Society The Donald J. Trump Show - 4 more years editions
- Thread starter IschKabibble
- Start date
Here’s why Trump’s foreign policy terrifies neocons
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...06/09/8661
By Joseph A. Mussomeli June 9
Joseph A. Mussomeli served in the U.S. Foreign Service from 1980 to 2015, including periods as U.S. ambassador to Cambodia and Slovenia.
Most of my former colleagues at the State Department will be appalled by the assertion, but much of the media-fed angst about Donald Trump’s dearth of foreign policy expertise is contrived.
Our cadre of neoconservative foreign policy experts, unhumbled after marching us into a reckless war in Iraq and a poorly conceived one in Afghanistan, who applauded as we bombed Libya and bitterly resent our having failed to bomb Bashar al-Assad in Syria, are frightened. Wisely, they often focus on comments that Trump has made on issues that are of less genuine interest to them — from his strident stance on immigration to his “threat” to our liberties to his sometimes deplorable commentary about women and some minorities. But what really troubles them is his generally level-headed and unmessianic attitude toward foreign affairs. Trump has no desire to make the rest of the world in our image; he is concerned only about the world not making America in its image.
The neocons bemoan Trump’s rejection of a global role for the United States, but Trump has no intent to withdraw the United States from the world stage. He only rejects the wanton use of our young men and women on foreign adventures of questionable value.
The neocons have two clear foreign policy objectives, and Trump may grant them neither. For many of them, their deepest yearning, ungranted even in the waning days of the George W. Bush presidency, is an air campaign against Iran. Trump doesn’t like the Iran nuclear agreement, but his instinct is to make a better deal rather than attacking, while Hillary Clinton has a strong record of supporting the prodigal misuse of military force. Clinton is just another neocon, though wrapped in sheep’s clothing — just as on some foreign policy issues Trump is little more than Bernie Sanders in wolf’s clothing.
But clothing makes a huge difference. Most Americans don’t want the United States to be disrespected, and they want a muscular military that doesn’t take any nonsense — but they also don’t want military adventurism. Trump succeeds in having it both ways: He reassures that the United States will be respected and also that we will not employ our troops as cannon fodder on distant battlefields. Underneath all the tirades against illegal immigration and the need to be tough with our adversaries, there is an inward focus. There is a sense that America — in order to be great again — needs to relinquish its role as global cop and tend first to its needs at home. By sounding caustic, Trump is able to appear more militaristic and tougher than the far more reckless Clinton. Calculating and cavalier, Clinton would agree with her old pal, then-U.N. Ambassador Madeleine Albright: “What’s the point of having this superb military . . . if we can’t use it?” The stern rebuke to that question later provided by Gen. Colin Powell that the military is not a toy is lost on the neocons and Clinton. Among Clinton’s weaknesses, her fear of appearing weak may be her most damning.
The second neocon priority? A new Cold War with Russia. Vladimir Putin, unlikable and increasingly uncooperative and antagonistic, admittedly makes this objective more within reach, but Trump might avoid it as well. Clinton repeats over and over that Russia only understands a tough and determined opponent, while Trump may have a more sophisticated and mature approach. Far less petulant than most of the former Republican candidates, Trump says he would actually talk with Putin. That takes real courage given the general view among Republican elites. Contrast that with Clinton, who thinks we should not be talking too much to Putin and that we ought to further expand NATO because , in her view, Russia would be an even greater threat had it not been for NATO expansion. Of course, to admit that NATO expansion triggered the current crisis would be admitting that her husband is largely responsible for it. Trump seems to understand George Kennan’s warning that NATO expansion would directly lead to a more paranoid and aggressive Russia.
During an ambassadorial conference in 2014, a former colleague breathlessly characterized the Ukraine crisis in neocon terms as a Manichean struggle between good and evil. Such comic-book notions now dominate our political discourse, distorting reality and making it nearly impossible to objectively assess complex issues. Trump, for all his bizarre commentary on domestic issues, better grasps the subtleties of global politics and the dangers of thinking ourselves infallible and invincible.
It’s quite an irony: The ostensibly more reckless, infantile, inexperienced and bombastic candidate may actually be more mature, level-headed and reasonable on foreign policy than his critics, who, against all the good advice our parents gave us as children, pout and refuse to talk to those they don’t like, escalate arguments to violence when they are upset, lack any remorse for the harm caused by their past opinions and actions, and fail repeatedly to see that there might be two sides to any disagreement.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...06/09/8661
By Joseph A. Mussomeli June 9
Joseph A. Mussomeli served in the U.S. Foreign Service from 1980 to 2015, including periods as U.S. ambassador to Cambodia and Slovenia.
Most of my former colleagues at the State Department will be appalled by the assertion, but much of the media-fed angst about Donald Trump’s dearth of foreign policy expertise is contrived.
Our cadre of neoconservative foreign policy experts, unhumbled after marching us into a reckless war in Iraq and a poorly conceived one in Afghanistan, who applauded as we bombed Libya and bitterly resent our having failed to bomb Bashar al-Assad in Syria, are frightened. Wisely, they often focus on comments that Trump has made on issues that are of less genuine interest to them — from his strident stance on immigration to his “threat” to our liberties to his sometimes deplorable commentary about women and some minorities. But what really troubles them is his generally level-headed and unmessianic attitude toward foreign affairs. Trump has no desire to make the rest of the world in our image; he is concerned only about the world not making America in its image.
