Trump - hoće li biti impeachment ili 8 godina drugačijeg predsednikovanja?

[Roger Sanchez]

NMSY*

Spoiler

*not my sorry ass

 

[Lord Protector]

 

Quote

 

A Madman on the National Security Council

Posted By Matt Purple On March 23, 2018

 

Would that John Bolton were only a clown. The mustachioed alleged diplomat, briefly of the Bush administration—and initially criticized as too controversial even for that team—has now been appointed national security advisor. That position will give him the president’s ear on matters of foreign policy, as well as control over which other administration principals enjoy such access. Donald Trump pledged that if elected he would be a different kind of Republican president, and he’s delivered: under the last GOP administration, Bolton occupied a slightly lower-ranking position than he does now.

Bolton is indeed no circus act: he’s one of the sharpest and most dangerous national security operatives in Washington. To take just one example, last summer, Trump made it known that he was considering pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal, a campaign promise he wanted fulfilled but that had been discouraged by his then-secretary of state Rex Tillerson. Sensing an opportunity, Bolton wrote an essay for National Review ^[1] explaining in breezy (i.e. Trump-digestible) terms just how to abrogate the agreement. The piece is chockablock with nonsense: at one point it claims sans any evidence that the Obama administration believed the JCPOA was “disadvantageous to the United States.” It also offers scant evidence to underpin its claim that Iran was in violation of the deal, an assertion that’s been repeatedly repudiated by the authorities at the IAEA. But the truth wasn’t the point: the piece was meant to water a seed in the president’s mind, to lend expert opinion to Trump’s burning preference that the JCPOA be reversed.

That Bolton did this shouldn’t surprise anyone because this is how Bolton works: shrewdly and always towards the goal of more war. As Gareth Porter detailed in a rigorously reported piece for TAC ^[2], during his tenure under Bush, Bolton maneuvered behind the scenes to pump up a pretext for conflict between the United States and Iran. Among his methods was to pretend that satellite images of a military base at Parchin demonstrated Iranian nuclear experimentation. That supposed smoking gun is cited to this day by neocons as proof of Iran’s atomic dreams.

What makes Bolton unique among hawkish operators is that he doesn’t feel the need to hide any of these machinations. The man wants to pulverize Tehran and he’s not afraid to say so. In 2015, Bolton wrote a piece for the New York Times subtly titled “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.” ^[3] Never mind that the adverbial clause in that sentence had no definitive evidence in its favor; it was off to war because, as Bolton put it, “extensive progress in uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing reveal [Iran’s] ambitions” (imagine if that standard was applied universally). The coming operation, Bolton promised, would be akin to Operation Opera in 1981 when Israel destroyed a single Iraqi nuclear reactor, except that this one would take out multiple installations at Natanz and Fordow and Arak and Isfahan and…

The details never add up because they’re not supposed to. Bolton’s wheelhouse has never been the tactical nitty-gritty; he’s an ideologue whose credo dogmatizes violence against enemies regardless of consequences or cost. On the Iraq war, he declared in 2015 ^[4], “I still think the decision to overthrow Saddam was correct.” On Libya, in 2011 before the Obama administration launched its calamitous intervention, Bolton recommended that the United States assassinate Moammar Gaddafi ^[5]. On North Korea, he innocently suggested there was a “legal case” for a first strike ^[6]. On Russia, you will not be surprised to learn that he thinks Trump needs to get tougher, including launching a cyber-attack that would be “decidedly disproportionate” ^[7] to anything the Russians have done. He also thinks it’s time to revisit the “One-China Policy” ^[8] that prevents us from antagonizing Beijing by recognizing an independent Taiwan.

There are all manner of vexatious wrinkles amidst those pronouncements. For instance, a foreign policy realist might note that the deposal of Iraq’s regime and the ascendance of Shiite power in Baghdad, which Bolton supported, greatly availed Iran, which Bolton detests. But again, such nuances are dwarfed by the big-picture concepts in which Bolton deals, like American Power and Dictatorships and Strength. Most foreign policy gurus, despite supporting generally hawkish policies, have at least disowned the war in Iraq and made some perfunctory efforts to adjust for its failures. Not Bolton, who is that most ludicrous of creatures: the unreconstructed Bush-era thinker. He belongs behind a glass display in the American History Museum, not enjoying a second wind at the apex of the federal bureaucracy.

