50 GOP national security experts call on nation to reject Trump

The_Dude wrote:Stop looking at it as R vs D. It's establishment vs non establishment. Republicans lost their party when the true conservatism of the tea party was fought tooth and nail. Party has been fractured for years now.

tGreenWay wrote:

The_Dude wrote:Stop looking at it as R vs D. It's establishment vs non establishment. Republicans lost their party when the true conservatism of the tea party was fought tooth and nail. Party has been fractured for years now.

I'm not. It's not R vs D, it's R vs R. That you think Trump isn't a part of the establishment is laughable. The guy spends all kinds of money on politicians in order to gain access to who and get what he wants. He's the ultimate insider, despite what he says and you believe.
Meanwhile, these 50 Rs/Cons have banded together for this one letter to point out to their own people how dangerous a Trump presidency would be to the US from a national security standpoint. That's an unprecedented move in the history of US presidential elections. Of course, I'm not surprised you can't comprehend the gravity of the joint statement.

tGreenWay wrote:

The_Dude wrote:Stop looking at it as R vs D. It's establishment vs non establishment. Republicans lost their party when the true conservatism of the tea party was fought tooth and nail. Party has been fractured for years now.

I'm not. It's not R vs D, it's R vs R. That you think Trump isn't a part of the establishment is laughable. The guy spends all kinds of money on politicians in order to gain access to who and get what he wants. He's the ultimate insider, despite what he says and you believe.
Meanwhile, these 50 Rs/Cons have banded together for this one letter to point out to their own people how dangerous a Trump presidency would be to the US from a national security standpoint. That's an unprecedented move in the history of US presidential elections. Of course, I'm not surprised you can't comprehend the gravity of the joint statement.

The_Dude wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:

I'm not. It's not R vs D, it's R vs R. That you think Trump isn't a part of the establishment is laughable. The guy spends all kinds of money on politicians in order to gain access to who and get what he wants. He's the ultimate insider, despite what he says and you believe.
Meanwhile, these 50 Rs/Cons have banded together for this one letter to point out to their own people how dangerous a Trump presidency would be to the US from a national security standpoint. That's an unprecedented move in the history of US presidential elections. Of course, I'm not surprised you can't comprehend the gravity of the joint statement.

Because Trump, like every business guy, gave money to politicians doesn't make him an insider at all. He's never held public office. Hilary is the ultimate insider and it's not close. Trump can't be bought and the establishment hates it when they can't buy people or influence them. Hilary is for sale and is predictable which is why you see some scared Rs attacking Trump.

The_Dude wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:

I'm not. It's not R vs D, it's R vs R. That you think Trump isn't a part of the establishment is laughable. The guy spends all kinds of money on politicians in order to gain access to who and get what he wants. He's the ultimate insider, despite what he says and you believe.
Meanwhile, these 50 Rs/Cons have banded together for this one letter to point out to their own people how dangerous a Trump presidency would be to the US from a national security standpoint. That's an unprecedented move in the history of US presidential elections. Of course, I'm not surprised you can't comprehend the gravity of the joint statement.

Because Trump, like every business guy, gave money to politicians doesn't make him an insider at all. He's never held public office. Hilary is the ultimate insider and it's not close. Trump can't be bought and the establishment hates it when they can't buy people or influence them. Hilary is for sale and is predictable which is why you see some scared Rs attacking Trump.

The_Dude wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:

I'm not. It's not R vs D, it's R vs R. That you think Trump isn't a part of the establishment is laughable. The guy spends all kinds of money on politicians in order to gain access to who and get what he wants. He's the ultimate insider, despite what he says and you believe.
Meanwhile, these 50 Rs/Cons have banded together for this one letter to point out to their own people how dangerous a Trump presidency would be to the US from a national security standpoint. That's an unprecedented move in the history of US presidential elections. Of course, I'm not surprised you can't comprehend the gravity of the joint statement.

Because Trump, like every business guy, gave money to politicians doesn't make him an insider at all. He's never held public office. Hilary is the ultimate insider and it's not close. Trump can't be bought and the establishment hates it when they can't buy people or influence them. Hilary is for sale and is predictable which is why you see some scared Rs attacking Trump.

