The World Is Testing Trump
President Donald Trump now faces multiple foreign policy situations which could easily become full-blown crises in a very short time. So far, his response has been rather underwhelming, and even that's being charitable. Some might describe it as downright incoherent, in fact. While this isn't too surprising for those who have been paying attention, this time the result could be a lot more significant than a piece of legislation dying in the House because Republicans can't agree among themselves.
Trump, of course, has never been a slave to consistency when it comes to foreign policy (or domestic policy, for that matter). When Barack Obama was president, it was easy enough to be against whatever Obama was for in true knee-jerk fashion. Hey, it worked for most Republicans, so it wasn't like Trump came up with the idea himself or anything. Trump flourished among his base by denouncing anything Obama did and making sweeping promises of what he'd do, with precisely nothing to back them up. He supposedly had a secret plan for dealing with the Islamic State. He was going to bomb them into submission, no matter the collateral damage. He might just go in and take all the Iraqi oil, as spoils of war. He was going to keep the Russians out of the Crimea (!). He was going to scrap the "worst deal ever" with Iran. Russians wouldn't dare provoke American warships, and neither would Iranian naval boats. North Korea wouldn't dare move their nuclear program forward. China would change their trade policy towards the United States, and would furthermore keep North Korea in check, just because Trump told them to do so. By sheer force of personality, Trump was going to stare down the world's leaders and make them blink, because he would threaten to unleash the awesomeness of American military upon any country who dared defy him.
One promise Trump has been able to keep is that he wasn't going to telegraph any of his moves. He has been able to keep this promise because he never had any secret plans to begin with, therefore he is now dealing with foreign policy on a totally ad hoc and reactive basis. Sooner or later, this is going to become evident even to his supporters. He has no plan, he's just making it up as he goes along and hoping for the best.
America's adversaries are currently testing this in many ways, some subtle and some not-so-subtle. What they wonder is whether Trump is truly a paper tiger when it comes to his boasts of making America great again on the world stage. Was it all campaign bluster? Or will Trump actually counter their moves either militarily or diplomatically? We may all be about to find this out.
Since Trump took office, he hasn't had much in the way of any military or foreign policy successes. A raid in Yemen turned sour, with a lot of collateral deaths. A recent U.S. bombing in Mosul, Iraq caused dozens of civilian deaths as well. Trump still hasn't unveiled any sort of master plan to take on the Islamic State, instead he is doing almost exactly what President Obama had been doing for a while (although Trump has reportedly "taken the gloves off" somewhat, when it comes to the rules of engagement). So it'll be Obama's war plan that liberates Mosul, not Trump's, because Trump never had one. From promising to unveil his Islamic State war plan on his first day in office, Trump backed down to "asking the generals for a plan" in his first 30 days. This plan has never been revealed (if it even exists), more than 75 days into his term.
In Syria, Trump hasn't changed much of anything either. He's been rather deferential to Russia, Iran, and the Assad regime, in fact. Just last week the White House announced that "the Syrian people will decide whether Assad stays or not," which John McCain pointed out is exactly the same policy that Assad himself has backed. This week, a chemical weapons attack seems to have woken Trump up to the fact that this may not be the best policy for America to follow.
The chemical attack was Russia testing Trump's resolve, plain and simple. Trump reacted by refusing (once again) to say anything bad about Russia or Vladimir Putin, and instead Trump tried to blame Barack Obama's Syria policy. This is somewhat of a head-scratcher when you read what Trump tweeted about Obama at the time of the "red line" crisis -- when Trump strongly urged Obama to stay out of Syria altogether. Now, Trump is essentially complaining that Obama followed his advice too closely. But whatever he's said about Syria in the past, Trump is now the one calling the shots. So far, he doesn't seem to have any idea what to do next.
Trump is meeting this week with the head of the Chinese government. During a previous meeting between Trump and the prime minister of Japan, North Korea conducted a missile launch test. This led to the infamous scene of Trump's team trying to deal with a crisis (in a meeting that really should have been in a secure location) in the dining room of his Florida golf resort. So it's not too surprising that just before the Chinese leader's meeting with Trump (at the same resort), North Korea just conducted another missile test. North Korea may, in fact, be about to conduct another nuclear weapons test -- which they might just schedule for maximum embarrassment value (say, during a joint U.S./Chinese press conference, or during the actual meeting between the leaders).
How will Trump react? At this point, it is almost impossible to say. He has no real stated foreign policy beyond what he tweets out, which mostly consist of empty threats. With both the North Korean and the Syrian situation, there simply are no easy answers. On the Syrian battlefield, the textbook military answer would be to bomb the airfields which launched the chemical attack. Unfortunately, those airfields currently are hosting Russian warplanes and are protected by Russian antiaircraft missile defenses. Any attack on Assad's air capabilities would also be a direct attack on the Russian military, in other words. That could escalate the conflict to unimaginable proportions, in the blink of an eye.
Things are, if anything, worse with the North Korean situation. The United States could quite likely conduct a successful attack on the North Korean missile launch facility, and it could even attempt an attack on the main nuclear development site as well (although how much of it has already been moved underground is an open question). Either one would be considered an international act of war, and would probably immediately rekindle the Korean War between North and South. This could easily lead to the bombardment of Seoul, which lies perilously close (within artillery range, in fact) of the border with the North. Millions of people would immediately be at risk, and North Korea already has tens of thousands of artillery pieces aimed and ready to fire. Is that an acceptable price to pay to take out (or merely set back) North Korea's nuclear capability? The only other military option would be to attempt to shoot down a North Korean ballistic missile test with the never-tested anti-missile system in Alaska. If this was successful, it could also be seen as an act of war. But if it failed, that would send an even worse message to the world about American military capabilities.
