James Mattis today l understand why everyone loved him. (1 Viewer)

[The moose]

This is an article from today.

James Mattis Denounces President Trump, Describes Him as a Threat to the Constitution

In an extraordinary condemnation, the former defense secretary backs protesters and says the president is trying to turn Americans against one another.

www.theatlantic.com

Great read by a great man.

 

[TaylorB]

It's probably hard to tell from your perspective, but you guys are obsessed with Russia.

You keep saying "you guys are obsessed with Russia" in a discussion you solicited about Mattis and Russia. I laid out a logical response to your initial post saying someone would inevitably connect Mattis' resignation to Russia, and now you're turning the conversation into a symposium about my naivety on geopolitics without acknowledging whether my original response was, or could be, correct. Do you agree with my simple statement, or not?

How is talking about "the left's" obsession with Russia and discrediting Graham and Rubio as neocons responsive to my point about whether Mattis' resignation was related, in part, to Russia? Why would I engage with the rest of your response when all you're going to do is tell me how wrong / biased I am without ever trying, even for a moment, to understand what I'm saying, or acknowledging my response to the discussion you solicited?

If your point is that there are pros to leaving Syria, and cons to staying, I could summarily discredit them by associating those views with Trump, and then talking about all his numerous lies about contacts with the Kremlin, or just that he's generally someone who seems to lie about literally everything including cheating on his wife with a pornstar, but how productive would that be?

Can we stop this routine where you instinctively attack my bias and the credibility of anyone who disagrees with you? I know there are plenty of good arguments in favor of withdrawing from Syria that I would agree with. It's not an easy decision. It's not all about Russia. I never said it was. I know that the decision of whether we should be the world police and where to draw the line is a difficult one. I know that Russia is not the only threat to the US. I know the US interferes abroad. You're not responding to what I am saying because you're not listening to what I am saying.

 

[Richard]

It's probably hard to tell from your perspective, but you guys are obsessed with Russia. I'm curious what you think we should do to Russia in response to them interfering in out election and trying to create chaos. You do realize that the US is the king of interfering in other countries affairs right? I'm not excusing Russia's actions, but acting like the sky is falling because Russia did what the US does and many other countries is confusing.

Are you not aware that Graham and Rubio are Neocons and pretty much support any and every conflict? Schiff isn't a neocon, but he's in the pocket of the military industrial complex just like Graham and Rubio.

I'm not disputing everything that Mattis said in his resignation, but I don't trust anyone who wants us to always be involved in wars.

Can you explain what our interests are in remaining in Syria and Afghanistan besides Russia gaining more power? Besides why would it matter to us if they gain more power? Are we worried aboit being in a conflict with Russia? That seems highly unlikely. We are unfortunately trying to do the same thing with Venezuela currently.

We need to stop trying to be the worlds policeman and interfering in other countries militarily. You would think we would learn that after Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. The reason why we haven't learned that lesson is the miltary industrial complex that the corporate media pretty much ignores. Follow the money.

I believe that it is the neo-cons who have initiated what I feel is a dark period in GOP politics. Their desire to have a hand in the affairs of every nation they can is destructive and IMO is contrary to fundamental American ideals.

As one of the world’s superpowers, the US can’t and shouldn’t sit idly by while bad actors abuse innocents. But the neo-cons’ efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan were about nation building, not protecting innocents. If they had wanted to send troops to stop genocide in Africa, I’d have been firmly behind that. Shielding Kuwait from Saddam? OK. But blowing a country to hell because Cheney, Wolfowitz and the gang want a new playground? I don’t think so.

Eisenhower warned us about allowing those who profit from the military to gain too much power. We allowed them to gain a foothold in the White House in 2000 and it’s going to be pretty hard to weed them out going forward. The neo-cons should be a lesson to conservatives that just because someone claims to be conservative to get your vote, they may not really care all that much about conservative principles.

 

[SaintForLife]

I believe that it is the neo-cons who have initiated what I feel is a dark period in GOP politics. Their desire to have a hand in the affairs of every nation they can is destructive and IMO is contrary to fundamental American ideals.

As one of the world’s superpowers, the US can’t and shouldn’t sit idly by while bad actors abuse innocents. But the neo-cons’ efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan were about nation building, not protecting innocents. If they had wanted to send troops to stop genocide in Africa, I’d have been firmly behind that. Shielding Kuwait from Saddam? OK. But blowing a country to hell because Cheney, Wolfowitz and the gang want a new playground? I don’t think so.