The_Dude wrote:Stop looking at it as R vs D. It's establishment vs non establishment. Republicans lost their party when the true conservatism of the tea party was fought tooth and nail. Party has been fractured for years now.

The_Dude wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:

I'm not. It's not R vs D, it's R vs R. That you think Trump isn't a part of the establishment is laughable. The guy spends all kinds of money on politicians in order to gain access to who and get what he wants. He's the ultimate insider, despite what he says and you believe.
Meanwhile, these 50 Rs/Cons have banded together for this one letter to point out to their own people how dangerous a Trump presidency would be to the US from a national security standpoint. That's an unprecedented move in the history of US presidential elections. Of course, I'm not surprised you can't comprehend the gravity of the joint statement.

Because Trump, like every business guy, gave money to politicians doesn't make him an insider at all. He's never held public office. Hilary is the ultimate insider and it's not close. Trump can't be bought and the establishment hates it when they can't buy people or influence them. Hilary is for sale and is predictable which is why you see some scared Rs attacking Trump.

“And these were the people that have been there a long time,” he continued. “Washington establishment people that have been there for a long time. Look at the terrible job they’ve done. I hadn’t planned on using any of these people.”

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

The_Dude wrote:

Because Trump, like every business guy, gave money to politicians doesn't make him an insider at all. He's never held public office. Hilary is the ultimate insider and it's not close. Trump can't be bought and the establishment hates it when they can't buy people or influence them. Hilary is for sale and is predictable which is why you see some scared Rs attacking Trump.

Are you the dumbest fucking idiot on the planet? Because this is what the dumbest fucking idiot on the planet would say.

The_Dude wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Are you the dumbest fucking idiot on the planet? Because this is what the dumbest fucking idiot on the planet would say.

I know libs have a hard time actually arguing points and spinning and namecalling is what you do best, but are you a fucking idiot?

You are trying to compare a person who holds public office to a private citizen? Are you a fucking brain dead moron?

The_Dude wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Are you the dumbest fucking idiot on the planet? Because this is what the dumbest fucking idiot on the planet would say.

I know libs have a hard time actually arguing points and spinning and namecalling is what you do best, but are you a fucking idiot?

You are trying to compare a person who holds public office to a private citizen?  Are you a fucking brain dead moron?

The_Dude wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Are you the dumbest fucking idiot on the planet? Because this is what the dumbest fucking idiot on the planet would say.

I know libs have a hard time actually arguing points and spinning and namecalling is what you do best, but are you a fucking idiot?

You are trying to compare a person who holds public office to a private citizen?  Are you a fucking brain dead moron?

Turtleneck wrote:Whenever I have my shoulder bag - which is almost every day - I have pocket constitution with me. That has been the case for the last 10 years.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Shoulder bag? A purse ?

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:Whenever I have my shoulder bag - which is almost every day - I have pocket constitution with me. That has been the case for the last 10 years.

Just get the app turtleneck

https://www.constitutionfacts.com/?section=bookstore&page=iphone.cfm

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Shoulder bag? A purse ?

Turtleneck wrote:

The_Dude wrote:

I know libs have a hard time actually arguing points and spinning and namecalling is what you do best, but are you a fucking idiot?

You are trying to compare a person who holds public office to a private citizen?  Are you a fucking brain dead moron?

Trump has never held office, but he has always been a phone call away from the inner circles of politics he now criticizes. He freely admits to donating to both Rs and Ds for inside access and favors. That makes him a crony capitalist and far more of an insider than the average citizen.

This should make any person with the ability to think independently and critically skeptical of Trump. He says he wants to end crony capitalism. He calls people who support the global economic system "globalists" and wants to reform how the US does business. Yet he has made billions as a crony capitalist and participant in the global economic system. Do you think he is going to cut off the hand that feeds him? No. Why would he? He is not going to retreat to the poor house for the sake of making America great again. That leaves you with two potential realities. First, it is all talk designed to get elected and he would take no action as president. Second, he would do something, but as long as he gets to help write the rules of the game, he can make it advantageous to himself and disadvantageous to his competition. There is always power in writing the rules. Notice how he is not giving up any of his business interests. This means he wants to be president for personal power and gain, which is a criticism you often have of Clinton.