Short of a military response, there isn't a whole lot Trump has to work with. He could attempt to ramp up sanctions on North Korea, but they've ignored such measures before. The Trump administration is also hamstrung by its disdain for its own State Department, as well. The dysfunction there is already rampant, with vacancies still unfilled for many top positions. Trump's budget request would slash the State Department's budget by roughly one-third, which wouldn't help matters either. Rex Tillerson is trying his best to present a rational face to the world for the Trump administration's foreign policy, but no matter what he says foreign leaders must already be wondering if he really speaks for the president or not.
Trump is about to find out the difference between belligerent tweets and reality. He can berate Kim Jong Un on Twitter all he wants, but the North Korean leader is just as unpredictable as Trump, when it comes down to it. Trump subscribes to the political and military theory of keeping his cards close to his vest, in order not to let his opponent know what he's planning to do. He also seems to be following what Richard Nixon called the "Madman Theory" -- if your opponents think they're dealing with a crazy person, they'll be more hesitant to provoke such a leader. Trump's biggest problem is that he's about to test this against real madmen. And even Nixon never gamed out what a "madman versus madman" situation could bring. When neither side can be reasoned with, nobody knows what will happen next. Which is exactly where we find ourselves on both Syria and North Korea, in fact.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
It's pretty horrifying to contemplate.
Hey CW
"The chemical attack was Russia testing Trump's resolve, plain and simple."
You are stating this as a fact, when there isn't even proof that Assad was responsible for the chemical attack, let alone carried it out with Russian knowledge or consent or urging.
There aren't any links, so what source(s) are you using?
As I noted in a comment to Liz recently, there is a track record of Western powers blaming Assad for chemical attacks that were later determined by UN investigators to have been carried out by al Qaida "rebels".
The attack occurred in "rebel" controlled territory, and no investigation has even taken place on the ground yet... and it may even be impossible for unbiased investigators to gain access to the area.
It is well within the realm of possibilities that the rebels are responsible for the attack, so repeating an unsubstantiated claim as fact is very troubling. Not just on principle, but specifically because nobody should trust that Trump will act responsibly... particularly if Americans aren't skeptical about the accuracy of the claims (see Iraq, war, lies).
"On the Syrian battlefield, the textbook military answer would be to bomb the airfields which launched the chemical attack."
Again, you are stating as fact an unsubstantiated claim with potentially dire consequences for our country.
I would ask you to keep something in mind-
Many of the people who support the regime change agenda in Syria are the same people who repeatedly lied to take us into the war in Iraq.
They are not trustworthy, and you believing these claims without any solid evidence is very troubling.
Every media report on the attack I have seen has included qualifiers... for example "if it is proven that Assad is responsible...".
Please share your sources as you are contradicting what reputable journalists are saying.
Thanks
A
Al,
Do you believe the Assad regime is guilty of war crimes?
part 2
And just as a friendly reminder (not because I think you've forgotten)
Leading up to the war in Iraq-
- our elected Republican "leaders" from the president on down LIED to Americans to take the country to war
- Republican appointees LIED to take us to war
- leading elected Democrats repeated those lies to support the war
- "experts", many of whom it was later disclosed were being paid by defense contractors, LIED to take us to war
- think tankers were trotted out to sell the LIES
- ex-military generals were trotted out to sell the LIES
- and many "journalists" reported those LIES as fact
"Reality based political commentary" geared for Democrats (who are supposed to be acting as the opposition party) should be skeptical, and the party faithful should expect solid, verifiable evidence before repeating currently unsubstantiated claims.
Not one Democrat should want to be a pawn of this Republican president.
Not one Democrat should want to be a pawn of interests who do not have their interests in mind... AGAIN.
A
Liz
3
Assad was a partner in the US rendition program which involved the war crime torture.
Just like the US, he is guilty of war crimes.
But, that doesn't mean he is guilty of this chemical attack.
Are you ever going to answer the questions I asked you?
A
Probably not.
I have forgotten what they were, number one. And, number two, I don't like your attitude.
Al,
I hope you're not implying that the Assad regime's atrocities committed against civilians and its own fellow citizens is on a par with the acts of torture that the Bush administration is responsible for.
As for my views on the use of torture ... well, suffice to say that they are very well known in these parts.
Liz
6
Aw, shucks.
The feeling is mutual more often than is polite to note.
7
Do you mean the "atrocities" Assad is responsible for in defense of his country against the US backed proxy war that includes al Qaida... the people who attacked us on 9/11?
Are you factoring in the killing of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis Bush is responsible for in your "outrage about equivocation" thing?
Do you support sending in US forces to fight alongside al Qaida directly in Syria, or do you want to create an exacerbated humanitarian disaster by just bombing and running the way Obama did in his "humanitarian war" in Libya?
Are you troubled by CW stating unsubstantiated claims as fact or are you setting aside such concerns due to selective outrage about war crimes by Assad?
Do you think Canada will join in the fun?
A
I still can't believe that 62 million people fell for this con man. He is completely unsuited to run a lavatory, let alone the country.
[9] So true. It's like we're living inside one of those comedies where Moe gets to be president, and Larry and Curly get to be National Security Advisor and Secretary of State. And the whole time, a comically villainous Russian keeps getting them into trouble, from the bungled attempt to keep secret the millions of dollars funneled to the campaign manager, to letting slip the exact time of a hacked email dump to the eccentric friend who (naturally) immediately blabs it to a national reporter. Hysterical!
Now we all know what it's like to be incidental characters in a farce.
No, no, I missed the obvious comparison: Freedonia.
Remember the immortal words of Rufus T. Firefly:
"The last man nearly ruined this place, he didn't know what to do with it / If you think this country's bad off now, just wait 'til I get through with it."
So far, his response has been rather underwhelming, and even that's being charitable.
