A Very Busy Week Ahead
At the end of the week, Donald Trump has two big deadlines looming -- one real, and one imaginary. The real one is that the government will shut down unless Congress acts, and the imaginary one is the end of Trump's first 100 days as president. Not content with the fact that solving the budget problem is going to be hard enough, Trump is pushing for action on two other fronts as well: tax reform and healthcare reform. He wants a big win to brag about when he reaches 100 days, but he might just be setting himself up for failure across the board.
The only task in the week ahead where Trump will definitely be able to claim some sort of success is a completely arbitrary one he set for himself. At the end of last week, Trump surprised many (including some within his own administration) by announcing he'd be unveiling his tax reform plan on Wednesday. Since this won't require congressional action, if he makes this announcement on time, he can claim he "got it done" -- even though tax reform will be far from finished.
Trump now complains about the expectations for his first 100 days, but he really only has himself to blame. Prior to becoming president, he explicitly bragged about how much he'd get done in this period. He even laid out his plans in a document, with ten things he was going to accomplish. Of that list, he has only even attempted a single item, and that ended in legislative failure. So by rolling out his tax plan, he could at least claim some sort of progress on at least one of the list of things that were supposed to all have been fully accomplished by now. He may be failing to meet high expectations, but it's hard to feel sorry for him when he himself was the one who set the expectations so high, in other words.
The White House is already hedging on the upcoming tax plan announcement, by telling reporters it will not be an actual bill that could be introduced in Congress, but rather a general overview of how Trump wants to change the tax system. There may be few solid numbers in his tax plan, which may consist of rather vague generalities. Today, however, the White House leaked that their new corporate income tax rate will be 15 percent, as Trump promised on the campaign trail. He's also indicated he wants a huge middle-class tax cut as well, all of which is guaranteed to blow a multi-trillion-dollar hole in the budget. Exploding deficits and a growing national debt weren't exactly Trump campaign promises (he promised to solve both problems lickety-split, in fact), but once again Republicans will all start chanting the mantra of "tax cuts pay for themselves," despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.
But that debate will happen later, of course. Trump just wants the press to pay attention to his announcement; he doesn't really care when it will actually happen or what any tax reform bill Congress sends him actually says. The announcement will be completed before the 100-day milestone, and that's all that really matters to Trump this week. He could release a one-page list of bullet points with few specifics, and he'd consider that a success.
On the other agenda items Trump has set for himself, however, success by any measure isn't going to come as easily. Paul Ryan is already indicating he's in no mood to dive back into the roiling, shark-infested waters of healthcare reform this week, which is probably a smart move on his part. Trump is reportedly still seething that Ryancare 1.0 failed so miserably in the House, and so he's been pushing a 2.0 version that is somehow supposed to bridge the ideological gap between Tea Partiers and GOP moderates. This gap may be fundamentally unbridgeable, though, since any movement towards one side is going to mean a loss of support on the other.
Trump wanted to swoop in, cut a deal, and then have the House pass a bill so he could loudly claim he had "repealed and replaced Obamacare" before his 100 days were up. This wouldn't have been true (there is this thing called "the Senate," after all), but he at least would have had one legislative accomplishment to tout.
This plan started unraveling almost immediately. So far, no actual deal has been cut. It was supposed to be in place last Thursday, and then by Saturday House Republicans were supposed to all get behind it. Neither happened. So now Trump faces failure of one type or another on his last-minute healthcare reform push. The bill either won't exist (if no deal is ever cut), or it won't be voted on before the 100 days mark is hit, or it'll come up for a vote and fail. Ryan probably wouldn't let that last one happen, so what is most likely is that Republicans will keep squabbling about how awful to make their Ryancare 2.0 bill -- leaving "dealmaker-in-chief" Trump with more egg on his face.
The one thing that Congress has to do this week is hammer out yet another continuing resolution on the budget, to keep the lights on past Friday night. Little attention was being paid in the media, but before Trump got involved an extraordinary thing was happening behind the scenes -- Democratic and Republican leaders were actually working something out that both parties could live with, so there would be a "clean" budget bill all ready to go. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell might have allowed some brinksmanship from their own radicals, but then when the deadline ran out, they'd have the solution already in hand. This is a noticeable improvement to the way Republicans had been doing things, which was to let the deadline arrive before even starting negotiations with the Democrats on what a clean bill would consist of.
None of this was exactly "the way Congress is supposed to work," since by definition that would have to include "pass budgets on time, so you don't need continuing resolutions at all." But at least it was progress; both parties working ahead of the deadline to hammer an agreement out. But then Trump decided to get involved.
Trump immediately made one big demand and one big threat. He demanded at least a down-payment on building his border wall (which wasn't even supposed to have been necessary if you believed Trump-the-candidate, since Mexico was supposed to be cheerfully footing the entire bill). If he didn't get these funds, Trump threatened to withhold necessary payments into the Obamacare system. "Nice health insurance you got here," in other words, "it'd be a shame if something were to happen to it."
How far down this path Trump wants to go is an open question. If Congress passes a clean bill, will Trump sign it if it doesn't have any border wall money? Congress could even conceivably pass such a bill without Trump, if they got a veto-proof supermajority in both chambers (this is somewhat farfetched, but it could happen if the bill was neutral enough). Administration officials on the Sunday political shows were not willing to say whether Trump would veto a budget bill with no wall money or not, and may have left the door open to a partial solution (boosting Border Patrol funding but with no money for the wall, essentially). This would allow both Democrats and Trump to at least claim partial victory, so it might actually happen.
If Trump does veto a clean bill, then he could end his 100 days by shutting down the government. That would be a massive embarrassment for him, and merely continue the storyline of an inept president who just doesn't know how to get anything done in Washington. That's already the storyline for Trump's first 100 days, since other than getting a Supreme Court justice confirmed, Trump hasn't managed to get Congress to do anything big at all.