In the end, he might not have ever held elected officer, but he is one of the power brokers he now loves to hate.

tGreenWay wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Trump has never held office, but he has always been a phone call away from the inner circles of politics he now criticizes. He freely admits to donating to both Rs and Ds for inside access and favors. That makes him a crony capitalist and far more of an insider than the average citizen.

This should make any person with the ability to think independently and critically skeptical of Trump. He says he wants to end crony capitalism. He calls people who support the global economic system "globalists" and wants to reform how the US does business. Yet he has made billions as a crony capitalist and participant in the global economic system. Do you think he is going to cut off the hand that feeds him? No. Why would he? He is not going to retreat to the poor house for the sake of making America great again. That leaves you with two potential realities. First, it is all talk designed to get elected and he would take no action as president. Second, he would do something, but as long as he gets to help write the rules of the game, he can make it advantageous to himself and disadvantageous to his competition. There is always power in writing the rules. Notice how he is not giving up any of his business interests. This means he wants to be president for personal power and gain, which is a criticism you often have of Clinton.

In the end, he might not have ever held elected officer, but he is one of the power brokers he now loves to hate.

Thanks for writing all of this. I didn't have it in me to put it all down, especially knowing the_douche will reject it outright. He's blinded by his absolute hate of the Left.
Not that I think your post was an exercise in futility. There may be others considering voting for Trump, thoughtful people actually willing to consider facts and truths. This provides them with even more information.

The letter says Mr. Trump would weaken the United States’ moral authority and questions his knowledge of and belief in the Constitution. It says he has “demonstrated repeatedly that he has little understanding” of the nation’s “vital national interests, its complex diplomatic challenges, its indispensable alliances and the democratic values” on which American policy should be based. And it laments that “Mr. Trump has shown no interest in educating himself.”

Of course, administrations often have struggled over contentious issues, with officials split over policy. Moreover, presidents sometimes have overruled their foreign-policy advisers and asserted control over international issues, especially the most contentious ones. The very public spectacle of National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger displacing Secretary of State William Rogers in the Nixon administration was painful to behold. President Barack Obama’s White House held tight control over foreign-policy issues, even with serious personalities like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry serving as secretary of state.

But never before has the United States seen so many clear divisions between the president and his appointees on so many issues. Moreover, never before when divisions were present has the United States seen its president so often losing the policy battle. NATO’s European members remain dependent on America. U.S. policy remains hostile to Russia. The United States is edging ever closer to direct involvement in Syria. Washington, DC continues to protect South Korea and threaten North Korea. The United States continues to defend Saudi Arabia while Washington seeks to moderate the intra-Gulf conflict. America so far has avoided trade wars with China, Germany and South Korea.

As a result, today many countries around the globe are in a state of high anxiety, unsure as to the identity of the real American decisionmaker, as well as his or her view of their relationship with Washington. As a result, the traditional warm, fuzzy feeling accompanying the status of an American defense dependent has disappeared. As the president proved on his European visit, his appointees might be able to convince him to acquiesce to policies which he dislikes, but they can’t make him accept them. And sometimes the inner-Trump breaks free.

U.S. adversaries and potential antagonists are little happier. For instance, expectations of an improved relationship were raised in Moscow, only to be dashed by claims of election manipulation by Russia as well as status quo thinking by Mattis and Tillerson. For a time it appeared the administration was heading toward a quasi-Cold War with China, before the president announced his bromance with President Xi. But now the spark appears to have gone out of the relationship, leading to renewed uncertainty.

The Trump administration has turned foreign policy into an embarrassing spectacle. It wouldn’t matter if Bhutan, Slovenia, Chad, Fiji or Chile behaved that way; no one would much care if such nations so ostentatiously mismanaged their foreign policy. But as the globe’s dominant economic, political and military power, America’s actions can transform, for good or ill, countries and regions. Today, no one knows what to expect or even who is the “decider,” in Bush-speak. That’s not good for the United States, and it’s not good for those affected by Washington’s decisions—which means the rest of the world.

While Washington is fixated on President Trump’s tweets, antics, lies and Russiagate, the administration is ramping up a stealth escalation of our military involvement across the Middle East. As Naomi Klein warns, Trump’s “rolling shock of the chaos and spectacle” distracts from radical actions both at home and abroad. Across the Middle East, the administration drives the United States ever further into wars without end, increasing the dangers of direct military confrontation with Russia and Iran, with little awareness and no mandate from the American people. This is a recipe for calamity.