Eisenhower warned us about allowing those who profit from the military to gain too much power. We allowed them to gain a foothold in the White House in 2000 and it’s going to be pretty hard to weed them out going forward. The neo-cons should be a lesson to conservatives that just because someone claims to be conservative to get your vote, they may not really care all that much about conservative principles.

Excellent post Richard and I totally agree. I was wrongly for the Iraq war initially. It took me a while to figure out the things you are talking about.

 

[The moose]

I believe that it is the neo-cons who have initiated what I feel is a dark period in GOP politics. Their desire to have a hand in the affairs of every nation they can is destructive and IMO is contrary to fundamental American ideals.

As one of the world’s superpowers, the US can’t and shouldn’t sit idly by while bad actors abuse innocents. But the neo-cons’ efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan were about nation building, not protecting innocents. If they had wanted to send troops to stop genocide in Africa, I’d have been firmly behind that. Shielding Kuwait from Saddam? OK. But blowing a country to hell because Cheney, Wolfowitz and the gang want a new playground? I don’t think so.

Eisenhower warned us about allowing those who profit from the military to gain too much power. We allowed them to gain a foothold in the White House in 2000 and it’s going to be pretty hard to weed them out going forward. The neo-cons should be a lesson to conservatives that just because someone claims to be conservative to get your vote, they may not really care all that much about conservative principles.

The neoconservatives are a huge problem.

Actually I don't disagree with most truly conservative platforms until they get off the rails.

This administration is the furthest thing from being conservative. I am completely down with being fiscally conservative but that never seems to be the case you always get abundance of other mess thrown in.

 

[SaintForLife]

You keep saying "you guys are obsessed with Russia" in a discussion you solicited about Mattis and Russia. I laid out a logical response to your initial post saying someone would inevitably connect Mattis' resignation to Russia, and now you're turning the conversation into a symposium about my naivety on geopolitics without acknowledging whether my original response was, or could be, correct. Do you agree with my simple statement, or not?

How is talking about "the left's" obsession with Russia and discrediting Graham and Rubio as neocons responsive to my point about whether Mattis' resignation was related, in part, to Russia? Why would I engage with the rest of your response when all you're going to do is tell me how wrong / biased I am without ever trying, even for a moment, to understand what I'm saying, or acknowledging my response to the discussion you solicited?

If your point is that there are pros to leaving Syria, and cons to staying, I could summarily discredit them by associating those views with Trump, and then talking about all his numerous lies about contacts with the Kremlin, or just that he's generally someone who seems to lie about literally everything including cheating on his wife with a pornstar, but how productive would that be?

Can we stop this routine where you instinctively attack my bias and the credibility of anyone who disagrees with you? I know there are plenty of good arguments in favor of withdrawing from Syria that I would agree with. It's not an easy decision. It's not all about Russia. I never said it was. I know that the decision of whether we should be the world police and where to draw the line is a difficult one. I know that Russia is not the only threat to the US. I know the US interferes abroad. You're not responding to what I am saying because you're not listening to what I am saying.

I'm sorry if it came across that way. The Mattis subject probably wasn't the best time to focus on Russia. I know you are a smart guy, but it's extremely frustrating that you and many of the left and in the media continue to cling the the Russiagate narrative even after:

-Mueller found no collusion or conspiracy
-IG report
-FISA abuse
-Strzok and Page texts
-the FBI agent forging documents
-the abuses by the Flynn prosecutor
-Flynn talking about expulsion and not the monetary sanctions that the Mueller report referenced
-FBI agents who interviewed Flynn didn't think he lied
-Comey admitted he violated protocol by interviewing Flynn without going through the White House Counsel
-Yates being upset that Comey sent agents to interview Flynn without coordinating with the DOJ
-Mueller's prosecutors threatening to bankrupt Flynn and go after his son if he didn't plead gulity
-the under oath testimonies of Obama administration officials saying they saw no evidence of collusion while they lied and said the opposite on CNN & MSNBC
-The outrage over the Trump Tower meeting trying to get dirt on Clinton whereas the Democratic party actually did that with the Ukraine government in 2016
-Mueller dropping the case against the Russians
-Manafort not being found guilty on any collusion with Russia
-The Steele Dossier being complete BS that was used to get the FISA
-Stone not being found guilty for anything other than lying obstruction and witness intimidation
-the "lost" orginal Flynn 302,
-the "get him to lie or get him fired" FBI memo about Flynn
-the McCabe testimony that the evidence against Papadopoulos didn't indicate he was working with the Russians
-the media narrative about the RNC platform change being untrue
-Cohen never traveled to Prague
-Crowdstrike saying under oath that they had no evidence Russia took the emails
-the media reports that Trumps campaign communicated with the Russian Alfa Bank was a lie from the Clinton camp
-former Obama Administration official Ben Rhodes admitting under oath that he has multiple contacts with foreign governments during the transition when Obama was elected
-Rosenstein recently testifying under oath that Comey and McCabe withheld evidence from him
-Rosenstein also testified under oath that there was little to no evidence of collusion with Russia when he appointed Mueller in August of 2017

