American Politics Thread: Orange is the new POTUS

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

The president technically doesn't need Congress to launch a strike. Reagan didn't ask congress to approve the strike against Libya he showed them.

Obama was a good president in many ways but he was also weak militarily and had many foreign policy missteps. one could even say his handling of Syria showed Russian his weakness and paved the way for them to invade and annex Crimea. If that wasn't a show of weakness watching 300 people blown from the sky by a Russian missile and doing nothing certainly was.

Weak militarily because he inherited a military that was fatigued after the Iraq quagmire and Afghanistan mission. There was no appetite (social or economic) to get into another war.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

To be fair even some democrats are criticizing Obama today, when Assad's regime first used chemical gas on his people breaking the famous red line something should have been done, even a small show of force like taking out a military airport under stealth would have sent a message but doing nothing but bartering with a crazy man showed
incredible weakness. and now that the Russians are there it's now a new ball game.

Obama likely didn't enforce the "Red Line" against Syria because it would have jeopardized the nuclear deal with Iran which was being negotiated at the time.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama...ia-iran-2016-8

the Obama administration's determination to close the Iran nuclear deal is to blame for the failure to act on its own red line in Syria.

"When the president announced his plans to attack [the Assad regime] and then pulled back, it was exactly the period in time when American negotiators were meeting with Iranian negotiators secretly in Oman to get the nuclear agreement,"
...
Obama gave The Atlantic several reasons for not enforcing the red line — uneasiness about a strike against Syria not being sanctioned by Congress, a lack of support from the international community and the American people, the possibility that the intelligence on the chemical-weapons attack wasn't 100% solid — but did not mention the Iran deal among them.

The Iran deal is thought to be the crowning foreign policy achievement of the Obama administration, and experts have speculated previously that his determination not to compromise the deal affected his policy on Syria.

To be honest, I would make the same choice.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by New Era

And what was the correct response? WWIII?

My point was Obama's non response in Syria likely lead to the issues in Ukraine but after that plane was blown from the sky I would have pushed for what the Ukrainian people want..

a membership with NATO

[Ozy_Flame]

White House telling North Korea time has run out and all options on the table is unnecessary provocation, especially before a meeting with China. And North Korea's fuse is incredibly short if they even feel remotely provoked by Trump.

I don't think I've seriously feared the use of nuclear weapons as much in my life as right now.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

White House telling North Korea time has run out and all options on the table is unnecessary provocation, especially before a meeting with China. And North Korea's fuse is incredibly short if they even feel remotely provoked by Trump.

I don't think I've seriously feared the use of nuclear weapons as much in my life as right now.

Kim Jong is full of crap just like his dad and his grand dad was, since the Korean war the family has pushed the envelope on saber rattling and nothing ever happens. North Korea is at least 5 years away from having the ability to launch a nuclear weapon on top of a missile, by then Kim likely will either be either assassinated by an uncle or Trump will drop a 1000 lb present down his chimney.

And even if he somehow manages to live long enough to see this weapon who would he strike? S-Korea, Japan, Canada or the US?

Kim might act like an idiot but I'm sure he knows the minute he launches a nuke a tidy little Ohio class sub will pop up in the yellow sea and end North Korea's existence forever.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Kim Jong is full of crap just like his dad and his grand dad was, since the Korean war the family has pushed the envelope on saber rattling and nothing ever happens. North Korea is at least 5 years away from having the ability to launch a nuclear weapon on top of a missile, by then Kim likely will either be either assassinated by an uncle or Trump will drop a 1000 lb present down his chimney.

And even if he somehow manages to live long enough to see this weapon who would he strike? S-Korea, Japan, Canada or the US?

Kim might act like an idiot but I'm sure he knows the minute he launches a nuke a tidy little Ohio class sub will pop up in the yellow sea and end North Korea's existence forever.

This article is from less than a month ago:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/09/...r-nuclear-war/

North Korea is developing an offensive doctrine for the large-scale use of nuclear weapons in the early stages of a conflict.
...
In recent years, however, North Korea has started launching Scuds and No-dongs from different locations all over the damn country. These aren’t missile tests, they are military exercises. North Korea knows the missiles work. What the military units are doing now is practicing — practicing for a nuclear war.
...
North Korea’s military exercises leave little doubt that Pyongyang plans to use large numbers of nuclear weapons against U.S. forces throughout Japan and South Korea to blunt an invasion. In fact, the word that official North Korean statements use is “repel.”

The article then goes on to argue for the US to modernize its nuclear weapons and build up conventional forces, but the section about North Korea seems to be a pretty solid refutation of your view of the situation.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by driveway

This article is from less than a month ago:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/09/...r-nuclear-war/



The article then goes on to argue for the US to modernize its nuclear weapons and build up conventional forces, but the section about North Korea seems to be a pretty solid refutation of your view of the situation.

Can't open your link but I'll try to respond to a part you posted.

North Korea’s military exercises leave little doubt that Pyongyang plans to use large numbers of nuclear weapons against U.S. forces throughout Japan and South Korea to blunt an invasion. In fact, the word that official North Korean statements use is “repel.”

Invasion! seriously, who the hell would bother to invade North Korea? It's just more BS, there's nothing that refutes the fact NK can't deliver a nuclear weapon via a missile, Maybe Kim will have one of his cousins drive one in a truck to Seoul but again!, is he really that stupid?

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Can't open your link but I'll try to respond to a part you posted.


Invasion! seriously, who the hell would bother to invade North Korea? It's just more BS, there's nothing that refutes the fact NK can't deliver a nuclear weapon via a missile, Maybe Kim will have one of his cousins drive one in a truck to Seoul but again!, is he really that stupid?