Trump envisioned a week of one success after another, to prove he's been awesome in his first 100 days. So far, that isn't looking possible. Ryancare 2.0 hasn't even appeared yet, meaning the House isn't likely to vote on it (or even talk about it) this week. Trump will roll out some sort of tax plan on Wednesday, one that seems pretty much guaranteed to give enormous tax breaks to corporations and blow an enormous hole in the budget. We might be headed back to the days of trillion-dollar deficits each year, for as far as the eye can see. It remains to be seen how popular such a plan will be with the public, so even Trump's "success" at making his announcement before the 100-days deadline might turn out to be not as successful as he thought, when people react to his plan.
If Trump had just sat back and done nothing, the chances were pretty good that Congress was actually going to pass a clean budget bill by the end of the week and keep the government running. Now that he's inserted himself into the process, this is at risk. Democrats aren't united over everything these days, but on opposing Trump's border wall they certainly are. Even many Republicans in Congress don't support the wall, which means Trump might not even be able to get such funding through the Republican-led House, at this point. If Ryan and McConnell ignore Trump and pass a clean bill, Trump could even veto it and singlehandedly cause a government shutdown.
Maybe he could turn all of this into his own version of bragging. We already know the White House is going to attempt the old "tax cuts pay for themselves" con job, and Republicans have been falling for that one since Ronald Reagan was in office. Trump's already admitted that Ryancare 2.0 probably won't happen this week, so he could say "it's coming soon" to explain away his failure to cut a last-minute deal. And maybe he'll just end the week by tweeting: "I shut down the government faster than any other president!!!" Or perhaps: "People were getting tired of all the winning, so I thought I'd bring things to a halt so everyone can catch their breath!" It wouldn't surprise me in the least, at this point.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I'm just wondering if anyone knows of anyone who is not handling this whole situation that we find ourselves in, politically speaking. And, if so, might you share how they are coping ...
EM-
I find the corruption in our system totally unacceptable. I usually try to cope by drinking an "old cop smoothie"...
Mix equal parts of a bourbon type whiskey ( or in your case Canadian blended ) with Pepto Bismol.
It combines all of the soothing powers of whiskey with the stomach soothing properties of the Pepto all in one quick shot.
Thank-you. Ahem.
I remain open to further suggestions ... It's going to be a long admin, you know.
gt,
In case you may be planning a coping party at some point in the not too distant future, I happen to have THE whiskey recipe that will make you the perfect host ... it's kind of a secret formula and I can't seem to find where I put it at the moment ... I may have to go to my original source ... trust me, it will be worth the wait!
CW-
The only knock I really have on this one is that what goes unaddressed is the fact that BOTH sides are complicit in not doing their jobs. Much like during the last showdown , which brought me to commenting here, I an not at all happy that BOTH sides have elected to take a handsome salary over doing their jobs.
If the Dems had been smart (which of course they weren't due to the fact that most of them are sucking on the old corporate tit) they would have started pushing for the GOP to put together a full budget plan for two years the minute Trump got into office. It somewhat boggles the mind... but... not really considering that the only difference between the GOPS and the DEMS is that they represent different corporate interest blocks.
I still maintain that the best way to bring back honesty to government (aside from total SUNLIGHT) and to get things done that benefit the masses is to have legislation passed that requires the Congress critters to do their jobs or not get paid. One of those jobs is to pass budgets that allow the government to function, not this Continuing Resolution and reconciliation bullshit.
If the cesspool, Errr... I mean Washington, had a law like we have out here in California you can damn well bet that the Critters would be passing logical budgets on schedule. Running the country would return to something more like what it used to be vs. the current day where everyone is beholden to the interest block who bought them.
While we are at it, I also think that we should also add in to the requirements that all Congress Critters need to NASCAR the very expensive suits they wear with all of the corporate branding and lobby interests they receive money from, as well as the companies they have legislated for or invested in, on the outside of their suits. The more one donates/legislates the larger the Logo.
One thing is for certain... We are all about to get ruffie'd and wake up with some orifice hurting from both sides screwing us while at the same time they are telling us it is all ok "they did the best they could do"....
This time is same as the last time ...
Do you always have to have a knock on Chris's columns?
You're in California? Well, then, maybe you know all about my perfect host formula ... a little Eagle wisdom, if you will. :)
If the Dems had been smart (which of course they weren't due to the fact that most of them are sucking on the old corporate tit) they would have started pushing for the GOP to put together a full budget plan for two years the minute Trump got into office.
And how would "pushing" the GOP accomplish anything? Ryan already has a budget plan, which he keeps near his desk and polishes every day. Someday, when he's lined up enough votes from his caucus, he'll put it on the House docket.
Assuming that the Freedom Caucus pulls its usual "no budget" tactics, Ryan will need some Democratic votes to pass even the continuing resolution, so the Dems have some leverage to prevent the process from being used to smuggle in anything awful.
It's a lot of fun to imagine that the Dems could "push" anything in the Congress, but in reality it's an all-elephant show exclusively until 2019 at the earliest.
gt
2, 5
My stomach was fine until I got to your recipe.
Is that actually a thing?
"It somewhat boggles the mind... but... not really considering that the only difference between the GOPS and the DEMS is that they represent different corporate interest blocks."
This is unfortunately not accurate.
Banking/finance, fossil fuels, insurers, defense contractors, big pharma, big ag, chemical companies... I can't think of any of the largest industries in our great country whose logos wouldn't appear on most of the jackets of congresscritters on both sides of the aisle.
The differences in the size of the logos would not follow the party lines either, though there would be some noticeable trends. And I don't think there would be a single jacket free of any logos.
Maybe the logos of the PAC donors should run down the legs? Dark money notices on the rear?