I might have missed a few other details. If you would like a left wing source that highlights all the problems with Russiagate here is one:

Collusion Is in the Eye of the Beholder

Russiagate looks less like a righteous crusade for truth and justice and more like the typical shenanigans for which the FBI and US security state have long been known: prosecutorial overreach, entrapment, and the criminalization of foreign policy dissent.

jacobinmag.com

 

[TaylorB]

I'm sorry if it came across that way. The Mattis subject probably wasn't the best time to focus on Russia. I know you are a smart guy, but it's extremely frustrating that you and many of the left and in the media continue to cling the the Russiagate narrative even after:

-Mueller found no collusion or conspiracy
-IG report
-FISA abuse
-Strzok and Page texts
-the FBI agent forging documents
-the abuses by the Flynn prosecutor
-Flynn talking about expulsion and not the monetary sanctions that the Mueller report referenced
-FBI agents who interviewed Flynn didn't think he lied
-Comey admitted he violated protocol by interviewing Flynn without going through the White House Counsel
-Yates being upset that Comey sent agents to interview Flynn without coordinating with the DOJ
-Mueller's prosecutors threatening to bankrupt Flynn and go after his son if he didn't plead gulity
-the under oath testimonies of Obama administration officials saying they saw no evidence of collusion while they lied and said the opposite on CNN & MSNBC
-The outrage over the Trump Tower meeting trying to get dirt on Clinton whereas the Democratic party actually did that with the Ukraine government in 2016
-Mueller dropping the case against the Russians
-Manafort not being found guilty on any collusion with Russia
-The Steele Dossier being complete BS that was used to get the FISA
-Stone not being found guilty for anything other than lying obstruction and witness intimidation
-the "lost" orginal Flynn 302,
-the "get him to lie or get him fired" FBI memo about Flynn
-the McCabe testimony that the evidence against Papadopoulos didn't indicate he was working with the Russians
-the media narrative about the RNC platform change being untrue
-Cohen never traveled to Prague
-Crowdstrike saying under oath that they had no evidence Russia took the emails
-the media reports that Trumps campaign communicated with the Russian Alfa Bank was a lie from the Clinton camp
-former Obama Administration official Ben Rhodes admitting under oath that he has multiple contacts with foreign governments during the transition when Obama was elected
-Rosenstein recently testifying under oath that Comey and McCabe withheld evidence from him
-Rosenstein also testified under oath that there was little to no evidence of collusion with Russia when he appointed Mueller in August of 2017

I might have missed a few other details. If you would like a left wing source that highlights all the problems with Russiagate here is one:

Collusion Is in the Eye of the Beholder

Russiagate looks less like a righteous crusade for truth and justice and more like the typical shenanigans for which the FBI and US security state have long been known: prosecutorial overreach, entrapment, and the criminalization of foreign policy dissent.

jacobinmag.com

Again, none of this is responsive to what I said about Mattis' resignation. You appear to have been misinformed about the Mattis - Russia topic when you scoffed at my suggestion that it appeared to be part of why he resigned, and now you're going to great lengths to bring a broader Russiagate narrative into it to avoid acknowledging you were wrong.

If we can get over the hurdle of turning this into how naive I am about Trump/Russia, and instead acknowledge the premises for Mattis' concerns about Syria/Russia and whether they were well-founded, I'll happily go there. You made suggestions about our role in geopolitics that I could probably get on board with, or at least do not adamantly disagree with. But I don't want what I said about Mattis' resignation to devolve into an exercise where I meticulously refute bullet points of misinformation about Trump's corruption. There is a point at which these two topics potentially overlap, but I did not go there in the limited things I said about Mattis.