Funny.. Didn't ya'all accuse President Trump of being a hothead who would rush us into WWIII???
NOW that he is facing several Foreign Policy crisis and he is taking it slow and methodical, NOW ya'all want to say his response is "underwhelming"??
He just CAN'T win with the Left, can he?? :^/
I still can't believe that 62 million people fell for this con man. He is completely unsuited to run a lavatory, let alone the country.
And yet, he is YOUR President..
So, maybe those 62 million people know something you don't...
Just like the US, he is guilty of war crimes.
War Crimes is defined within the Geneva Conventions..
The Geneva Conventions don't apply to terrorists, spies or saboteurs...
Torturing terrorists for intel is not a war crime.
"These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
-Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN
You are wrong about that Michale. Torturing terrorists during the long GWOT is indeed a war crime.
Your country is guilty of it and my country is complicit. Which, in my book, is just as guilty.
You are wrong about that Michale. Torturing terrorists during the long GWOT is indeed a war crime.
Based on what??
The Geneva Conventions is the definitive authority on what does and doesn't constitute war crimes..
And like spies and saboteurs, terrorists are not under the protections of the Geneva Conventions..
We are "guilty" in the sense that we did torture terrorists for intel...
That has never been denied sans the politically correct theater...
Alto-
Syria has been a client state of the USSR/Russia since the mid 1950s. Russian equipment, Russian training, Russian tactics, Russian advisors and Russian military bases, (including Tartus, Russia's only port on the Med). About 30 K Russian citizens are permanent residents of Syria, and a substantial number of Syrians live in Russia. Lot's of Russian:Syrian marriages.
There is very little going on in Syria the Russian's don't know about. It strains credibility to believe a nerve agent attack doesn't have Russian finger prints all over it, but we should admit it's technically possible. Given the deed, you can be absolutely sure that Vlad and Assad have been "on the phone."
Beyond the Russian influence, Syria is where numerous spheres of influence grind up against each other. Turkey, France, USA, Iran, Israel and Russia. Four of those have working nukes, and Iran is close. If you want to use the threat of WW III as a bargaining chip, this a good place to begin.
Liz,
Let me approach it from a different direction..
Do you agree that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to spies and saboteurs??
CW - "the textbook military answer would be to bomb the airfields which launched the chemical attack."
Given the air defenses in Syria (Russia best, crewed by Russians) the textbook calls for:
Cruise missiles launched from submarines to take out fixed air defense targets and command and control communications, followed by stealth aircraft, followed by conventional aircraft hauling precision weapons. It takes about 96 hrs to gain air superiority. Russia probably can't stop it, but they sure as hell would respond in kind, although probably not the same kind.
Putin is no fool. Trump is. Putin is playing Trump like a cheap fiddle.
You can kill kids with deprivation, starvation, artillery, and barrel bombs, but God Dammit, you can't gas 'em!
Like a cheap fiddle. Or a a pinball machine. Putin is nudging and trapping. I'd love to see the graphic on a Trump themed pinball.
Putin is no fool. Trump is. Putin is playing Trump like a cheap fiddle.
Wow... You really admire Putin...
We'll make a Trumpster out of you yet.. :D
Michale,
Do you agree that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to spies and saboteurs??
I do not.
The Geneva Conventions apply to EVERYBODY. The use of torture can NEVER be justified by ANYONE.
We are "guilty" in the sense that we did torture terrorists for intel...
Guilty but, not held accountable in a court of law.
Words are cheap.
Claiming to be smarter because you were conned by Trump instead of being conned by Hillary will only work with the 62 million that were conned by Trump.
And yet, for jobs and the economy, this country is MUCH better off than under Obama.. And MUCH MUCH better off than it would have been under NOT-45..
The problem, Don is that you are lumping President Trump in with all the do-nothings on the Right and on the Left..
If CW has proven ANYTHING, he has shown that the Right hates Trump almost as much as the Left does..
I have always maintained that, if you get BOTH sides of a divide pissed at you, you MUST be doing something right.. :D
Guilty but, not held accountable in a court of law.
Because we're not that kind of "guilty"..
Anymore than a police office is "guilty" of murder for killing an armed subject in defense of innocent lives..
Do you agree that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to spies and saboteurs??
I do not.
Then we are at an impasse.. Because the FACT is, the Geneva Conventions do NOT apply to spies and saboteurs, even in war time..
I can provide the substantiation if you wish..
And I am sure you would agree that terrorists, by their very definition, are closer to spies and saboteurs than they are to your run-o-the-mill grunt infantry man...
The Geneva Conventions apply to EVERYBODY.
This is factually incorrect..
The use of torture can NEVER be justified by ANYONE.
And that is an opinion, which I respect to the utmost..
But an opinion nonetheless...
I can provide the substantiation if you wish..
Please do ... I would appreciate that.
Like spies and saboteurs, terrorists are not under the protections of the Geneva Conventions..
I can see why folks who believe as you do want to keep the folks they deem 'terrorists' as far away from an actual American courtroom as possible.
Those of us that have been smart enough not to get conned by either division of the Corporate Party are the only ones on the higher moral ground concerning being conned.
You can get off your high horse now - you were conned into believing the false equivalency lie.
For the purposes of this article the term “unlawful/unprivileged combatant/belligerent”
is understood as describing all persons taking a direct part
in hostilities without being entitled to do so and who therefore cannot be
classified as prisoners of war on falling into the power of the enemy. This
seems to be the most commonly shared understanding.7 It would include for
1 This article does not address protection deriving from other bodies of law, in particular human rights law.
2 Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
3 Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
4 See Article 43(2) of the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and
relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) (PI).
5 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/-
V/II.116 Doc. 5 rev. 1 corr., 22 October 2002, para. 68.
6 Article 44 of PI sets the standard for parties to the Protocol. Its status under customary international
law is more doubtful.