A
A
it's unfortunate that donald's choices so far on domestic policy have been so draconian. as a perceived 'outsider' he had the opportunity to position himself as a true populist and advocate for working people. if he had, those poll numbers would be flipped. as an individual well known for his willingness to do a 180 on any issue at any time, i'd say it's still possible, but increasingly less likely. so far it's been both the worst of corporatism AND the worst of populism. so, it's likely to get worse before it gets worse.
Things are going to get a lot worse before they get worse.
~Lily Tomlin
Hey CW
Typing up a tax reform wish list... something a single staffer should be able to accomplish in a few hours... and Trump possibly signing his name a few times doesn't seem like a very busy week for him.
And just to be a burr under the saddle, a "clean continuing resolution on the budget" actually means maintaining the corrupt status quo. An Orwellian usage of "clean" if you will.
A
Hey gang
An interview with Wilkerson about the sabre rattling on Iran from the Real News Network
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=18923
A prediction and preview to another sales pitch for regime change war.
A
nypoet and gang
Here's a little context for our discussion about Mattis joining right wing "nutjob" Lieberman (who openly supports policies against US interests) in a joint press event for regime change in Syria.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39703128
But Bibi won't meet the German foreign minister if he even meets with Israeli human rights groups.
Mattis helped legitimize a right wing extremist.
Bibi wants to ostracize left wing activists.
A
Hey gang
Our "ally" is attacking our ally in the fight against ISIS... and helping our enemy.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39708909
Of course, part of the context is that Trump just congratulated Erdogan for a referendum expanding his powers that was narrowly "won" with considerable election irregularities reported.
A
Hey gang
New sanctions on Syria by Abu Ivanka (as al Qaida "rebels" call him), our born again neocon president.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39699377
Cue indivisible Democrats rallying behind Trump in support.
A
Cue indivisible Democrats rallying behind Trump in support.
Of sanctions against the Syrian makers of Sarin gas? You actually have a problem with that? Or am I mis-understanding you?
Well 45 just got bitch slapped again by the courts.
The stupidity of the sanctuary fund withholding was obvious to just about anybody who thought about the situation for more than 5 seconds.
If your goal is to eject the "bad hombres" (who talks like that apart from Guiliani and 45?) then to stop cooperation with the police by the people who can identify them is extremely counterproductive, unless your position is that every undocumented person is a "bad hombre".
Consequently the inane executive order only made the streets more dangerous.
By the way, are there only bad "hombres"? Aren't the O'Reilly crowd always whining that men get picked on? Shouldn't there be female bad "hombres" - I'll leave somebody who speaks Spanish to pick it up from here.
The Guardian wins the Internet today for the headline:
"Humpty Trumpty Postpones His Great Wall"
@neil,
mujeres. bad mujeres.
JL
'And now tell me why you always use that expression "good men"? Is that what you call everybody?'
'Yes, everybody,' answered the prisoner. 'There are no evil people on earth.'
~ mikhail bulgakov, 'the master and margarita'
45 might be in for a fright on Friday when the first estimates for Q1 GDP growth come in.
The estimates are all over the place - ranging from 0.5% to 4.3%
If it comes in at 0.5% I expect 45 to blow a gasket.
NY [19] - Thanks.
@neil,
no prob. by the way, it's pronounced sorta like moo-head'ess.
Thank heavens that 45 has stepped in and saved us from unscrupulous trade practices. Not China. Not Mexico. Not even Germany. But Canada! Seems they have been letting their loggers cut trees from government forests on the cheap, undercutting (sorry, couldn't resist) our loggers.
There are about 54,000 loggers in the U.S., and their numbers have been dropping. This is difficult and very dangerous work that averages about $18/hour.
Soft timber however is a key supply for a lot of construction jobs, so if (big if, btw) the Canadians really are subsidizing the input costs of American home builders (there are 1,386,000 construction workers, 100,000 inspectors, 425,000 construction machinery operators, 127,000 drywall installers, etc. etc.) then my attitude is "Thanks Canada!"
The farce continues.
no prob. by the way, it's pronounced sorta like moo-head'ess.
The first time I went to San Diego I had the locals in fits laughing when I asked how to get to "la Gi-o-la"
Oh, and I was refereeing a kids game, and had to check the passes for the players before the game.
Turns out "Jesus" isn't the Scottish pronunciation for kids named "Jesus" - even the coach couldn't stop laughing.
I was tempted to ask them how to pronounce "Milngavie" (mil-guy) :)
Actually Mujeres is pronounced more like MOO-HAIR-ES.
And yes only the bumbling white guy who who is trying to take us back to the 50's, err I mean into the future, and his cross dressing buddy from New York apply that term hombres rather incorrectly.
Spanish is a wonderfully complex language that if one is not careful one can get in trouble with.
Let's look at "Chucha", in Chile and Panama it is used as a derogatory remark for female genitals or to call someone a C U Next Tuesday and is generally used in conjunction with another pejorative... In Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras it is not used as a female pejorative and is used as a slang for small dogs or a general pejorative for a mongrel or a person of low standing. In Colombia it tends to be used to address "stink".
Interestingly enough it is used also as a general multipurpose cuss word for shit or fuck in South America and Panama but not in general in the rest of Central America. As in " Ay Chucha! El trafico es loco." or just plain old "Chucha!".
So, if one was to translate " Bad Hombres / Mujeres" directly ( mal Hombres / Mujeres) one would be greeted with an empty stare or a quizzical look as that is not how the gender identifiers are used within the cultures.
In general Spanish speaking cultures derive their own derogatory vocabularies to identify the bad subsets within their cultures thus leaving the basic gender modifiers to be used as they are intended.
neilm
25
Turns out "Jesus" isn't the Scottish pronunciation for kids named "Jesus" - even the coach couldn't stop laughing.