 

[The moose]

I'm sorry if it came across that way. The Mattis subject probably wasn't the best time to focus on Russia. I know you are a smart guy, but it's extremely frustrating that you and many of the left and in the media continue to cling the the Russiagate narrative even after:

-Mueller found no collusion or conspiracy
-IG report
-FISA abuse
-Strzok and Page texts
-the FBI agent forging documents
-the abuses by the Flynn prosecutor
-Flynn talking about expulsion and not the monetary sanctions that the Mueller report referenced
-FBI agents who interviewed Flynn didn't think he lied
-Comey admitted he violated protocol by interviewing Flynn without going through the White House Counsel
-Yates being upset that Comey sent agents to interview Flynn without coordinating with the DOJ
-Mueller's prosecutors threatening to bankrupt Flynn and go after his son if he didn't plead gulity
-the under oath testimonies of Obama administration officials saying they saw no evidence of collusion while they lied and said the opposite on CNN & MSNBC
-The outrage over the Trump Tower meeting trying to get dirt on Clinton whereas the Democratic party actually did that with the Ukraine government in 2016
-Mueller dropping the case against the Russians
-Manafort not being found guilty on any collusion with Russia
-The Steele Dossier being complete BS that was used to get the FISA
-Stone not being found guilty for anything other than lying obstruction and witness intimidation
-the "lost" orginal Flynn 302,
-the "get him to lie or get him fired" FBI memo about Flynn
-the McCabe testimony that the evidence against Papadopoulos didn't indicate he was working with the Russians
-the media narrative about the RNC platform change being untrue
-Cohen never traveled to Prague
-Crowdstrike saying under oath that they had no evidence Russia took the emails
-the media reports that Trumps campaign communicated with the Russian Alfa Bank was a lie from the Clinton camp
-former Obama Administration official Ben Rhodes admitting under oath that he has multiple contacts with foreign governments during the transition when Obama was elected
-Rosenstein recently testifying under oath that Comey and McCabe withheld evidence from him
-Rosenstein also testified under oath that there was little to no evidence of collusion with Russia when he appointed Mueller in August of 2017

I might have missed a few other details. If you would like a left wing source that highlights all the problems with Russiagate here is one:

Collusion Is in the Eye of the Beholder

Russiagate looks less like a righteous crusade for truth and justice and more like the typical shenanigans for which the FBI and US security state have long been known: prosecutorial overreach, entrapment, and the criminalization of foreign policy dissent.

jacobinmag.com

The man that worked out the oil deal with Russia was inserted and Flynn was also talking sanctions when he had no business doing so.

So that all just happened?

Out of the millions of Americans he picks tillerson?

 

[SaintForLife]

Again, none of this is responsive to what I said about Mattis.

The last 2 paragraphs in my post where I said you were obsessed with Russia did address some of your points. You talked about not wanting it to be like Iraq when Obama pulled the troops out and we got ISIS. It wouldn't be like Iraq because Russia took over.

Iraq was a bad decision, but it was quite different from Syria. Obama caused Syria to crumble as a country, but we had no good reason to get involved in Syria. There weren't any good reasons for us to remain in Syria. I know the Kurds have been listed as a reason, but were we expected to stay in Syria for a long time just to help the Kurds while we lose troops and spend more money? I'd be curious to see how much money the military industrial complex made in Syria.

Once again, who cares if Russia took over in Syria after we left. They would gain more power, but how does that affect us? Are we really worried about Russia becoming a superpower again and threatening us militarily? As I mentioned before, we are currently trying to gain influence in Venezuela unfortunately.

 

[SaintForLife]

The man that worked out the oil deal with Russia was inserted and Flynn was also talking sanctions when he had no business doing so.

So that all just happened?

Out of the millions of Americans he picks tillerson?

The recently released transcripts show that Flynn talked about expulsions and NOT the monetary sanctions that Mueller referenced in his report. Apparently you are unaware of this recent news or simply ignoring it? What are you claiming happened with Tillerson?

 

[The moose]

The recently released transcripts show that Flynn talked about expulsions and NOT the monetary sanctions that Mueller referenced in his report. Apparently you are unaware of this recent news or simply ignoring it? What are you claiming happened with Tillerson?

You are falling behind on your childish game of clicking the laughing emoji on every one of my posts. Is that what you do when you can't think of a response to my posts?

So we are playing dumb to the tillerson working out one of the largest oil deals ever in Russia Exxon Neftegas the sanctions shut that crap down?

We playing dumb to that the guy that worked out that oil deal is now out of all other potential people with some type of experience made Secretary of State? A man that never held a conversation with Trump beforehand.

Are we playing dumb to all of that? Just happens out of the blue?

Please post a link to the stuff you are talking about.

I absolutely love to read the stuff you post from the wackiest websites.

I am sorry you don't see the humor in what you post. It cracks me up!

 

[MT15]

The recently released transcripts show that Flynn talked about expulsions and NOT the monetary sanctions that Mueller referenced in his report. Apparently you are unaware of this recent news or simply ignoring it? What are you claiming happened with Tillerson?

