show to watch will be the far and wide actions of the Trump administration, and his congressional core of sheep, to shut this thing down. "Please address any question on this matter to Ms Kellyanne Conway.", "Leakers will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law." " The public at large is forewarned that anyone using this fake material to cast doubts on the President shall be publicly humiliated via concatenated tweets using the full NSA, CIA, and FBI dossiers."
Here is the math.
Wisconsin - Clinton would have won the state if she sucked in 1.6% of Trump voters
Pennsylvania - 1.8%
Michigan - 0.5%
Considering that these are swing states with close votes, there were no doubt a good number of fence sitters who could have been swayed to Trump because of the hacking.
Ditto. Grumpy, I hope you send your list to the DNC so they can get some idea what they are supposed to stand for. Maybe every member of congress to.
In the few months prior to the war there was glaring public information that strongly indicated that there were no WMD. I'm talking about the what the the UN inspectors found when they visited sites in Iraq that the CIA had identified to most likely to have WMD. They found nothing, site after site. Yet somehow the media, the administration and the congress seemed little moved by these first hand observations.
There must have been analysts in the bowels of the CIA that took the UN inspection results seriously. They must have concluded that their WMD intelligence was wrong, or at least highly suspect. But not a peep was heard.
A rational response to the UN findings would be to rethink the whole WMD premise, and grant the inspectors more time and resources for their searches. But rationality would poison the enthusiasm for the easy war to come. The inspectors were told to pack their bags and go home. Let the shock and awe begin.
Why is is Iran so much an enemy of the US that its destruction (our only proven ability) seems a reasonable objective to many senior officials?
My own opinion is that we do not like strong independent nations in regions where we have an interest of some sort. Any death and destruction we must deal out to achieve our ends is something we can get over. Empathy shmempathy.
Good examples of our past mischief. I wonder if we still have a hand in the continued ruination. Venezuela.
Mr. Snowden Gave us a good look at how massively aggressive our superbly equipped computer warriors are. If we think it's important to hack Angela Merkel's cell phone, could there be anything not worth hacking in Russia? Could the Russian intrusion be a quid pro quo for our intrusions and mischief we do to them?
I do think the Podesta email revelations hurt Clinton, at least at the margins. The right has a well honed capability to turn a flea into a rotting whale on the beach. Defiling Clinton has been a 24/7 right wing effort for years, so new material is always welcomed and needed. Right wing radio can spend hours proving the criminality of a misplaced comma.
I think the term "climate change denier" should be changed to "climate change ignorer".
In my view, the deniers who are public figures are smart enough, and alert enough to grasp the reality of global warming and its downstream consequences. The denial is rooted in political, business and economic interests that are threatened by actions to mitigate the affects of the warming.
If we started to call them ignorers instead of deniers, some might get squeamish enough to change their public views.
I think his ego is taking a big hit from the huge Clinton lead in the popular vote. Someone with an ego the size of Trump's cannot cope with the notion that many more people voted for his opponent that for him.
From this time forth US history will note that he is one of the very few presidents that won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote (and by the largest margin ever). The only way he can cope with this is to make up lies like the millions of illegals voting, and claiming he could easily have won the popular vote if just concentrated his campaign on the East and West coasts, which contradicts the illegals story. Professor Cole is so right, Trump can't handle the truth.
I don't think we can expect Trump to become a global warming believer, at least not in public. When he replaced Christie with Pence as his transition boss, he virtually put the transition in the hands of the Koch brothers (mainly Charles) . You can't get much closer to the brothers than Mike Pence
https://www.thenation.com/article/vice-president-mike-pence-would-be-a-dream-for-the-koch-brothers/
When Trump won he had no power block watching his back. The Republicans in congress don't like him, and the Democrats don't like him. But now with Spence, a Koch man thru and thru, heading the the transition he has the smartest, biggest, richest political operation in the country on his side. When Donald sits down with Charles to discuss climate change, he will come away less a denier (hoax) but sadly convinced nothing need be done right now. And I think he will be quite impressed with the man.
Here is an interesting WP interview with Charles:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/04/charles-koch-on-the-2016-race-climate-change-and-whether-he-has-too-much-power/
Many of Trump's supporters are not inquisitive about government and politics in general, but there is a good reason, they get all the information they need from right wing talk radio. And the information they get is presented in dramatic detail. Rush Limbaugh might spend a half hour just explaining the criminality exposed in one of the hacked emails. In my area he is on three hours, followed by a lessor of his ilk for another hour or so.