LOL... That's pronounced "Hey Zeus" in Texas. :)
Now let's practice our Welsh:
Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch
http://www.llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch.co.uk/soundfiles/llandad4.wav
Meaning: Saint Mary's Church in the hollow of the white hazel near to the fierce whirlpool of Saint Tysilio of the red cave.
Okay... Here's an easier one:
Drist
Tree-st
Meaning: Sad
Balthy
16
Same argument we've been having.
An attribution of culpability without proof.
The US has scientists who make chemical weapons and much worse.
It's using them that is the problem.
Enacting sanctions before conclusive evidence is presented is putting the cart before the horse.
It's out of fashion these days, but once upon a time there was this innocent until proven guilty concept.
It never really applied to everyone though.
Minorities, women, the poor, immigrants, foreigners, etc. were often exempt.
Innocent even after being proven guilty is the current trend.
War criminals, torturers, Wall Streeters, corporate executives... the rich and powerful in general.
That reminds me.
Obama is getting $400,000 for a speech to banksters. The first of many small tokens of appreciation for refusing to prosecute the guilty I'm sure.
A
@gt,
the spanish 'r' in the middle of a word is pronounced more like a soft english 'd' in most dialects, like the d in body. a trilled r that short but short enough that there's only one trill.
@kick,
yup, welsh is a challenging language, but also beautiful. that church you mentioned is a famous landmark, i think my folks sent me a picture when they visited my dad's childhood home. here's a song whose lyrics i borrowed as part of my wedding vows:
https://youtu.be/nhSNfkYkfG4
JL
@JL-
I am acutely aware of how the R is pronounced. Unfortunately, my anglo sax tongue does not like to do that action and as a result after a few beers with my business partners they like to ask me questions that require a response with many "rolled" R's. We usually get a laugh out of it and buy another Round of Cerveza.
Now more to your point of pronunciation, I tend to prefer my break out as I view R as more of a softer sound over D which tends to be harder in English.
I would posit that perhaps the proper way to break it down would be MOO-HERD-ES.
The R is the bain of my existence...in Spanish. Now it is entirely different when it comes to Portuguese.
Al [28]-
You're pretty quick to assert that Obama's speaking fee is payback for 'refusing to prosecute the guilty'. Where is your concern for absolute proof when it comes to our former chief executive? What proof do you have that anyone in the room he spoke to were "guilty" (of anything)?
You're painting with a big sloppy brush there, one significantly less accurate than the one used by international intelligence agencies when assessing the actions and capabilities of the Assad regime.
JL
29
I'll walk with you... very nice.
If you like that, I got something for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdriwgfPNDo
GT
26, 30
I would posit that perhaps the proper way to break it down would be MOO-HERD-ES.
Moo herd... MOO HERD! Sounds like cattle.
GT, are you deliberately trying to sound like that "bumbling white guy who is trying to take us back to the 50's"? ;)
Spanish is a wonderfully complex language that if one is not careful one can get in trouble with.
Sí, se puede.
Moo herd... MOO HERD! Sounds like cattle.
maybe the reason english speakers have trouble saying the trill is they think 'r' - i mean technically it doesn't sound like anything in english, but the sound is closer to d than r.
moo-heydays - y'know, when cows were in style.
haven't had a chance to watch your link yet, but looking forward.
JL
@kick,
oh, that song was lovely. good group!
here's one way to teach english speakers to trill their 'r's:
https://youtu.be/rsEyvp56oW4?t=10s
JL
a01 [13],
mattis isn't legitimizing lieberman any more than netanyahu has already by appointing him defense minister. but that's the way things work in a parliamentary system of government; parties have to build coalitions in order to govern, and not all coalition members are going to be sane. mattis has to respect the office, even if the man who holds that office is pretty awful.
since you seem interested in israel's response to the syrian civil war, Joshua Mitnick of the LA Times wrote an article about the issues they're facing:
http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-israel-syria-dilemma-2017-story.html
The dominant approach reflects a realpolitik recognition that Israel, even though it could topple Assad, shouldn’t take sides in the civil war because it has little ability to shape a new Syria and is viewed as a pariah by most of the Arab world.
...
A minority school of thought holds that Israel should be more proactive in hastening the downfall of Assad, a goal that overlaps with the urge among many Israelis to give more humanitarian assistance.
...
“I think all Israelis are very confused. On the one hand, we are satisfied that they are not shooting at Israel. Both sides are our enemies,” he said. “On the other hand, our heart is breaking to see the innocent suffer.”
JL
@a01 [mis-posted on an unrelated thread],
Mattis was definitely legitimizing Avigdor Lieberman by participating in an optional event with him.
mattis doesn't need to "legitimize" his counterpart from an allied nation, any more than mattis needs the head of defense for some other nation to legitimize him. whether they're crazy or sane, propriety demands that you meet your allied counterpart, and it would have been stupid not to. sharing a dais with somebody doesn't mean you agree with them.
And as much as you want to believe or spin that Israel aiding our enemy al Qaida is a humanitarian position, and that it isn't "taking sides" in the proxy war in Syria, I think you're position is crazy. Likewise, Israel and AIPAC lobbying for a US regime change war in Syria is "taking sides".
i think that's a cynical oversimplification of everyone. israel has a full spectrum of political beliefs just as we do, they just have a parliamentary system instead of a federalist system. of the sixty or so rebel groups in syria, less than half are affiliated with AQ or ISIS. why is it so unbearably hard to believe that israelis might not want to sit there and watch people bleed and die right in front of them, including hundreds of children?
Lieberman stating he prefers ISIS to Assad is "taking sides".
yes, we've established that lieberman is crazy. unlike assad, isis has tended not to bother shooting at israel, so i guess lieberman doesn't think ahead.