You are falling behind on your childish game of clicking the laughing emoji on every one of my posts. Is that what you do when you can't think of a response to my posts?

This is something that has been rolling around in my brain for a bit, so indulge me. Why does the word “sanctions” have to only refer to monetary issues? It seems to me that the expulsions were also sanctions as well, so when Mueller says that Flynn discussed sanctions, that’s because he did.

Definition of “sanction”: a threatened penalty for disobeying a law or rule.

It isn’t only money. It doesn’t have to be only money, seems to me. I’m not steeped in this like you and others though. But I guess I don’t get the distinction.

 

[TaylorB]

This is something that has been rolling around in my brain for a bit, so indulge me. Why does the word “sanctions” have to only refer to monetary issues? It seems to me that the expulsions were also sanctions as well, so when Mueller says that Flynn discussed sanctions, that’s because he did.

Definition of “sanction”: a threatened penalty for disobeying a law or rule.

It isn’t only money. It doesn’t have to be only money, seems to me. I’m not steeped in this like you and others though. But I guess I don’t get the distinction.

I’m no authority on this topic, but you’re hitting on what I suggested in this way-too-lengthy post about sanctions and expulsions and how they’re often treated as the same thing:

DOJ dropping criminal case against Gen Flynn (UPDATE: DC Cir. dismisses case)

madaboutpolitics.com

So, Moose used the term “sanctions” in the same way the Mueller report did. SFL carefully responded by saying Flynn didn’t discuss sanctions, because SFL knows Kislyak was the only one on the call who verbally mentioned the “financial sanctions,” meaning SFL considers the “expulsions” Flynn prioritized in the call to be so distinct from financial sanctions that anyone who conflates the two concepts must be uninformed, despite numerous people involved in the investigation having done precisely that for three years.

 

[TaylorB]

The last 2 paragraphs in my post where I said you were obsessed with Russia did address some of your points. It wouldn't be like Iraq because Russia took over.

Once again, who cares if Russia took over in Syria after we left. They would gain more power, but how does that affect us? Are we really worried about Russia becoming a superpower again and threatening us militarily? As I mentioned before, we are currently trying to gain influence in Venezuela unfortunately.

My goodness. You guys connect Russia to everything possible. I don't understand the obsession to claim Russia is this big superpower and threat to us and that Putin is an evil genious.

Mattis is one that supports perpetual war. Its no surpise he would mention Russia with the media and the left's infatuation with Russia.

It's probably hard to tell from your perspective, but you guys are obsessed with Russia. I'm curious what you think we should do to Russia in response to them interfering in out election and trying to create chaos. You do realize that the US is the king of interfering in other countries affairs right? I'm not excusing Russia's actions, but acting like the sky is falling because Russia did what the US does and many other countries is confusing.

Can you explain what our interests are in remaining in Syria and Afghanistan besides Russia gaining more power? Besides why would it matter to us if they gain more power? Are we worried aboit being in a conflict with Russia? That seems highly unlikely.

SFL, I’m not trying to pick an argument, but I feel compelled to continue providing evidence that I am not the tinfoil-hat-wearing Russia-phobe you’re claiming I am. Here is a letter the Republican-led House Armed Services Committee sent to Trump yesterday expressing concern over a troop withdrawal from Germany and how it strengthens Russia’s position to our detriment.

I didn’t set out to turn this Mattis conversation into a debate about whether Russia is an existential threat to the US; all I said was that Mattis’ resignation appeared to be related to Russia concerns. Here is another example of bipartisan concern over military withdrawals and how they impact our stance vis-a-vis Russia. You can argue that they’re all neocons and part of the industrial military complex, etc., and that’s fine. But the view that our military considerations should include an assessment of how particular actions might empower Russia is not one that is limited to “the left”, the media, Mattis, Graham, Rubio, etc., so it is simply not accurate to frame what I said as proof that I’m advancing isolated views of a tiny minority that are propped up by a hoax.

And people on both sides, including Mattis, seem to have taken notice that our foreign policy of late has been detrimental to traditional alliances like NATO and favorable to traditional adversaries like Russia, or to countries led by strongmen like Saudi Arabia. It is a fact that is just getting harder and harder to deny, and even if you think that’s wrong, the belief in that is becoming more bipartisan. Those facts by themselves are not proof of some broader conspiracy, but they’re obviously concerning to lots of people involved in executing our foreign policy.