7 See for example G. Aldrich, “The Taliban, Al Qaeda, and the determination of illegal combatants”.
American Journal of International Law, Vol. 96, 2002, p. 892; Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, op. cit
(note 5), para. 69.
46 The legal situation of “unlawful/unprivileged combatants”
example civilians taking a direct part in hostilities, as well as members of
militias and of other volunteer corps — including those of organized resistance
movements — not being integrated in the regular armed forces but
belonging to a party to conflict, provided that they do not comply with the
conditions of Article 4A (2) of GC III. In the following text, for reasons of
convenience, only the term “unlawful combatant” will be used.
“Any person who has taken part in hostilities, who is not entitled to
prisoner-of-war status and who does not benefit from more favourable
treatment in accordance with the Fourth Convention shall have the right
at all times to the protection of Article 75 of this Protocol. In occupied
territory, any such person, unless he is held as a spy, shall also be entitled,
notwithstanding Article 5 of the Fourth Convention, to his rights of
communication under that Convention.”
https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc_849_dorman.pdf
A spy, a saboteur (out of uniform) or a terrorist is an unlawful combatant and are subject to the laws of the country/military that captured them..
Geneva Conventions do not apply..
A terrorist is an unlawful combatant who engages in a violent conflict in such a manner as to violate the laws of war.
As such, they have absolutely no protections from the Geneva Conventions...
Apologies for the crappy formatting..
A spy, a saboteur (out of uniform) or a terrorist is an unlawful combatant and are subject to the laws of the country/military that captured them..
Geneva Conventions do not apply..
A terrorist is an unlawful combatant who engages in a violent conflict in such a manner as to violate the laws of war.
Geneva Conventions Not Establishing Source of Rights— No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.
-Section 948b SubSection (g)
Military Commissions Act Of 2006
I can see why folks who believe as you do want to keep the folks they deem 'terrorists' as far away from an actual American courtroom as possible.
Yes..
Because terrorism on the scale of 9/11 is a military problem, not a Law Enforcement one...
Michale,
I think your interpretation of the Geneva Conventions and who they apply to and to what degree is too restricted.
The following link is quite good in explaining, especially in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in Hamdan v Rumsfeld, how the Geneva Conventions do indeed apply to terrorists.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/dec/14/dick-cheney/wake-senate-report-dick-cheney-says-terrorists-not/
Because terrorism on the scale of 9/11 is a military problem, not a Law Enforcement one...
I would postulate that had terrorism on the scale of 9/11 been treated as a law enforcement problem, there would be no Islamic State today or anything remotely resembling it.
In other words, combating terrorism as military problem has made the problem exponentially worse than it was, by any measure.
In other words, combating terrorism as military problem has made the problem exponentially worse than it was, by any measure.
I disagree... As "bad" as things are now, they would have been infinitely worse had Law Enforcement been the mindset.. This is easy to show by simply pointing out the primary function of Law Enforcement is to investigate and report crimes AFTER the fact...
By definition, terrorism cannot be a Law Enforcement issue unless the goal is to put terrorists in jail AFTER they commit their acts of terrorism..
The following link is quite good in explaining, especially in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in Hamdan v Rumsfeld, how the Geneva Conventions do indeed apply to terrorists.
You kind of skipped topics on me.. :D
Can we first agree that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to spies and (out of uniform) saboteurs??
I think your interpretation of the Geneva Conventions and who they apply to and to what degree is too restricted.
I am just going by what the words say...
And those words say that spies are to be treated per the laws of the land and the Geneva Conventions offer absolutely no protections to spies..
So, if the laws of the land states that spies are summarily shot, then shot they shall be...
If we can agree on that, then we can move on to the discussions of terrorists..
Can we first agree that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to spies and (out of uniform) saboteurs??
No, you are wrong about that.
I am just going by what the words say...
You are not going by what all of the words say or by what the Supreme Court recently said about it.
You must go by ALL of the words that apply.
Can we first agree that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to spies and (out of uniform) saboteurs??
No, you are wrong about that.
I am just going by what the words say...
You are not going by what all of the words say or by what the Supreme Court recently said about it.
You must go by ALL of the words that apply.
You kind of skipped topics on me.. :D
Or, to be more accurate, you kinda skipped BACK to the topic of terrorists..
We're going to get back there eventually, but let's put the issue of spies out of the way first..
And those words say that spies are to be treated per the laws of the land and the Geneva Conventions offer absolutely no protections to spies..
I think the problem here is that the Geneva Conventions have been changed over the years to include protections for essentially all detainees, though the protections afforded do vary depending on the type of detainee.
It is wrong to say that there is "absolutely no protections" to spies.
Maybe we could entice Chris into writing the definitive piece on this and settle it once and for all! :)
In any event, Micahle, I'm out of time for today but, I am sure we'll have an opportunity to revisit this issue again ...
Sorry, Michale ...
I think the problem here is that the Geneva Conventions have been changed over the years to include protections for essentially all detainees, though the protections afforded do vary depending on the type of detainee.
It is wrong to say that there is "absolutely no protections" to spies.
There may be rudimentary protections I'll grant you.. But, relative to the privileged combatants such as POWs, etc etc, there are no protections for spies and, by extension, terrorists..
You are correct that there have been addendums to the Conventions, but I mostly refer to the original Conventions as they were written. The addendums have based on political correctness more than anything else..
My personal belief is that if an unlawful combatant doesn't obey the laws of war, they are not afforded protections of those same laws they violate with impunity and wanton disregard for civilized behavior..
They are nothing more than rabid animals and should be treated as such..
That's my belief based on two and a half + decades of experience, training and expertise..
And it's unlikely that any amount of political correctness will change that..