A close associate of the secretary of state says that Tillerson was not only “blind-sided by the Trump statement,” but “absolutely enraged that the White House and State Department weren’t on the same page.” Tillerson’s aides, I was told, were convinced that the true author of Trump’s statement was U.A.E. ambassador Yousef Al Otaiba, a close friend of Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner. “Rex put two-and-two together,” his close associate says, “and concluded that this absolutely vacuous kid was running a second foreign policy out of the White House family quarters. Otaiba weighed in with Jared and Jared weighed in with Trump. What a mess.” The Trump statement was nearly the last straw for Tillerson, this close associate explains: “Rex is just exhausted. He can’t get any of his appointments approved and is running around the world cleaning up after a president whose primary foreign policy adviser is a 36-year-old amateur.”

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s frustrations with the White House have been building for months. Last Friday, they exploded.

The normally laconic Texan unloaded on Johnny DeStefano, the head of the presidential personnel office, for torpedoing proposed nominees to senior State Department posts and for questioning his judgment.


Tillerson also complained that the White House was leaking damaging information about him to the news media, according to a person familiar with the meeting. Above all, he made clear that he did not want DeStefano’s office to “have any role in staffing” and “expressed frustration that anybody would know better” than he about who should work in his department – particularly after the president had promised him autonomy to make his own decisions and hires, according to a senior White House aide familiar with the conversation.

The episode stunned other White House officials gathered in chief of staff Reince Priebus’s office, leaving them silent as Tillerson raised his voice. In the room with Tillerson and DeStefano were Priebus, top aide Jared Kushner and Margaret Peterlin, the Secretary of State’s chief of staff.

Turtleneck wrote:

A close associate of the secretary of state says that Tillerson was not only “blind-sided by the Trump statement,” but “absolutely enraged that the White House and State Department weren’t on the same page.” Tillerson’s aides, I was told, were convinced that the true author of Trump’s statement was U.A.E. ambassador Yousef Al Otaiba, a close friend of Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner. “Rex put two-and-two together,” his close associate says, “and concluded that this absolutely vacuous kid was running a second foreign policy out of the White House family quarters. Otaiba weighed in with Jared and Jared weighed in with Trump. What a mess.” The Trump statement was nearly the last straw for Tillerson, this close associate explains: “Rex is just exhausted. He can’t get any of his appointments approved and is running around the world cleaning up after a president whose primary foreign policy adviser is a 36-year-old amateur.”

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/tillerson-and-mattis-cleaning-up-kushners-middle-east-mess/

Rocinante wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/tillerson-and-mattis-cleaning-up-kushners-middle-east-mess/

That's a good read.

The deconstruction of the State Department is well underway.

I recently returned to Foggy Bottom for the first time since January 20 to attend the departure of a former colleague and career midlevel official—something that had sadly become routine. In my six years at State as a political appointee, under the Obama administration, I had gone to countless of these events. They usually followed a similar pattern: slightly awkward, but endearing formalities, a sense of melancholy at the loss of a valued teammate. But, in the end, a rather jovial celebration of a colleague’s work. These events usually petered out quickly, since there is work to do. At the State Department, the unspoken mantra is: The mission goes on, and no one is irreplaceable. But this event did not follow that pattern. It felt more like a funeral, not for the departing colleague, but for the dying organization they were leaving behind.

Two broad themes emerged from the discussions: First, participants downplayed the recent surge of nationalism and populism, expressing confidence that anti-globalization sentiment and protectionist threats are only a temporary deviation away from deepening global integration. Second, notwithstanding that optimism, participants agreed that the Trump administration’s disavowal of international institutions and skepticism of global governance will complicate international cooperation in 2017 and beyond. Trump’s “America First” policy abdicates U.S. global leadership and endorses U.S. unilateralism at a time when the globalized world demands more sustained, coordinated action to mitigate global challenges like climate change, terrorism, and cyber conflict, which can climb any border wall, no matter how high.