 

[dtc]

It's probably hard to tell from your perspective, but you guys are obsessed with Russia. I'm curious what you think we should do to Russia in response to them interfering in out election and trying to create chaos. You do realize that the US is the king of interfering in other countries affairs right? I'm not excusing Russia's actions, but acting like the sky is falling because Russia did what the US does and many other countries is confusing.

Are you not aware that Graham and Rubio are Neocons and pretty much support any and every conflict? Schiff isn't a neocon, but he's in the pocket of the military industrial complex just like Graham and Rubio.

I'm not disputing everything that Mattis said in his resignation, but I don't trust anyone who wants us to always be involved in wars.

Can you explain what our interests are in remaining in Syria and Afghanistan besides Russia gaining more power? Besides why would it matter to us if they gain more power? Are we worried aboit being in a conflict with Russia? That seems highly unlikely. We are unfortunately trying to do the same thing with Venezuela currently.

We need to stop trying to be the worlds policeman and interfering in other countries militarily. You would think we would learn that after Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. The reason why we haven't learned that lesson is the miltary industrial complex that the corporate media pretty much ignores. Follow the money.

I'm curious about your political history.

How old are you? How long have you been a "conservative"? Did you support Reagan? Bush? Bush? Did you support Trump in the primaries and watch his TV show?

More importantly, how's your understanding of history? Were you criticizing Reagan for his infatuation with Russia? Bush? When the wall went down did you decide Russia was our ally and were you a Democrat back then?

Just seems weird that a "conservative" Republican could be so far from the party orthodoxy when it's only been the slightest time since they were the party distrusting Russia.

When Romney said Russia was the biggest threat did you disagree? Got a post history to back it up on the old site?

 

[SaintForLife]

SFL, I’m not trying to pick an argument, but I feel compelled to continue providing evidence that I am not the tinfoil-hat-wearing Russia-phobe you’re claiming I am. Here is a letter the Republican-led House Armed Services Committee sent to Trump yesterday expressing concern over a troop withdrawal from Germany and how it strengthens Russia’s position to our detriment.

I didn’t set out to turn this Mattis conversation into a debate about whether Russia is an existential threat to the US; all I said was that Mattis’ resignation appeared to be related to Russia concerns. Here is another example of bipartisan concern over military withdrawals and how they impact our stance vis-a-vis Russia. You can argue that they’re all neocons and part of the industrial military complex, etc., and that’s fine. But the view that our military considerations should include an assessment of how particular actions might empower Russia is not one that is limited to “the left”, the media, Mattis, Graham, Rubio, etc., so it is simply not accurate to frame what I said as proof that I’m advancing isolated views of a tiny minority that are propped up by a hoax.

And people on both sides, including Mattis, seem to have taken notice that our foreign policy of late has been detrimental to traditional alliances like NATO and favorable to traditional adversaries like Russia, or to countries led by strongmen like Saudi Arabia. It is a fact that is just getting harder and harder to deny, and even if you think that’s wrong, the belief in that is becoming more bipartisan. Those facts by themselves are not proof of some broader conspiracy, but they’re obviously concerning to lots of people involved in executing our foreign policy.

I would never consider you to be a tinfoil hat type person. I just think the threat posed by Russia has been vastly exaggerated by the media, the left, and neconsevatives. Even Obama laughed or took issue with Romney saying Russia was our biggest geopolitical threat.

I'm not trying to have an easy exuse for everything when I bring up that someone is a neocon. I've learned over the years to always follow the money when it comes to politicians advocating for military action. It's very rare that there is a legitimate reason for us to take major miltary action. It makes more sense when you consider that we never learn our lesson about not getting involved in long military engagements no matter the cost and how much we end up screwing thing up in the long run.

The Pentagon has more than enough funding to protect the country, but you would never know it if you listened to the cries for more coming from key members of Congress and hawkish D.C. think tanks.

On Capitol Hill the chairs of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) and Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), are calling for a Pentagon budget that exceeds the amounts allowed under current law by over $50 billion. And a recent letter organized by the Foreign Policy Initiative, a neoconservative operation that aggressively promoted our ill-advised and costly 2003 intervention in Iraq, asks House and Senate leaders to consider sharp increases for the Department of Defense as well. It is important to note that these substantial proposed increases in Pentagon spending are arbitrary numbers cherry-picked from past Pentagon five-year plans, not careful assessments of current defense needs.