But yer welcome to give it a go.. :D
In any event, Micahle,
Sorry, Michale ...
I've been called worse. :D
Hey CW
Sort of off topic... though many interests lobbying for regime change in Syria are said to mainly be interested in natural gas pipeline access through the country, so not completely off topic.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39513339
Summary-
Dramatic reductions in the cost of solar and offshore wind means that in many cases and countries, green energy is now the cheapest source available.
The world increased green energy production last year while actually spending less.
Bad news for the Exxon, Koch, Trump and Hillary types and their domination of energy policy.
A
TS
17
Your background information is accurate, but there are three factors to consider.
Assad/Russia only control about 30% of Syrian territory and thus do not know or control everything that is happening there.
Both ISIS and al Qaida include former members of both Saddam's regime and Assad's regime who were involved in the production and/or use of chemical weapons.
Assad and Russia have been succeeding (slowly) in their efforts to regain control of Syrian territory so the motivation for using such weapons is questionable.
The fourth factor I already noted is that UN investigators have already determined the "rebels" have used such weapons in Syria, so it isn't just a remote possibility they are responsible again.
Before Assad destroyed his stockpiles, the "rebels" had at least temporary control over some of the facilities and military bases where the weapons were stored too.
I am pleased you acknowledged the possibility that Assad/Russia are not responsible.
Those insisting otherwise are on shaky ground.
Personally, when the neoliberal/neocon PR machine to advance their agenda is on full display like it is now, I become even more skeptical.
A
To further the abuser analogy, your abuser is still an abuser if they punch and kick you. The fact that someone else's abuser uses a baseball bat or a crowbar does not absolve your abuser and the fact that your abuser claims to protect you from the other abuser does not make up for the abuse your abuser inflicts upon you.
While I disagree as to who'se abuser is worse.. I have to compliment you on a helluva apropos analogy.. :D
14, 15
I agree with Liz.
But even setting that aside, it is also a fact that innocent people who were not terrorists were caught up in the rendition program, that innocent people were even held at Gitmo and black sites around the world, and that regular combatants and innocent people were tortured at Abu Ghraib.
All war crimes.
And, of course, the war of aggression based on lies in Iraq is itself a war crime which Bush and all the war boosters are guilty of.
A
Liz
35
There you go making me fall back in love with you.
A
Well, it's official..
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-06/gop-begins-nuclear-rule-move-to-advance-trump-high-court-pick
The Democrat Party will no longer have ANY input or ANY say in President Trump's future SCOTUS picks..
"GOOD CALL!!"
-Jim Carrey, LIAR LIAR
Can't wait til President Trump nominates a Sean Hannity-esque judge or a Kid Rock-esque judge to replace Ginsberg... :D
Ya'all haven't seen ANY gloating yet!!! :D
I disagree... As "bad" as things are now, they would have been infinitely worse had Law Enforcement been the mindset.. This is easy to show by simply pointing out the primary function of Law Enforcement is to investigate and report crimes AFTER the fact...
By definition, terrorism cannot be a Law Enforcement issue unless the goal is to put terrorists in jail AFTER they commit their acts of terrorism..
Law Enforcement, by definition, is a REACTIVE force...
Military, by definition, is a PRO-ACTIVE force...
When the lives of hundreds, thousands even MILLIONS of innocent people hang in the balance..
Do YOU want a REACTIVE force that can put the RPs in jail after hundreds, thousands, even MILLIONS of innocent people are killed??
Or do you want a PRO-ACTIVE force that can wipe the RPs off the face of the planet BEFORE they kill hundreds, thousands or even MILLIONS of innocent people??
I would think the choice would be obvious...
But I have seen the aftermath first hand of what happens with the former mindset, the "It's A Law Enforcement Problem" mindset.....
So, maybe it's just obvious to someone like me..
RPs = Responsible Parties
While I disagree as to who'se abuser is worse..
that's it, you are henceforth forbidden from using the apostrophe key except for proper nouns. yours, ours, theirs, its and whose do not contain one. apostrophes attached to pronouns can ONLY mean the verb to be (I am, you are, it is, they are, who is, etc). this has been a recorded announcement from your local grammar authority.
;p
JL
hehehehe Yea, yuck it up...
Commas, and apostrophes' have been my nemesis' for a long, LONG time.. :D
Don,
At least you admit that the abuse is occurring on both sides.
Anyone from the other side ready to take the first step?
Oh, I am the original founder of the concept here in Weigantia.. :D
@don,
someone else is an idiom, which is why your spell-check doesn't read it correctly. an apostrophe after an idiom is perfectly acceptable. however, spell-checkers frequently don't recognize words as parts of idioms, so they will incorrectly flag them.
as to michale's punishment, i would go with the traditional fifty lashes with a wet noodle.
JL
Like JL....er.. Bashi said..
I hate Republicans.. I just really fucking hate Democrats.. :D
Commas, and apostrophes' have been my nemesis' for a long, LONG time.. :D
then quit trying to use them!
;)
JL
The Democrat[sic] Party will no longer have ANY input or ANY say in President Trump's future SCOTUS picks..
that state of affairs is no different today than it was yesterday, and anyone who tells you different is selling something.
JL
that state of affairs is no different today than it was yesterday, and anyone who tells you different is selling something.
It's completely different...
Put another way.. Democrats have a say in legislation..
Why?? Because they have the filibuster..
The Democrats don't have the filibuster when it comes to judge nominations...
So Democrats don't have ANY say...
President Trump can nominate a KID ROCK and there is absolutely NOTHING the Democrats can do to prevent him from ascending to the high court...
Democrats are completely impotent to prevent ANY judicial nominee...
ALL because they wanted to appease their base....
Like I said..