But alas, the president himself has spoken. There are conditions to Bolton’s employment. CNN is reporting that Bolton promised Trump—quote—“he wouldn’t start any wars” ^[9] if he became national security advisor, and surely that’s a promise he’ll keep. Bolton, after all, has never started (or fought in) a war in his life. What he will do is counsel Trump to take the most belligerent course of action possible in every given situation. Up first will be the Iran deal, which, with Bolton now at NSC and Mike Pompeo at State, seems certain to be the subject of a hardened stance from the White House, which will further isolate America from its allies, as the Europeans, more commercially entangled with Tehran than we are, decline to go along.

That brings us back to Trump, the insurgent who won the 2016 election pledging to repudiate the George W. Bush legacy and keep the United States out of foreign wars. It’s a show of both neocon strength and Trump impressionability that a mere year and a half later the most warmongering personality in Washington has already clambered all the way up to national security advisor. I’m new here at TAC, but I’m quickly learning that part of the arrangement is that we lose 100 battles for every one we win.

Matt Purple is managing editor of The American Conservative.

 

 

Edited March 25, 2018 by slow

[Eraserhead]

Tramptardi...

 

 

[Roger Sanchez]

A Stormy evening!

 

 

[theanswer]

ovaj intervju je stvarno nešto  jebote, anderson kuper i stormi denijels, mene je sramota umesto cbs-a majke mi

[Eraserhead]

Psiho

 

 

[Lord Protector]

 

Quote

Sebastian Gorka: Bolton Will ‘Absolutely’ Remove People from National Security Council

Sebastian Gorka, former deputy assistant to President Trump and Fox News national security strategist, said he expects Ambassador John Bolton to remove officials from the National Security Council (NSC) who do not support the president.

“Absolutely, without a doubt,” said Gorka in an interview Wednesday with Breitbart News.

“I don’t know if he’s going to bring people back, but he’s definitely going to get a grip on the people inside the Eisenhower Building, inside the NSC who think that they know better than the president,” he added. “So he’s not going to come in and just leave everything in place like H.R. [McMaster] did or fire those most loyal to President Trump’s vision and the America First agenda.”

At one of outgoing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster’s first all-hands meetings, he told staffers that “there is no such thing as a holdover” and instructed them not to use the word “holdover” in reference to the civil servants who were detailed to the NSC during the Obama administration.

“Well, that simply is not a reality,” Gorka said. “You’ve got 125 leaks from the NSC in 126 days. That’s not being done by Trump loyalists or political appointees. That’s being done by holdovers. That was an incredibly naive or reckless statement to make. I do not expect John Bolton to be caught in the trap of such naivete that H.R. was.”

Bolton comes in with significant government experience. He has served in the Nixon, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush administrations, at the White House, State Department, Justice Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and at the United Nations.

Bolton’s supporters believe his vast government experience will be an asset in his new position as national security adviser, as the official who will present the views of the different government agencies to the president and enforce decisions made across those agencies.

Gorka said Bolton is aware that the NSC works for the president, not for the government bureaucracies.

“The NSC is the highest level policymaking body in national security in the United States. As such, it is a politically shaped entity that serves the objectives of the president. It does not serve the objectives of the bureaucracy. And H.R. seemed to think that the NSC was there to serve the bureaucracy as much as it served the president. Absolutely wrong. The National Security Council is there to serve the president, not the various agencies. And I think Bolton coming onboard will fix all that,” he said.

Gorka recalled multiple meetings at the NSC where bureaucrats — inside the building and at different agencies — never once mentioned the president’s name or discussed his policies regarding the issue set to be discussed.

“That’s when I realized the Deep State isn’t some conspiracy theory. The Deep State is real,” he said. “I was told by a friend of mine in the State Department that the day after the election, people were weeping — openly weeping at their desks at the State Department … . That’s what the president has to put up with.”