The Pentagon Doesn't Need More Money

But you would never know it if you listened to the cries coming from key members of Congress and hawkish D.C. think tanks. It is important to note that these substantial proposed increases in Pentagon spending are arbitrary numbers cherry-picked from past Pentagon five-year plans, not careful...

m-huffpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org

I was surprised to see Schiff is in the pocket of the miltary industrial complex as well which explains some of his constant focus on Russia. This article goes into even more details than the paragraphs I'm posting here:

As Jacobin’s own Branko Marcetic observed two years ago, Schiff’s bellicosity is extensively funded by arms manufacturers and military contractors. A Ukrainian arms dealer named Igor Pasternak held a $2,500 per head fundraiser for Schiff in 2013, as the late Justin Raimondo reported in a terrific analysis on Antiwar.com in 2017, at a time when Ukraine was desperately trying to counter the Obama administration’s disinterest in funding its war with Russia. Despite that disinterest, the State Department approved some very profitable dealings for Pasternak in Ukraine after that fundraiser.

And that’s only one example. In the current cycle, donations from the war industry have continued to flood his coffers. Many come from employees of firms with extensive Department of Defense contracts, including Radiance Technologies and Raytheon. PACs representing the defense industry also make a robust showing among Schiff’s contributors, according to data on Open Secrets.org; companies funneling money to Schiff — sorry, contributing to those PACs — include Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Radiance, and others, including L3Harris Technologies (which got in big trouble with the State Department in September and had to pay $13 million in penalties for illegal arms dealing).

Guess what these companies want? War with Russia in Ukraine. Why wouldn’t they? Last October, the United States approved a $39 million sale of anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, a joint contract between Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. The previous year, Ukraine bought $37 million worth of missiles from the same two companies. As a missile-maker, Zacks Equity Research has noted, Northrop Grumman also benefits richly from conflict in Ukraine, as missiles are heavily used in cross-border wars.

Adam Schiff Is a Dangerous Warmonger

Adam Schiff, the liberal hero of impeachment, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the military-industrial complex and a fervent exponent of permanent war.

jacobinmag.com

 

[TaylorB]

I would never consider you to be a tinfoil hat type person. I just think the threat posed by Russia has been vastly exaggerated by the media, the left, and neconsevatives. Even Obama laughed or took issue with Romney saying Russia was our biggest geopolitical threat.

I'm not trying to have an easy exuse for everything when I bring up that someone is a neocon. I've learned over the years to always follow the money when it comes to politicians advocating for military action. It's very rare that there is a legitimate reason for us to take major miltary action. It makes more sense when you consider that we never learn our lesson about not getting involved in long military engagements no matter the cost and how much we end up screwing thing up in the long run.

The Pentagon has more than enough funding to protect the country, but you would never know it if you listened to the cries for more coming from key members of Congress and hawkish D.C. think tanks.

On Capitol Hill the chairs of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) and Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), are calling for a Pentagon budget that exceeds the amounts allowed under current law by over $50 billion. And a recent letter organized by the Foreign Policy Initiative, a neoconservative operation that aggressively promoted our ill-advised and costly 2003 intervention in Iraq, asks House and Senate leaders to consider sharp increases for the Department of Defense as well. It is important to note that these substantial proposed increases in Pentagon spending are arbitrary numbers cherry-picked from past Pentagon five-year plans, not careful assessments of current defense needs.

The Pentagon Doesn't Need More Money

But you would never know it if you listened to the cries coming from key members of Congress and hawkish D.C. think tanks. It is important to note that these substantial proposed increases in Pentagon spending are arbitrary numbers cherry-picked from past Pentagon five-year plans, not careful...

m-huffpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org

I was surprised to see Schiff is in the pocket of the miltary industrial complex as well which explains some of his constant focus on Russia. This article goes into even more details than the paragraphs I'm posting here:

As Jacobin’s own Branko Marcetic observed two years ago, Schiff’s bellicosity is extensively funded by arms manufacturers and military contractors. A Ukrainian arms dealer named Igor Pasternak held a $2,500 per head fundraiser for Schiff in 2013, as the late Justin Raimondo reported in a terrific analysis on Antiwar.com in 2017, at a time when Ukraine was desperately trying to counter the Obama administration’s disinterest in funding its war with Russia. Despite that disinterest, the State Department approved some very profitable dealings for Pasternak in Ukraine after that fundraiser.

And that’s only one example. In the current cycle, donations from the war industry have continued to flood his coffers. Many come from employees of firms with extensive Department of Defense contracts, including Radiance Technologies and Raytheon. PACs representing the defense industry also make a robust showing among Schiff’s contributors, according to data on Open Secrets.org; companies funneling money to Schiff — sorry, contributing to those PACs — include Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Radiance, and others, including L3Harris Technologies (which got in big trouble with the State Department in September and had to pay $13 million in penalties for illegal arms dealing).