All ten of the things Juan listed at the top are convincingly explained away by Limbaugh and all. Convincing to those who believe that only right talk wing radio is correct, and have contempt and full distrust for the elite, gun confiscating, socialists that command the rest of journalism.
Right wing talk radio gives its listeners so much hate and conspiracy, that whatever their shortcomings, they have good reason to suspect it's not of their own doing. (The real world journalism would also give them quite a few suspicions, but for reasons beyond the very existence of Hillary Clinton and the rest of the socialists, a euphemism for Communists.)
If Trump is right, the Chines are probably just trying to mascaraed their own global warming hoax. But they can't fool the GRand Old Party.
I thin that sometimes we covet the amoral's freedom from conscience.
Assume a nation state that relied on carbon based exports for its wealth, now no longer has a market for its exports. What can it do to create new sources of wealth? Is it possible to be competitive with industrial giants like China in the export of finished goods, or the intellectual resources to compete with an interconnected world full of smart people? If the state does not have the natural resources to feed its population how can it pay to import food and other necessary products for survival?
Going 100% renewable is a good start towards survival when the oil no longer has a market, but what next? The world is full of poverty stricken nation states that are, for a variety of reasons, unable to improve. Maybe a master plan is needed.
Trump is the "What, me worry?" app. As we strive for ever increasing convenience, Trump provides it by eliminating our need to confront details. Just touch the screen in the right spot.
When a non-Muslim commits a mass murder the generally accepted motivations are like mental instability, loner, trouble finding love (same sex or opposite), bad boss, bullied at school or work, affection for Hitler, loss of custody fight, loss of the Civil War......could be all of the above. The public generally accepts these rationals.
When a Muslim does it, it's radicalization. The FBI then intensely looks for the culprit. The popular notion seems to be that a Muslim in America that has family and cultural ties to the countries in the Middle East on whom the US has unleashed its military might, has no reason to be hostile towards us. If such hostility exists, the reason is radicalization by a sinister force. Even when the terrorist says that is the exact source of the hostility.
Maybe with the capture of Mosul and defanging of Daesh, the final bloody solution for Iraq can begin to take shape. The Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds can fight seriously for their own final objectives.
I think that by now the US concept of "stabilization by air strikes" has pretty much run its course, without any stabilization to show for it. The post Mosul/Daesh violence will be among parties that that are not clear enemies of the US, so it's a good time to get out and stay out. Time to pivot towards the plowshare industry.
I think the general public is entirely out of the loop when it comes to Middle East interventions. The objectives are vague, the results indescribable, and to channel Yogi Berra, everyday is "Groundhog Day".
Since US casualties in the more recent interventions, and ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, are virtually non-existent, The whole thing has an air of outsourcing. The military operation is like an "airstrikes on request" open ended administration contract.
Clinton does seem like a perfect fit for continuation of the bombing for peace paradigm. Worse yet it seems like she actually has faith in it, where I doubt Obama does.
The President's hyper-ation console has two big buttons. The red one, marked DESTROY, is directly connected to to the vast Military Industrial Complex to insure that no weapon is left behind.
The other button, white, marked REBUILD, is not actually connected to anything.
Now, if only the mass media could could start presenting this kind of information. Prof Cole is the best.
In this country the most tenacious, pernicious, ubiquitous, and destructive social problem is racial prejudice against blacks, and its consequences. And it all started with the Founding Father's inability or refusal to extend their "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" doctrine to their black slaves. Freedom is an easy word to throw around, by anarchists on up to dictators, but it's not so easy to establish and maintain.
To me it seems peculiar that the findings of the UN WMD inspection team are almost never included in the discussion. The team used the best intelligence the CIA had about where the WMD were, and never found anything.
But instead of considering that their might not be any WMD, Bush, with all the power brokers support, decided to throw the inspectors out and invade. Any pleas to give the inspectors a few more months were summarily dismissed.
Maybe the thinking was that if the inspectors were given a few more months, the WMD invasion rationale would evaporate. Good for the millions of Iraqis, but not for our neocon leadership (including a sitting lady senator of some note).
What a different world we would have today if we trusted Hans Blix instead of George W Bush.
I would say say that slavery is a bit more severe curtailment of freedom than religious intolerance. Freeing slaves does not appear to have even been an agenda item, but it certainly appears that freedom from religious persecution was of the utmost concern.
What American values were at work when we cheered the invasion of Iraq, then basically ignored the consequential destruction of the country. President Obama can order the destruction of any target, or person, in the Middle East (except any in Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Israel, and Egypt) and most Americans, and 99% of our politicians would not bat an eye.
Likewise no eye batting if Daesh, or some other activity blows up a market place , killing 50 shoppers.