Gorka said despite this blatant expression of ideology from government officials, the president has managed to push through his agenda on a number of fronts.

“From getting out of the Paris Accords, to the tariffs, to recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of the eternal state of Israel, these are all things that the swamp wanted to sabotage, and even some members of the cabinet didn’t support. But they were the right thing to do, and the president did them. And that’s truly remarkable,” he said.

Gorka predicted that Bolton will be an honest broker at the NSC and not just advocate for his own views.

“I think the Bolton we’re going to see is going to be a new kind of Bolton, a Bolton 2.0. He takes very seriously the idea that the National Security Adviser is meant to be the honest broker, that he’s not there to impose his views on the president,” he said.

“He’s there to give the president a range of options, and at the end of the day, it is totally the president’s call,” he said.

“I don’t think H.R. McMaster fully understood that and didn’t fully internalize the honest broker role as originally envisaged by the National Security Act of 1947. He had his expectations, his views, and more often than not, wanted to see those personal views prevail. I don’t think John Bolton is going to do that.”

 

 

Edited March 30, 2018 by slow

[Weenie Pooh]

Opa, zmajeviti peštanski vitez još uvek može da bukuje intervju kod nekog  Većina Tramparinih ridžekta ili su pod medijskim moratorijumom ili ih izvode radi sprdnje...

[Eraserhead]

 

Toliko o tome.

[Budja]

1 hour ago, Eraserhead said:

 

Toliko o tome.

 

 

Au, kakav mentolski argument.

 

Evo jos jednog.

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

 

Edited March 31, 2018 by Budja

[Weenie Pooh]

Pa ne implicira korelaciju Eraserov tvit nego je osporava. Trump je taj koji bulazni o razularenim MS-13 bandama koje haraju ulicama američkih gradova zbog nekontrolisane migracije.

 

Ann Coulter ide i korak dalje pa kuka što nema Zida, jer da ima Zida ne bi bilo ni opioid addiction epidemije  Meksikanci valjda valjaju lekove na recept.

 

 

[Anduril]

6 hours ago, Budja said:

 

Au, kakav mentolski argument.

 

 

Mozda razmislis prvo pre nego sto prozivas nekog za mentolske argumente.

[Budja]

6 hours ago, Anduril said:

 

Mozda razmislis prvo pre nego sto prozivas nekog za mentolske argumente.

 

Vrlo dobro sam razmislio.

 

I jeste mentolski argument.

 

Evo jos jednog iz zbirke.

 

 

Obama povecao proizvodnju oruzja i tako povecao sigurnost.

[ObiW]

Daj Budjo, prestani da trolujes. Nemoguce je da 1 profesor univerziteta tolko ne konta elementarnu logiku.

 

Grafikon koji si ti postavio koji pokazuje povecanje proizvodnje oruzja i smanjenje zlocina nije argument za "Obama povecao proizvodnju oruzja, ima manje kriminala" kao sto si ti naveo, nego  negiranje tvrdnje "sto ima vise oruzja, ima vise kriminala". To nije isto. Argument protiv ove drugog nije istovremeno i argument za ovo prvo.  Da bih oborio tvoju tvrdnju dovoljno je samo da pokazem podatak koji dovodi tvrdnju u pitanje, ne moram da sam dajem svoju tezu zasto se to dogadja.

 

Covek je rekao "as America's immigrant population has mounted, crime has plummeted". Nigde nije rekao "sto imamo vise imigranata, to smo bezbedniji". On je grafik naveo samo kao kontraargument Trampovoj tezi da su vecina ilegalnih imigranta kriminalci, nije tvrdio da smo bezbedniji sto ih vise ima ili da cemo kriminal iskoreniti kada svi budemo ilegalni imigranti. To nisu iste stvari, aman. 

  

Edited March 31, 2018 by ObiW

[Lord Protector]

8 hours ago, Anduril said:

 

Mozda razmislis prvo pre nego sto prozivas nekog za mentolske argumente.

 

-1