When a Kid Rock becomes a SCOTUS justice.. You'll REALLY see some gloating :D
McConnell drops the nuke. Good. Now Dems should know, to their core, that the GOP is filled with rot and liars and that every single thing the Dems contemplate must be seen through that lens. The GOP can't be trusted, they are dishonest, and they have almost no limits to the lowness to which they will stoop.
Everything going forward is on the GOP. They broke it, they own it. May they choke on it.
Gorsuch will be an illegitimate appointment, stolen from Merrick Garland. And if the Supremes give even more to the 1% and large corporations on 5-4 votes we can all send big Thank You cards to the republicans we know.
But for now, it's a good day to be a Republican. You can start celebrating. All your dreams are coming true! An America built to make rich people richer is on the horizon!
Ah, how sweet will be the crumbs that the Trumpers will be licking off their floors!
How precious will be the moments, when they arrive, that the Trumper's realize they voted for people who may fear them, but certainly don't care about them.
The idiot doctor/lawyer/business-person Republican in town who voted Trump will soon learn his little fortune isn't really relevant to the big boys. It's fodder, yes, for Wall Street (which Trump LOVES) but that's about it. But they'll squeak by. Doctors will have plenty of new patients, poisoned by water and hurt by defective products!
All that depends on the GOP actually getting much else done. They probably won't, but what they do manage will be hurtful. Ah well, elections have consequences. Lies have consequences. Idiocy has consequences.
May, and I say this from the bottom of my heart, may it be Republicans who feel the effects of Trump/GOP values going forward. When next they are sick, may their doctor be exactly as qualified as Trump, and Kushner and Bannon. May their bankers be exactly as honest as Trump/GOP. May the guy who comes to fix their furnace/roof/driveway be exactly as skilled and motivated by exactly the same sense of service and integrity as Trump/GOP. May their bosses treat them exactly the way Trump treats his staff and sub-contractors, and may their Human Resource Department respond exactly like the GOP. May the people they sign contracts with be exactly as honorable as Trump/GOP. May their car-salesman come from the school-of-Trump. May their colleges be exactly as valuable as Trump University. May their next prescription be for a drug with exactly the lack of pre-testing the GOP prefers and may their side-effects be profound and may they thrill to the freedom they will experience when they discover Neil Gorsuch was the deciding vote that took away their rights to sue. And as they lay dying and are thrown out of the remaining hospital in their area, may they float to the heavenly gates, prepared to make their case to St. Peter and then God, for why they chose the path of lies on earth. (Actually, I believe in reincarnation but this is poetic license.)
If Republicans are stopped from doing all the horrible things they contemplate, the beneficiaries will be republicans (along with the rest of us). No one will deserve that LESS. But we'll hope just the same.
I say this from the bottom of my heart, may it be Republicans who feel the effects of Trump/GOP values going forward.
If only that were so! Unfortunately, I can already see the panic rising among the 80-somethings who are my Mother's friends as they hear the GOP attack everything from Meals-on-wheels to Social Security.
Republicans seemed to be actually amazed last month to discover, for instance that there were folks out there who were HELPED by the ACA. Imagine that.
It's as if the GOP were all like the robots in Westworld, who are programmed to not be able to 'see' the maintenance corridors, etc. of the amusement park they're a part of.
Like my brother, a Trumpster who has a disabled kid, and who depends on a slew of government programs to care for her, and can't SEE the connection between the GOP Wrecking Crew and his own life. He's so blinded by his own anger over anyone ELSE receiving government assistance that he can't even imagine the possibility that his own kid could be harmed in the process of taking it away from them.
JL,
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/03/31/ftp430/#comment-97916
Paula,
#67..
:D Yes, the Republicans will own MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.. :D
I'll remind you of that during the Democrat nuclear shellacking of 2018 and President Trump's landslide victory in 2020 against Chelsea Clinton :D
The quintessential hockey puck has died..
RIP Don Rickles
Yes, the Republicans will own MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.
That's going to sound really ironic someday.
Hey CW
Still hoping for your sources.
Doing your taxes again?
A
@[69],
yes, the loss of the filibuster for SCOTUS may be costly in the near term. however, i believe it is a good thing in two respects:
first, it shows that many democrats finally understand the zero-sum game the republicans have been playing with the federal courts since the clarence thomas nomination in 1991.
secondly, it will prevent future republican minorities from filibustering democratic nominees, which they absolutely would if the filibuster were still in place.
in this congress and the next, dems will lose out - in all likelihood they would have lost out anyway. however, the pendulum swings both ways. going forward in the future, i see the destruction of the judicial filibuster as a net gain.
JL
Balthasar [29]
You can get off your high horse now - you were conned into believing the false equivalency lie.
Glad I kept reading before I responded because you literally posted exactly what I was thinking.
IMO, the easiest political position on the planet is to sit in judgment of people who vote for a major party candidate, and the second easiest position is "both sides are equal."
What kind of candidate would ever be worthy enough to receive the vote of the "none of the above" crowd?
Jill Stein?
When billionaire Betsy DeVos had to be confirmed by the tie-breaking vote of Mike Pence, what were Jill's thoughts on Twitter?
Dr. Jill Stein @DrJillStein
Why would we have a tie on such an egregious nominee? Because Democrats serve corporate interests.
10:48 AM - 7 Feb 2017
Jill was busy blaming Democrats for Betsy even though it was Trump who nominated her, every single Republican Senator voted for her, and every single Democratic Senator voted against her and actually worked to help peel away the two Republican Senators that caused the tie.
Not saying Democrats are never to blame by any stretch of the imagination, but when Jill Stein is blaming Democrats for serving corporate interests for an issue they had absolutely nothing to do with and that they actually fought tooth and nail to prevent, just who is serving who?
This is but one example of how the false equivalency lie remains alive and well and thriving.
That's going to sound really ironic someday.