LONDON (CNN) - The United States has no clear plan for dealing with the various crises it faces in the Middle East, according to one of the top U.S. allies in the fight against ISIS.

The Iraqi Vice President, Ayad Allawi, said the U.S. was "absent" from its traditional role in maintaining global stability.

"There is a vacuum in the overall leadership in the world," Allawi told CNN's Christiane Amanpour, in an interview airing Friday. "The Americans need to ... get back to their role as an international power, an important international power."

"To me, there is no international strategy -- no strategy for the alliances that are fighting and have helped us in this part of the fight."

These developments would be worrisome enough if we had a surplus of gifted and farsighted strategists at the helm of the world’s major powers, the modern-day equivalents of Franklin Roosevelt, George Marshall, Konrad Adenauer, or Charles de Gaulle. Heck, at this point I’d take Maggie Thatcher, Zbigniew Brzezinski, James Baker, Jacques Chirac, and any number of past leaders who made some big mistakes but also got a number of big things right and did not enter public service largely either to fleece the public or to gratify their own egos.

What do we see instead? In the United Kingdom, two successive prime ministers have inexplicably committed remarkably maladroit acts of self-defenestration. The first was David Cameron, who ended his political career by pledging to hold a referendum on leaving the European Union (which he opposed) and then losing. The second is Theresa May, who called a snap election earlier this month that cost her party its Parliamentary majority. France has gone from the “bling-bling” of Nicolas Sarkozy to the hapless Francois Hollande and is now betting on the as-yet untried Macron. Italy hasn’t had effective political leadership since — oh, I don’t know, Garibaldi? Recep Erdogan in Turkey has proven to be extremely adept at consolidating power and extremely bad at actually running the country, and there are equally depressing examples of incompetent leadership in Brazil, Afghanistan, Poland, and throughout the Middle East.

But the United States is determined not to be beaten in this competition of political incompetence. If the consequences were not potentially so dire, the Trump administration’s collective ineptitude would be a great source of comic relief. I’m not talking about controversial policy decisions about which reasonable people might disagree (such as the pros and cons of giving regional military commanders greater authority over operations in their respective areas), I’m talking about foreign-policy actions that seem inspired more by the Keystone Cops or Three Stooges than by Clausewitz, Kennan, or Sun Tzu.

Asked if unpredictability in foreign relations is dangerous, raising the risk of miscalculation and conflict, Haley said: “In my job I found it’s made my negotiations better, and it’s made them easier because they don’t assume. They don’t take us for granted anymore. They no longer look at us as one they can just push over.”

The suggestion by Haley, a diplomatic novice, that U.S. leadership in the world is enhanced by its unpredictability struck some delegates as naive and a bit troubling. Traditionally, American allies have looked to the United States as a force for consistency and stability.

Haley’s remarks appeared aimed at demonstrating that there is a method behind what many international leaders see as the foreign-policy madness of the Trump administration, which has zigzagged on everything from the importance of NATO to the risks Russia poses to the Western order.

Her remarks came amid reports that the United States had secured nearly $600 million in reductions to the U.N.’s nearly $2 billion-a-year peacekeeping budget, which translates to about $200 million in savings for U.S. taxpayers, who are obligated to pay about 28 percent of the U.N.’s peacekeeping costs. Still, that falls well short of the $1 billion in savings proposed by the White House.

The State Department’s website provides a helpful answer: “The Secretary of State, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, is the President’s chief foreign affairs adviser. The Secretary carries out the President’s foreign policies through the State Department.”

Now let’s ask the deeper existential question: if this is what the State Department’s own website thinks America’s chief diplomat is supposed to, then is Rex Tillerson actually the Secretary of State? I have my doubts.

This is not a minor issue. Right now the Trump administration is attempting to defuse a mini-crisis in the Persian Gulf, in which Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf Cooperation Council is pressuring the country that hosts the largest U.S. military base in the region. There is also the much larger crisis of North Korea test-firing an ICBM and the United States left with no good policy option. And finally, there are the Trump-created crises of the United States retreat from global leadership and the fast erosion of America’s standing in the world.

This is a moment when the United States needs the Secretary of State to do his job. As the New York Times noted 10 days ago, however, it is far from clear whether Rex Tillerson is acting as the president’s chief foreign affairs adviser.