January 6, 2017:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11813699

North Korea claims it has successfully "miniaturised" nuclear warheads - but this has never been independently verified, and some experts have cast doubt on the claims.
...
There is no consensus on exactly where North Korea is in terms of miniaturising a nuclear device so that it can be delivered via a missile.
...
Prof Siegfried S Hecker of Stanford University, a highly authoritative voice on North Korea's weapons' development, says "we must assume that the DPRK has designed and demonstrated nuclear warheads that can be mounted on some of its short-range and perhaps medium-range missiles".

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I honestly apologize, I didn't mean to make it as snarky as it clearly sounded. I didn't have time when I posted that, and if you look further I did expand on it. I deserved that. Again, I apologize.

Basically, if someone in Susan Rice's position needed to look at a piece of intel, she would do exactly what she did. This info would not have been shared to anyone without the highest classification, who could've ordered it themselves, unless there was something worth investigating.

The bigger question is not did she, as we've known only about 20 people in the country had the power to do it for months and she's one of them, it's why.

If it was political, why didn't they use it? If it was because they suspected something nefarious, isn't that what she's supposed to do?

I mean you'd have to be obtuse to be more upset that someone was looking into nefarious relationships than the the susbstance of those relationships, no???

This is simply nothing new except we have a face to the "one of twenty people"

Most of the info collected was political in nature. Like what the Trump team thought about foreign policy and who they may place in cabinet positions.

I am failing to see how any of this relates to national security.

Let me be clear, this does not justify Trump's idiotic tweets on March 4th, but Rice has some egg on her face and she has some explaining to do.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Most of the info collected was political in nature. Like what the Trump team thought about foreign policy and who they may place in cabinet positions.

Just wondering how you know this.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Just wondering how you know this.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...iates-in-intel

The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations -- primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration.

[JackJack]

I've mentioned this before to some friends. I think what we are seeing is the slow burn of the Trump administration. Their inability to distance themselves from the Russian story and their overall incompetence at every turn will eventually lead to their demise. Death by 1000 cuts...

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Most of the info collected was political in nature. Like what the Trump team thought about foreign policy and who they may place in cabinet positions.

I am failing to see how any of this relates to national security.

Let me be clear, this does not justify Trump's idiotic tweets on March 4th, but Rice has some egg on her face and she has some explaining to do.

How do you know it was political in nature?

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...iates-in-intel

The National Security Council's senior director for intelligence, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, was conducting the review, according to two U.S. officials who spoke with Bloomberg View on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice's multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel's office, who reviewed more of Rice's requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy.

Ezra Cohen-Watnick is possibly the one that provided Nunes with the info, directly or indirectly. and was originally brought to the Whitehouse by his mentor Flynn.

hmmmmm

here's a good read on his part

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/u...orts.html?_r=0

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Ezra Cohen-Watnick is possibly the one that provided Nunes with the info, directly or indirectly. and was originally brought to the Whitehouse by his mentor Flynn.

hmmmmm

here's a good read on his part

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/u...orts.html?_r=0

Find the leakers and prosecute the leakers! Whoops! Those are the President's leakers, so this is okay.

Also, if these people in the Trump administration are "discussing foreign policy" with foreign interests identified as persons of interest and subject to open wire tapping, they are idiots. It is also ridiculous to suggest that do this before you are even elected or sworn into office. The Republicans were ####ting their pants over Clinton's email, but this is okay?

[sureLoss]

Bannon removed from National Security Council
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a..._medium=social

President Donald Trump reorganized his National Security Council on Wednesday, removing his chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, and downgrading the role of his Homeland Security Adviser, Tom Bossert, according to a person familiar with the decision and a regulatory filing.

National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster was given responsibility for setting the agenda for meetings of the NSC or the Homeland Security Council, and was authorized to delegate that authority to Bossert, at his discretion, according to the filing.

Under the move, the national intelligence director, Dan Coats, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford, are again "regular attendees" of the NSC’s principals committee.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Certainly appears Kushner is outmaneuvering Bannon right now. Trump cult will be incensed at Bannon losing power.

[aaronck]

Thanks to the "smartest" Trump- complicit is now trending. The interview clip is so deer in the headlights-

"'Complicit' is trending after Ivanka Trump told CBS "I don’t know what it means to be complicit."

http://uproxx.com/news/ivanka-trump-...cit-criticism/

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Bannon removed from National Security Council

Probably the smartest thing he has done so far.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Certainly appears Kushner is outmaneuvering Bannon right now. Trump cult will be incensed at Bannon losing power.

It sure does, the power struggle is going to add some great extra chaos, now that there are some victims.

[CaptainCrunch]

I watched that interview, and I don't think that she said I don't know what Complicit means, and it was pretty much a trap interview and she tried to turn the use of a word with negative connotations to a positive scenario.

“If being complicit is … wanting to be a force for good and to make a positive impact then I’m complicit. I don’t know that the critics who may say that of me, if they found themselves in this very unique and unprecedented situation that I am now in, would do any differently than I am doing … I don’t know what it means to be complicit, but you know, I hope time will prove that I have done a good job and much more importantly that my father’s administration is the success that I know it will be.”

Frankly its similar to someone saying If I'm guilty of doing anything, I'm guilty of trying to do the right thing.

I mean I can't stand the Trump presidency at all, I think its dangerous and dishonest and it probably will not serve the United States well in the next four years. But this is pretty much a media hitjob on Ivanka to generate hits in my mind.