Yea, ya'all have been making that exact prediction for a year now.
WHEN is "someday"?? :D
JL,
yes, the loss of the filibuster for SCOTUS may be costly in the near term. however, i believe it is a good thing in two respects:
No, it's going to be beneficial in the near term.. The hysterical STICK IT TO THE GOP base is going to eat it up..
It's the LONG term where it's going to cost the Dims and cost them dearly..
secondly, it will prevent future republican minorities from filibustering democratic nominees, which they absolutely would if the filibuster were still in place.
It's doubtful we'll see a GOP minority in our lifetime..
THAT is how decimated and fragmented the Democrat Party is..
in this congress and the next, dems will lose out - in all likelihood they would have lost out anyway. however, the pendulum swings both ways. going forward in the future, i see the destruction of the judicial filibuster as a net gain.
I'll remind you of that when a Kid Rock and a Rush Limbaugh is elevated to a SCOTUS Justice.. :D
[68] Balthasar: Yep, well, here we are. Its all GOP now and the Dems are free to point out what bunch of lying sacks of scum McConnell, Ryan, Pence and the rest of them are.
As the rude pundit puts it, with typical Rude eloquence: Stop pretending that the Garland fuckery didn't happen or that somehow that was a noble fight because of the bullshit "election year" excuse. Stop pretending that you wouldn't have done everything short of barricading the door to stop Hillary Clinton from making a Supreme Court appointment. In fact, with a Republican majority and Hillary hatred in full swing, you bastards would have made confirming her cabinet and other appointments into a goddamned nightmare. So stop pretending that all of sudden all of the obstruction would have magically gone away.
But most importantly, stop pretending that you're honorable public servants. You're not. You're just cocksuckers, like every other cocksucker, except with scabbier knees.
It's a great rant: http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2017/04/on-gorsuch-republicans-are-more-full-of.html
[74] nypoet: Agreed.
But most importantly, stop pretending that you're honorable public servants. You're not. You're just cocksuckers, like every other cocksucker, except with scabbier knees.
Yea.. THAT's the kind of Liberal the GOP has to deal with...
And ya'all wonder why the GOP won't give an inch... :^/
Take a look in the mirror sometime..
You can get off your high horse now - you were conned into believing the false equivalency lie.
Glad I kept reading before I responded because you literally posted exactly what I was thinking.
See what happens??
You don't toe the Party line, yer dirt..
And ya'all STILL believe ya'all are not Party slaves... :^/
And, No, my comment at [75] absolutely wasn't meant towards Don personally. Don is an equal opportunity basher, but Don's comment and similar comments usually make me wonder what candidate would be good enough for those who choose "none of the above" and feel as though no one is worthy of their vote. An integral part of winning an election is not just motivating people toward your candidate but also perpetuating the false equivalency myth and repressing the vote. Lower turnout and voter suppression are generally tools of conservatives.
My personal quest is to have dictionaries add the word "Republican" to their list of synonyms for "liar".
Other big news today: President Bannon and President-wanna-be Kushner are duking it out. The Orange One plans his next golf outing and, in the wings, President Pence-wanna-be huddles with GOP (et tu Brute?) snakes putting together their plan to take down 45 just as soon as they get Gorsuch through.
Who will be left standing? Warning to Comrade Michale, Pence wants your guy out.
michale [81]
See what happens??
You don't toe the Party line, yer dirt..
And ya'all STILL believe ya'all are not Party slaves... :^/
And michale weighs in yet again with his tired, worn out, and monotonous "party slave" argument and to put words in a poster's mouth that weren't said... his dearth of ideas just screaming out in agony: It's all he's got. :)
Alto-47
Motivation is not compelling argument for who did what to whom.
News reports I consider reliable state the most recent chemical attack was delivered by aircraft. The Syrian government and their Russian patron have aircraft that can do this, the rebels do not. That trumps (small T, no pun intended) the motivation argument.
If credible reports establish the attack was not from the air, I would certainly revisit my conclusion.
I have seen reports accusing the Syrian rebels of using chemical weapons, but I don't consider these reports credible... if you have a reliable source that says otherwise, please post the citation. A lot of the rebels aren't nice guys, that is not news to me. Even so, previous atrocities don't justify current atrocities.
And ya'all STILL believe ya'all are not Party slaves...
slave is a really nasty and unnecessary name to call someone, much less a whole group of someones, especially considering the place of slavery in our nation's history. i've mentioned before that i find this objectionable, but i thought i'd reiterate just in case that message was not received.
michale, blind partisanship exists in all sorts of places. you're certainly blind and deaf to any argument that conflicts with your own libertarian ideology, though it is not currently represented by a major party. still, calling it slavery is just plain wrong.
JL
@paula [78],
was that copy/paste really necessary? you already gave the link. it's not truly offensive like calling people slaves, but still, i think i need to wash my ears out.
JL
JL [87] -- slave is a really nasty and unnecessary name to call someone, much less a whole group of someones, especially considering the place of slavery in our nation's history. i've mentioned before that i find this objectionable, but i thought i'd reiterate just in case that message was not received.
Don [90] -- I must agree that party slaves is not the right term. Slavery implies that you don't have a choice.
It's also fairly shallow to keep up the tired and worn out utter nonsense of calling someone a "party slave" when I've stated many times that I've voted for Democratic, Republican, Independent, and even Green candidates. I vote issues, not party. The only person I've ever known who held the identical view as me is........ me, and I have no intentions of becoming a candidate.
While I'm definitely an anti-Trumper who supported HRC, that doesn't mean I'm a pro anything else. It's the height of ignorance to lump people into categories and label anyone who doesn't support the con artist-in-chief as "party slaves."
[88] nypoet22: Yes. It was necessary. Sharing it made me feel better! And I thought the word-picture of the scabby-kneed republican was powerfully appropriate!
nypoet22 [88] we all have different ways of making a point. I happen to agree with that one.