Israel buying oil from ISIS via Erdogan's son in Turkey is "taking sides".
the israelis buy practically anything from practically anyone, if the price is right. with all the folks demonizing them, they take what they can get.
I don't know why you think propaganda that ignores reality would be convincing. You should know me better than that by now.
if i thought reading what you've written recently meant i knew you, i would let you rant and wouldn't bother trying to respond. pretty much any opinion you disagree with seems to go into the propaganda category, irrespective of the converging lines evidence that support it.
much like michale's opinions on global warming, your opinions on syria aren't wrong because they're unpopular, they're unpopular because most of the available evidence suggests that they're wrong.
And do you have nothing to say about Bibi refusing to meet the German foreign minister if he dares to meet with Israeli human rights groups?
petty use of foreign policy to drive domestic politics. netanyahu has been very skilled at maintaining his ruling coalition, often at the expense of israel's global standing. if you took a poll, i think you'd find most israelis don't support this.
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.710777
JL
@a01 [still posting where it doesn't belong],
I've been bringing discussions forward to the new thread for months, because comments on old threads are often missed (and I seem to recall Liz commenting favorably on the idea).
you have the right to free speech in the column about free speech, but i think you're rationalizing your desire for attention. if you read liz's response to [04] on the coulter post, it doesn't bear out your memory. if it's all the same to you, i'll continue to respond here (until i get tired of it).
And I would argue that a discussion about extremists like Avigdor Lieberman and Bibi Netanyahu is more relevant to the current column... but that's just my opinion.
fair enough. my opinion is it's not particularly relevant to any recent column, which makes me curious as to why you seem so preoccupied with israeli politics.
Anyway, Mattis isn't legitimizing Lieberman's office, but rather his views... and a "crazy" "nutjob" (as you put it) does need legitimizing. And a joint public appearance is not "demanded by propriety", it's optional... a choice Mattis made.
like it or not, crazy or not, lieberman is the defense minister of the united states' strongest ally in the region. yes, it's a choice, but it would be political suicide for mattis to refuse to meet.
I think it's an inane argument to suggest that a parliamentary system is somehow relevant to Israel aiding al Qaida.
you're conflating two different arguments. the parliamentary system is relevant to lieberman being appointed defense minister. he's got a large constituency in the ruling coalition, so a high level appointment is part of the cost of his faction's support.
Yes, well, the Israeli media reported that Israel was covertly aiding al Qaida fighters, so claiming otherwise based on the makeup of the number of groups just qualifies as a cute dodge, not something that is factual or relevant.
it matters because the israeli military helped ALL seriously injured people on their borders, some of whom were later reported to be al-nusra; it's not as if they specifically decided to help al-qaeda.
It certainly doesn't justify our "allies" providing funds to our enemies.
was the oil bought by the israeli government or israeli companies? did the buyer know where the oil came from? was it below market price? was it illegal in israel? there's a lot of information missing from this story. not sure why you put quotes around "allies" - are you claiming that israel is not a good faith ally of the united states?
the article that claims Israel is "not taking sides" in Syria while they aid al Qaida and lobby the US to engage in a regime change war in Syria absolutely qualifies as propaganda.
as i said, israel is not a monolith. the right wing has been in charge of the government for a number of years, and they do hate assad, hezbollah and iran. however, the interventionist perspective is currently in the minority - their only military actions so far have been to retaliate when someone attacks them or threatens their border, and to prevent the shipping of advanced weapons systems. any help this provided to al-nusra or isis was certainly accidental. in case you didn't know it yet, most of israel dislikes them too.
You think Bibi refusing to meet the German foreign minister if he dares to meet human rights activists is "petty"? And you ignore the hypocrisy exposed about your "demanded by propriety" claim regarding Mattis and Lieberman?
how is it hypocritical, they're two different countries, and both decisions were made with domestic politics in mind. in US politics, Mattis couldn't be seen rejecting a meeting with his israeli counterpart. in israeli politics, netanyahu was trying to marginalize his political opposition by denying them access to foreign leaders.
Of course, needing to appoint a "crazy" "nutjob" like Lieberman as his minister of defense doesn't exactly make Bibi look all that skilled either, but that's just my opinion again.
your opinion is not informed by israeli politics. i personally think it was a nasty move, but its intended objective was rational based on the local politics.
JL
JL
34, 35
moo-heydays - y'know, when cows were in style.
I live in Texas, JL... where cows have always been in style and where they know you're absolutely right about that "r" being pronounced like a "d"... a soft "d" like you will hear when you pronounce the word "edits" without the "t."
here's one way to teach english speakers to trill their 'r's
LOL... Yes! That clip and this clip from Tommy Boy might do it.
https://youtu.be/O7RiYPibdKs?t=35s
Como una promesa, eres tú, eres tú: Like a promise, you are, you are. :)
@kick,
yes! that was a hilarious clip!
:)
JL
a02,
I'm on double secret probation with Liz.
Don't hold it against her.
But my memory is fine.
then why are you appealing to her as an authority on the topic of you dragging this old thread into whatever post is most recent, when she unequivocally agreed with me that you shouldn't?
And I think hiding your defense of our "ally's" covert aid to al Qaida...
not hiding, just sparing the rest of the CW community from having to scroll through my every response to your accusations against israel.
Letting your spin stand unchallenged would be an affront to reason.
you seem to have no problem affronting reason when doing so agrees with your anti-israel stance. you say israel is helping AQ, which is a lie of omission. they're helping anyone who isn't shooting at them:
-some of which are affiliated with al-nusra
-some with other rebel groups
-some of them civilians caught in the cross-fire.
Of course, nobody else here posts links and comments about news of the day unrelated to the topic of the column.
blanket accusations against israel aren't "news of the day," they're your own pet obsession. how exactly they relate to trump's tax returns is one i'm anxiously awaiting.