Guess what these companies want? War with Russia in Ukraine. Why wouldn’t they? Last October, the United States approved a $39 million sale of anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, a joint contract between Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. The previous year, Ukraine bought $37 million worth of missiles from the same two companies. As a missile-maker, Zacks Equity Research has noted, Northrop Grumman also benefits richly from conflict in Ukraine, as missiles are heavily used in cross-border wars.

Adam Schiff Is a Dangerous Warmonger

Adam Schiff, the liberal hero of impeachment, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the military-industrial complex and a fervent exponent of permanent war.

jacobinmag.com

I think it's reasonable for ordinary citizens like us to try to make honest assessments about US foreign policy, to avoid adopting talking points of leaders we like without conducting our own critical analysis, and to consider the influence of money in domestic and foreign decision-making by our leaders.

I did a quick fact-check of the Schiff story and it appears to have some holes and misstatements. That is not to say that Schiff does not receive funding from entities which would profit from foreign conflicts -- I am sure he does. It would be helpful to me to know whether there were certain congresspeople whose funding disproportionately came from those types of entities and whether their foreign policy views seemed to be disproportionately shaped by their donors.

But even if we accept that Schiff is uniquely corrupted by donors, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Trump's strikes on Soleimani and Abdul Reza Shahlai served the interests of Saudi Arabia and UAE, where he has deep personal financial ties, perhaps more than our own interests. These actions bring us closer to a longer lasting conflict with Iran, with whom Israel -- which has been investigated for assisting his campaign -- wants war. Trump was trying to help Russia obtain sanction relief at the same time he was in secret negotiations for a billion+ dollar deal which would have required Kremlin approval, and his foreign policy has been favorable to Russia nearly across the board.

If your default position is to be skeptical of our military action overseas due to what might be influencing it, it seems inconsistent to draw conclusions about Schiff in Ukraine that you don't also draw about Trump, particularly in light of the fact that our sanctions regime against Russia and in support of Ukraine was a widely bipartisan bill. The same goes for any conclusions you're willing to draw about Mattis, Graham, Rubio, etc. If there were a broader bipartisan consensus among our leaders that Trump's actions with respect to Russia, Saudi Arabia and others were in our best interests, I'd be much less skeptical about his motivations, and they would matter less. But most of the time, his decisions abroad are made abruptly, and without publicly stated reasons, and seem to catch military and legislative leaders off-guard and scrambling to come up with an explanation.

For decisions like the abrupt withdrawal from Syria, it felt like there was a scramble after-the-fact to say it was just him following through with his promise to draw down troops there. That felt to me like a convenient explanation for otherwise inexplicable behavior -- most people eventually want out of Syria, but they didn't want to just up and leave one day. It reeks of incompetence and/or corruption and it is not surprising to me that it was met with such aggressive bipartisan and military blowback. It seems extremely charitable to believe that what he did, and the way he did it, was part of a legitimate withdrawal plan. Being against an abrupt withdrawal that nobody seemed to know about is not the same as supporting our perpetual participation in Syria.

But even if you buy Trump's flimsy post hoc explanation for withdrawal, it's hard for me to understand why he is entitled to so much benefit of the doubt that you don't seem to give to the people who say it was a bad idea. If you gave Mattis even close to that much benefit, for example, you'd have to acknowledge that his reasons for resigning were legitimate. Those reasons appear to be supported by far more people than those who think that abandoning the Kurds and letting Erdogan massacre them was a good idea. And that takes me back to my original point: I didn't need Adam Schiff and Mattis to tell me that leaving the Kurds in the way we did it makes the US look like a crappy ally and empowers regional actors whose values do not align with ours; it seemed obvious to me, as it did to many others across the world.

 

[surada]

This is an article from today.

James Mattis Denounces President Trump, Describes Him as a Threat to the Constitution

In an extraordinary condemnation, the former defense secretary backs protesters and says the president is trying to turn Americans against one another.

www.theatlantic.com

Great read by a great man.

Milley has said he regrets appearing with Trump at Lafayette Square.. Trump ha gone on exceptionally offensive twitter rage. Rupert Murdoch says Trump is finished. And, now Trump has confused the US Secret Service with the Gestapo.

 

[MT15]

SFL, please don’t take this the wrong way. I have a thought which has occurred to me from reading your posts for a while now.

You like to say you read from both sides of the political divide, and I think you are sincere about that. Does it ever concern you that you seem to read from the extremes of both sides, maybe?

The extremes have more in common with each other than they do with the rest of us. Just a thought.