Kick [75] Exactly. Stein, who had no problem sharing a table with Putin and Michael Flynn during the election, wants to blame Democrats for Betsy DeVos? That's where the 'False' in false equivalency comes from.
My personal quest is to have dictionaries add the word "Republican" to their list of synonyms for "liar".
Bigotry.. At it's finest...
i've mentioned before that i find this objectionable, but i thought i'd reiterate just in case that message was not received.
Party zealot?? Party fanatic??
Those work for you??
Don??
nypoet22 [88] we all have different ways of making a point. I happen to agree with that one.
Of course you do..
Like I said.. Bigotry... At it's finest...
i've mentioned before that i find this objectionable, but i thought i'd reiterate just in case that message was not received.
It was received this time because you applied criticism equally and fairly...
I can't promise I won't lapse in the future because I am sure their will be times when "slaves" is the ONLY description possible..
But between your fairness and Don's point about choice, I will endeavor to use alternate descriptions..
But between your fairness and Don's point about choice, I will endeavor to use alternate descriptions..
Although I don't know if you'll be any happier with Party zealot or Party fanatic...
:D
Party zealot?? Party fanatic??
Those work for you??
those are just fine.
Well, awww right.... :D
[96] Comrade Michale: "Bigotry.. At it's finest…"
Naw, just accuracy!
I also am working on my new phrase for the Dictionary of Urban Slang for Republicans : "Shit Shoes" which references the fact that when republicans walk, the crap that fills them oozes out of the tops of their shoes with each step they take.
So the Shit Shoes, headed by McConnell, just put their plagiarizing corporate toady onto the Supreme Court by stealing the seat from President Obama, in order to please the Koch Brothers and the the rabid anti-choicers.
Wait -- now there's an air strike against Syria and suddenly it's the thing to do, according the the Shit Shoes (although when HRC recommends it, its not) and 45 doesn't need to mention it to Congress in advance because he's white and not-a-Democrat. What was "weak and insubstantial" by Obama is, of course, manly and forceful when Orange-man does it.
I don't comment much on war activities as I don't know enough about the situations to have an informed opinion. But I do know hypocrisy when I see it.
The Alt-right appears unhappy with this move. Will be interesting to see which way they go in the end. I actually feel a bit sorry for the Donald on this one -- there's no move one can make on Syria that will please everyone, that much seems clear.
But he can, for the moment, count on the GOP Shit Shoes to back him because they loves them their wars -- except when a Democrat is in charge -- and they love how cablenews gets all orgasmic when bombings start -- great distraction from GOP crimes.
Saint Pence will put his takeover plans on hold for a few days to see how the whole thing falls out. Will the bombings help or hurt 45? He'll consult with Reincy, quietly, coz Reincy might be on his way out. But Reincy will know what the Shit Shoes Big Money folks think. Or can find out.
Of course Saint Pence might be a bit distracted over his Secret Service guy who just got suspended for soliciting a prostitute. I wonder if she was Russian? That would add some spice instead of simply being sordid.
Ah well, perhaps Kushner will get Assad out of there later today. He's an "efficiency" guy in the best tradition of gutting companies and institutions to get rid of "fat and waste". No doubt that formula will serve him well as flies around the world taking care of 45's distractions so that 45 can work on his golf game and deal with his various
criminal enterprisesbusinesses.So the Shit Shoes, headed by McConnell, just put their plagiarizing corporate toady onto the Supreme Court by stealing the seat from President Obama, in order to please the Koch Brothers and the the rabid anti-choicers.
Would you like some cheese to go with yer whine??
Wait -- now there's an air strike against Syria and suddenly it's the thing to do, according the the Shit Shoes (although when HRC recommends it, its not)
So, when NOT-45 recommends it, it's a GOOD thing..
But when President Trump DOES it, it's a bad thing??
Ahhhhh Party zealot logic.. :D
there's no move one can make on Syria that will please everyone, that much seems clear.
So, the thing to do is do the RIGHT thing and then let the chips fall where they may..
That's what a GOOD leader does..
That's why President Trump DID it and that's why Obama was INCAPABLE of doing it..
Such an incredible rant..
Naw, just accuracy!
Yea, that's what bigots always claim..
Comrade Michale: I think you're gonna need some Bactine for those scabby knees. And the jaw muscles -- be sure to get some Bengay!
Oh, this is interesting:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/40
ntroduced in House (06/20/2013)
Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the President is prohibited under the Constitution from the offensive use of the U.S. Armed Forces in Syria without prior express authorization by an Act of Congress or without a prior express appropriation of funds for that purpose by an Act of Congress; and (2) the President's defiance of those constitutional limitations on his authority to initiate war would constitute an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.
I just know the Shit Shoes will be dusting that little piece of legislation right off now that President Bannon -- oops Kushner -- no, I mean Trump, is in charge. Maybe Saint Pence will remember it when the day comes for the knives to come out.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/327699-gop-lawmakers-offer-bill-to-repeal-offshore-tax-law
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) offered legislation Thursday to repeal an Obama-era offshore tax law.
The bill would do away with provisions of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), which requires foreign financial institutions to report information about accounts held by U.S. citizens to the IRS.
FATCA was designed to fight offshore tax evasion. But Meadows and Paul said that the law violates citizens' privacy rights.
They sell off OUR internet privacy rights, but want to protect THEIR ability to tax dodge. Yep, those Shit Shoes are workin' day and night to help working Americans!
Comrade Michale: I think you're gonna need some Bactine for those scabby knees. And the jaw muscles -- be sure to get some Bengay!
Crude.. And factually inaccurate...
About what I have come to expect from you... :D
[108] Comrade Michale: You're welcome.