America has very strong positive values, but they end at the shore, where "don't tread on me and my national interests" begin.
Is it conceivable that Daesh, having been on the receiving end of thousands of US air strikes ( about 40,000 bombs or other munitions), would contemplate a retaliation on the US homeland? Without getting into strategies and individuals, isn't that part of warfare?
A person of thorough beauty in world where it's a rarity.
Meat grinders everywhere. Of course, our airstrikes are conducted using "smart meat grinders" - there's a difference we say.
It looks like "our protectorate right or wrong" just went a little more wrong. No doubt that, during the election campaign, the candidates will still double-down on our sworn allegiance.
I remember a comment Clinton made when Mubarak was overthrown. She said the Mubaraks were like family to the Clintons. She seemed quite comfortable with his ilk.
Though maybe not a prime mover in the birthing of Daesh, she certainly lent her prestige (manufactured rather than earned, in my opinion) to all the neocon rhetoric and actions that brought the Middle East to where it is today. Never the lone or lonely voice of dissent.
"Syria’s al-Qaeda reports directly to 9/11 mastermind Ayman al-Zawahiri, who now leads al-Qaeda."
Slightly off topic but it seems that the US hunt for al-Zawahiri , which must be huge, doesn't get any media or political play. The hunt and capture/killing of bin Ladin was always on the mind, and the his killing was immortalized somewhat like the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima.
You would think that at least the GOP candidates would be nagging Obama (and Clinton of course) about not getting al-Zawahiri, even though he was running al Qaeda at the time bin Ladin was done in. The reason could just be lack of name recognition on the public's part.
My personal choice for the hunt's code name: "Is there a doctor in the house?" (droned if affirmative)
More about torture.
Open Letter on Donald Trump from GOP National Security Leaders (100 signatures) http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/open-letter-on-donald-trump-from-gop-national-security-leaders/
extract:
"His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable."
My reading of this is that "expansive" is the key word. It implies that a modest use of torture is OK, not zero torture as required by law. Gives Trump the green light as long as his war crimes do not rise to the "expansive " level, however you measure that metric.
Obviously these GOP National Security Leaders inserted "expansive" to give Bush, Cheney, Tenet, Yoo, Addington, et al breathing room. Presumably their use of torture was modest, as opposed to "expansive".
I think it's hard for politicians that pray at the wall of tax cuts to discuss a subject that may require a lot of public spending. Unless of course it's for "defense". There was no political outrage when Obama proposed modernization of the nuclear arsenal that could cost a trillion dollars over the next 30 years, https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/USNuclearModernization. No "where's the money coming from?" screaming.
The commercial mass media knows that it's better all around, for advertising revenue and candidate comfort, to stage food fights instead of challenging the candidates to come to grips with a very significant and unpleasant reality.
To get things moving it will probably require that some very politically powerful conservative deniers switch sides and take the herd along with them. Sort of a "NIxon goes to China" moment. Hate to say it, but right now only the seriously deficient Trump/Christie combo have that potential, and Christie happens not to be a denier.
Just one more thing that has to wait till the genetic engineers can get those pigs in the air.
"Morning in America" Phase II.
Obviously Mr Trump gets political correctness (PC) right, in the SC Republican context.
If there is any money left in the Bush PAC, it should be spent to on John Kasich. I'd still vote for Sanders, but if he loses the country will be better off if it's not to the fascist or the hate-Cuba-Cubans.
I don't think the pope was trying to influence the voting. And I think he was casting a wider net than just Trump. Politicians and many others wear their religion like a brand, like wearing a Green Bay Packers warm up jacket.
I feel the pope's "Christian" is not a brand but one abiding a social code, i.e. love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, do unto others.... Those Christians are hard to find. And they are not necessarily branded Christians. They could be Jews, Muslims, atheists, or any other identification. You'll know them when you meet them.
I agree completely that the truth is nuanced. And the mechanism the court has used to address nuance is simple: eight judges ponder in terms of black and white, One judge, O'Connor, then Kennedy, handle(d) nuance, aka the "swing" vote.
Scalia was a smart, charming, witty, boat anchor. He saw nuance as a lazy reluctance to read 240 year old tea leaves.
Seems like having the first primaries in Iowa and NH forces the GOP candidates to play "who's the most feral cat in the alley?". Then it's hard to shake off the alleycat image as the campaigns progress.
And why don't any of the candidates jump Trump (great name for rhymers) when he brags about his intent to be a serious war criminal when he takes office? At least Kasich and Bush have the creds to do this. That alone should disqualify him for consideration.