"yes, it's a choice, but it would be political suicide for mattis to refuse to meet."
The meeting may be "demanded by propriety" as you put it. But you're conflating that with the optional joint press conference AFTER the meeting
is this another conspiracy theory? how do you think snubbing the press conference would have looked for mattis back home? any different from snubbing the meeting? no politician could possibly meet your expectations and hope to remain in office.
Yes, I know Israeli voters have been making horrible choices too. Why were you mentioning it in a response about Israel aiding al Qaida?
it's hard to find any post about syria without you repeating that particular lie of omission. since it's all you seem interested in, it's unsurprising that you also think it's all everyone else is interested in as well.
unlike the post you mentioned earlier, THAT is an example of projection.
But Bibi needing to form a coalition with a faction led by a "crazy" "nutjob" (as you put it) in order to remain in power is a big deal.
what you're missing here is that i agreed with you about bibi's hypocrisy. it may make political sense, but it's absolutely craven and deplorable. i guess some folks just can't take yes for an answer.
Sure, Israel accidentally decided to covertly aid the fighters that just coincidentally were in an adjacent area controlled by al Qaida, while they simultaneously (and accidentally no doubt) decided not to aid fighters in adjacent areas controlled by Syria or Hezbollah.
the israel-syria border is quite small, if you would kindly examine a map. israel has made clear they would be fully willing to medically treat any of their enemies, even hizbollah or hamas, if at any point those groups were to decide to stop shooting at them.
Of course, Israel abandoning the policy of covertly aiding al Qaida as soon as it was exposed, and the selective nature of the aid, and the fact that they tried to hide it... all makes your desperate spin laughable.
ah, the conspiracy theorist returns.
Israeli intelligence is horrible, so no doubt they had no idea they were helping to fund ISIS by buying their oil.
you didn't address any of my questions, so i'll repeat them: was the oil bought by the israeli government or israeli companies? did the buyer know where the oil came from? was it below market price? was it illegal?
You should be condemning it instead of trying to spin Israeli burden shifting efforts while pretending it doesn't represent their wishes.
Your argument is dishonest.
as with every other argument you seem to make, this paints the entirety of an incredibly diverse population as supporting the favored policies of a powerful minority. lieberman and netanyahu did not win a majority of the vote, but they were able to gain power over the knesset through deals with other parties.
your argument is insulting, and does not reflect reality.
You are arguing that Bibi rejecting a meeting is acceptable while Mattis rejecting a meeting would be unacceptable... that's hypocrisy plain and simple.
again, what you didn't seem to understand is that i agreed with you about netanyahu's actions being inappropriate. they are different situations, both governed by domestic politics, but again, please learn to take yes for an answer.
I must be ignorant for pointing out what a horrible guy Bibi is for needing to form a coalition with a "crazy" "nutjob" in order to cling to power.
no, your argument is ignorant for failing to take into account the complexity of the situation. netanyahu's constituency has goals, and he realized that to achieve those goals, he had to ally with a faction even more extremist than his own. your expectations of political behavior seem to come from a well-meaning place, but it is a rainbows and unicorns fantasy, with a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory tarring anyone who fails to meet those expectations.
And of course you think it's rational to partner with a crazy nutjob who supports policies that are against US interests.
i said it was rational, not that it was noble. you seem to have a great deal of difficulty distinguishing between those two concepts.
JL
@a01,
And after reviewing the rulebook, I believe my commenting habits are not restricted by your desires.
that is true. if acting like a jackass were grounds for expulsion, many of us would have been booted long ago. however, your decision to continue this behavior doesn't only affect you and me, it also spams unrelated columns and interferes with the conversations of others.
Posting a link to a current BBC article about Bibi's offensive behavior, and mentioning the former Israeli policy of giving aid to al Qaida as reported by Haaretz, and linking to a BBC article about Mattis consorting with a "crazy nutjob" are not "accusations" nor "anti-Israel".
they are when your statements are incomplete, prejudicial, lie by omission, unfairly single out the actions of individual israelis and tar all of israel with the same broad brush, while at the same time defending regimes like assad that HAVE been proven to employ chemical weapons.
I am pointing out verifiable facts.
you are reciting prejudicial half-truths that taken in a vacuum make it seem like israeli policy and the reasons behind it have been something different from what they actually are.
I find the actions and policies of the current right wing Israeli government offensive and worthy of comment.
yes, i'm fully aware how interested you have been both in condemning israel in general and defending assad in particular.
You seem intent on defending the actions and policies of the current right wing Israeli government... and that is an affront to reason by someone who supposedly supports Democrats and opposes Trump and his comparably offensive right wing policies and actions.
unlike you, i don't decide whether someone is right or wrong based on who they are; i can agree with an action by a politician i dislike, or disagree with an action by a politician i like. i judge each action based on my perception of the reasons behind it and the impact it has on people.
I'm not saying it, Israeli media reported the covert Israeli policy, and Israel was forced to abandon it because it is indefensible.
you say it's a fact, but you still have yet to present any evidence or testimony to support this. the only link you provided was a bbc article that said the israeli military was treating anyone wounded on their syrian border, irrespective of what faction they belonged to. have they stopped treating the wounded on the syrian border?
The fact that you are defending the Israeli policy of aiding the terrorists who flew planes into US buildings, bombed US embassies, bombed a US naval vessel, attacked US forces in Iraq repeatedly, and launched numerous other terrorist attacks on us and our allies by saying that al Qaida isn't shooting at Israelis is truly disturbing.
al-nusra used to be AQ's syrian affiliate, just as ISIS used to be AQ's iraqi affiliate. each group is still clearly jihadist, but broke away from the mother group to focus on more local issues. your insistence that all the wounded people on the golan border were involved in planning 9/11 is so far removed from the complex reality of the situation that it's hard to take you seriously when you continue to repeat this.
israel has a very long history of trying to treat humanely with any enemy who wasn't busy trying to kill them. i won't apologize for that, and i think it's disturbing that you find trying to save people's lives so disturbing. ally, enemy or civilian, human beings deserve the chance to survive.
If you don't understand why it is disturbing, I can't help you.
i feel exactly the same way.
If you aided al Qaida, you would still be prosecuted and found guilty of aiding our enemy even if you also provided aid to Children's Hospital and PETA.
if someone showed up at my door bleeding, i wouldn't take the time to ask whether they belonged to AQ, isis, PETA or ringling brothers, i'd treat them if i knew how, and let the authorities sort out the rest. are you saying you would sit around waiting for someone to identify whether or not a guy dying on your doorstep was a terrorist before trying to save his life?
A press conference that doesn't happen isn't a snub.
in what fantasy world do you think events would be interpreted that way, were one defense minister to request a press conference and the other to refuse?
I don't understand your "conspiracy theory" question. What conspiracy am I theorizing?
let's see... first that assad's chemical attacks were all false flag operations, second that the israeli government was secretly dealing oil with isis and providing military support for al qaeda. third that obama chose not to prosecute investment bankers as a quid pro quo for large speaking fees. come to think of it, you don't seem to have met a conspiracy theory you don't like. in this case:
"Israel abandoning the policy of covertly aiding al Qaida as soon as it was exposed, and the selective nature of the aid, and the fact that they tried to hide it" - i don't doubt you read it somewhere, but you have not provided even a single line of evidence that any of this was the case. from most weigantians i would take it on faith that such sources existed, but your grip on reality seems particularly tenuous.
And why are you defending a Trump appointee for an unnecessary courtesy towards a "crazy nutjob" (as you put it), and why are you concerned about him losing his job? What is your motivation?
my motivation is that i think the matter of two defense ministers holding a press conference is inconsequential and not relevant to the sane one's evaluation of evidence in khan shaykhun.
You didn't say you agreed with me, you didn't give "yes" as an answer, and you denied the hypocrisy.
what i wrote is that netanyahu's actions were nasty, but rational given his domestic goals. in response, you accused me of hypocrisy because you couldn't tell the difference between understanding the reasons for a political action and attempting to justify it.
You think noting the facts about Israeli aid for al Qaida as reported by journalists is a "conspiracy theory"? Israel did aid al Qaida.
i'm still waiting to see the proof that an israeli policy was specifically geared toward helping al-nusra. you'll forgive me if i don't take your word for it.
It was a covert policy that wasn't publicly debated or agreed to in the Knesset or announced by the government.
does that mean that evidence of this supposed policy is circumstantial and depends on a premise that has not been proven?
And when it was exposed in the media, Israel abandoned the policy.
your reasoning goes in such elaborate circles that i can't even trace where it began. i've read a fair amount on the topic, and have yet to encounter any evidence of a pro-nusra policy starting or stopping.
Are false accusations a rational defense?
based on your assessment of assad's chemical attacks, you certainly seem to think so.
Your questions seeking to distract from the Israeli purchases of oil from our enemy ISIS are irrelevant. Israeli intelligence was most certainly aware, and allowed the purchases.
if said purchases ever existed, and if mossad knew about them (none of which i'm taking on faith at this point), mossad must not have had a compelling reason to stop them.
Israel shouldn't aid our enemies or allow Israelis to do so, even if there is money to be made.
israel is our ally, not our colony. they can do (or not do) whatever they decide is in their national interests. since you've provided no evidence to suggest otherwise, i'll operate on the presumption that the buyer didn't know or care, and mossad didn't think it was a big enough deal to be worth acting upon.
When the current right wing Israeli government lobbies the US to launch a regime change war in Syria, Israel is "taking sides" in the Syrian conflict.
has the US or israel launched a war of which i'm unaware? the only action trump has taken thus far is a pinpoint missile strike, and israel has only attacked those factions who attacked them first, or who brought in weapons that could threaten their safety. when there are boots on the ground, then this particular conspiracy theory of yours may have legs, but not before.
The "diversity of opinion in Israel" created the current right wing government, and they are responsible for the policies of that government regardless of how the coalition making up the government was formed.
just as you and i are responsible for the policies of trump. that doesn't mean the whole country agrees with everything he does, or that as a result of his actions, the united states is no longer an ally of its allies.
Since you now claim to agree with me, why do you seem to want to absolve the current right wing government of responsibility for their policies and actions. That only makes sense if you support Bibi's twisted right wing goals.
i have no desire to absolve netanyahu of actions for which he is actually responsible, like refusing a meeting with the german minister for local political reasons. however, you go far beyond holding politicians responsible; you seem to want to blame the whole country for the results of a few elections, and for accusations made by syria and russia, which appear not to be founded in reality.
I don't think forming an extremist right wing government is rational.
And I don't see why you do.
your inability to understand the logic behind positions you don't share is both unfortunate and pervasive. your inability to accept that my understanding and explaining the reasons behind a position doesn't mean i agree with it, is also unfortunate and pervasive.
if you have to reply, feel free, but please kindly don't subject the rest of CW's community to any more of this ridiculous argument.
JL
nypoet
42
"if acting like a jackass were grounds for expulsion, many of us would have been booted long ago"
Wow.
At least you finally recognized how your own crude behavior triggers a response.
"they are when your statements are incomplete, prejudicial, lie by omission, unfairly single out the actions of individual israelis and tar all of israel with the same broad brush, while at the same time defending regimes like assad that HAVE been proven to employ chemical weapons"
You are jumping the shark now.
I noticed your inability to provide examples for your ridiculous claims. Incomplete? Prejudicial?
I already tackled your "lie by omission" nonsense.
But I'll work backwards on the rest for fun.
Your idea of "proof" about the chemical weapons attack is actually called faith in known liars with a well documented agenda you are serving, and "evidence" obtained from terrorists.
Your inability to distinguish between questioning your own government and defending their target is sad.
Criticizing the current right wing Israeli government is not a "tar of all Israel", just the government. Nor is it anti-Israel. By your "logic" I guess you are tarring all Americans and you are anti-American for criticizing the Trump regime. It's a ridiculous claim. It's no different, and you should be ashamed.
"unfairly single out the actions of individual Israelis"?
You mean the prime minister and defense minister who were singled out in the BBC articles?
"unfairly" says it all. First you agree they are worthy of criticism, but now suddenly it's unfair.
You are becoming unhinged.
"you are reciting prejudicial half-truths that taken in a vacuum make it seem like israeli policy and the reasons behind it have been something different from what they actually are."
I'll inform Haaretz and the BBC that they are prejudiced reporters of "half-truths".
"yes, i'm fully aware how interested you have been both in condemning israel in general"
Israeli policy, See above.
"and defending assad in particular."
That's a lie. Never happened.
Go ahead. Try to find an example to cite.
""unlike you, i don't decide whether someone is right or wrong based on who they are;"
Another lie.
I've criticized Israeli leaders based on what they've said and done.
"i can agree with an action by a politician i dislike"
The truth comes out. You regularly agree with right wing extremists who are damaging Israel and America.
"you say it's a fact, but you still have yet to present any evidence or testimony to support this"
First you defend the actions by making ridiculous excuses, and now you're claiming the events didn't happen?
Unhinged.
"al-nusra used to be AQ's syrian affiliate, just as ISIS used to be AQ's iraqi affiliate. each group is still clearly jihadist, but broke away from the mother group"
Holy guacamole.
Now you're absolving terrorists because the groups changed their names?
Desperation knows no bounds.
"israel has a very long history of trying to treat humanely with any enemy who wasn't busy trying to kill them... and let the authorities sort it out"
First you would have to provide evidence that Israel arrested any of the terrorist they aided.
Wishful thinking, my dear.
Write this on a sign
"I support Israel helping al Qaida so they can go back to committing terror"
and stand in front of the 9/11 memorial.
I dare you.
"in what fantasy world do you think events would be interpreted that way, were one defense minister to request a press conference and the other to refuse?"
It's called Earth.
You should come back down to it.
"you don't seem to have met a conspiracy theory you don't like"
Wow.
News reports from the BBC and Haaretz are "conspiracy theories".
I'll ignore your desperation of dragging in bull turd examples from other discussions to bolster your false accusations in this discussion.
"i would take it on faith that such sources existed"
No. First you would attempt to make excuses while adding background information for the events you know occurred, and THEN when that fails, you would demand cites for links already provided here long ago.
"what i wrote is that netanyahu's actions were nasty"
Finally you are admitting you were lying after falsely claiming you had agreed and I couldn't take yes for an answer.
I mean, you do see how "nasty" is different than "agreed" and "yes" right?
"i'm still waiting to see the proof that an israeli policy was specifically geared toward helping al-nusra"
As reported by Haaretz.
You can't be following the issue closely without actually reading the journalism articles about it.
Get your story straight.
"does that mean that evidence of this supposed policy is circumstantial and depends on a premise that has not been proven?"
No. It means Haaretz broke a story about the covert Israeli policy of aiding al Qaida.
Are you sure you've been following this story closely?
"i've read a fair amount on the topic, and have yet to encounter any evidence of a pro-nusra policy starting or stopping"
Let me get this straight. You've read about the topic, and tried to make excuses for it, but don't know that it happened and then stopped?
Unhinged isn't a strong enough word for that.
"if said (oil) purchases (from ISIS) ever existed, and if mossad knew about them"
Once again you are doubting an event you were making excuses for in the previous comment.
The hasbara handbook suggests doing things the other way around dude.
"israel is our ally, not our colony. they can do (or not do) whatever they decide is in their national interests"
And as a patriotic American, you will make excuses to defend their actions that harm America.
Things are starting to become clear.
"has the US or israel launched a war of which i'm unaware? the only action trump has taken thus far is a pinpoint missile strike"
Launching missiles is an act of war, but you aren't proving that Israel isn't taking sides by lobbying the US for war in Syria by noting a full fledged war hasn't started yet.
I would recommend a community college logic class to improve your tactics.
And you resort to the false "conspiracy theory" claim for public statements from the Israeli government reported widely?
I take it you aren't following this topic closely.
"just as you and i are responsible for the policies of trump. that doesn't mean the whole country agrees with everything he does, or that as a result of his actions, the united states is no longer an ally of its allies."
Is this an attempt at agreeing with me again without having to say so?
"i have no desire to absolve netanyahu of actions for which he is actually responsible, like refusing a meeting with the german minister for local political reasons. however, you go far beyond holding politicians responsible"
I go far beyond?
You just agreed with what I said.
Is this a projection joke?
"you seem to want to blame the whole country for the results of a few elections..."
So, you're saying that the people in Israel aren't responsible for their government even though you just said all Americans are responsible for Trump.
Get it together please.
"...and for accusations made by syria and russia, which appear not to be founded in reality"
That's a lie. Never happened.
"your inability to understand the logic behind positions you don't share"
Now right wing extremism is logical in addition to rational?
I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.
"if you have to reply, feel free, but please kindly don't subject the rest of CW's community to any more of this ridiculous argument."
Ah!!
Finally you find a civil tone and ask nicely.
Did it kill you?
Maybe you can stop lying about me and stop making false accusations too, and just argue the issues and stick to the civility thing?
That shouldn't be asking too much.
A