The neocons bemoan Trump’s rejection of a global role for the United States, but Trump has no intent to withdraw the United States from the world stage. He only rejects the wanton use of our young men and women on foreign adventures of questionable value.
The neocons have two clear foreign policy objectives, and Trump may grant them neither. For many of them, their deepest yearning, ungranted even in the waning days of the George W. Bush presidency, is an air campaign against Iran. Trump doesn’t like the Iran nuclear agreement, but his instinct is to make a better deal rather than attacking, while Hillary Clinton has a strong record of supporting the prodigal misuse of military force. Clinton is just another neocon, though wrapped in sheep’s clothing — just as on some foreign policy issues Trump is little more than Bernie Sanders in wolf’s clothing.
But clothing makes a huge difference. Most Americans don’t want the United States to be disrespected, and they want a muscular military that doesn’t take any nonsense — but they also don’t want military adventurism. Trump succeeds in having it both ways: He reassures that the United States will be respected and also that we will not employ our troops as cannon fodder on distant battlefields. Underneath all the tirades against illegal immigration and the need to be tough with our adversaries, there is an inward focus. There is a sense that America — in order to be great again — needs to relinquish its role as global cop and tend first to its needs at home. By sounding caustic, Trump is able to appear more militaristic and tougher than the far more reckless Clinton. Calculating and cavalier, Clinton would agree with her old pal, then-U.N. Ambassador Madeleine Albright: “What’s the point of having this superb military . . . if we can’t use it?” The stern rebuke to that question later provided by Gen. Colin Powell that the military is not a toy is lost on the neocons and Clinton. Among Clinton’s weaknesses, her fear of appearing weak may be her most damning.
The second neocon priority? A new Cold War with Russia. Vladimir Putin, unlikable and increasingly uncooperative and antagonistic, admittedly makes this objective more within reach, but Trump might avoid it as well. Clinton repeats over and over that Russia only understands a tough and determined opponent, while Trump may have a more sophisticated and mature approach. Far less petulant than most of the former Republican candidates, Trump says he would actually talk with Putin. That takes real courage given the general view among Republican elites. Contrast that with Clinton, who thinks we should not be talking too much to Putin and that we ought to further expand NATO because , in her view, Russia would be an even greater threat had it not been for NATO expansion. Of course, to admit that NATO expansion triggered the current crisis would be admitting that her husband is largely responsible for it. Trump seems to understand George Kennan’s warning that NATO expansion would directly lead to a more paranoid and aggressive Russia.
During an ambassadorial conference in 2014, a former colleague breathlessly characterized the Ukraine crisis in neocon terms as a Manichean struggle between good and evil. Such comic-book notions now dominate our political discourse, distorting reality and making it nearly impossible to objectively assess complex issues. Trump, for all his bizarre commentary on domestic issues, better grasps the subtleties of global politics and the dangers of thinking ourselves infallible and invincible.
It’s quite an irony: The ostensibly more reckless, infantile, inexperienced and bombastic candidate may actually be more mature, level-headed and reasonable on foreign policy than his critics, who, against all the good advice our parents gave us as children, pout and refuse to talk to those they don’t like, escalate arguments to violence when they are upset, lack any remorse for the harm caused by their past opinions and actions, and fail repeatedly to see that there might be two sides to any disagreement.
The libs have finally found an illegal they don't like....
'CALL ICE IMMEDIATELY, HAVE THIS FOREIGN INVADER EXECUTED!!!!'
-The Left
M
member 3289
Guest
I like the fact that you're still trying. You're not showing any notable progress, but don't give up man.
Why arn't you out building a wall to protect our country from the invasion of Slovenian Models?
Neocons for Hillary: Obama “Doesn’t Want Nuclear War”
EXCLUSIVE: While left leaning voters in the United States are having a conniption fit over the possibility of a Trump presidency, Hillary Clinton has been quietly building a bridge to a sect of Cold War nostalgic neoconservative policymakers in Washington, D.C., getting regular advice from the likes of Project for The New American Century (PNAC) co-founder Robert Kagan, and Center for New American Security (CNAS) member and former Cheney staff member Eric Edelman.
Hill Clinton's Biggest Fan Bob Kagan
This neocon collaboration was mostly done under the radar until recently, when Foreign Policy Magazine announced that “young foreign policy professionals” in collaboration with The Center for New American Security would be hosting an official fundraiser for Hillary.
The event was especially notable for me, having just wrapped production on a 7.5 hour documentary series ‘A Very Heavy Agenda‘ about the new neocons in D.C., who have reinvented themselves to maintain credibility and influence in foreign policy making–most notably interventionist ideologue, Robert Kagan. The final installment of ‘A Very Heavy Agenda‘ shows how Hillary invited them into the U.S. State Department while at the same time Kagan’s wife Victoria Nuland served as Assistant Secretary of State of Eurasian Affairs.
Originally I intended go to this event to tell Kagan about ‘A Very Heavy Agenda’, but instead we ended up having a very revealing and candid conversation about Ukraine. Journalist Rania Khalek accompanied me to this unusual fundraiser.
I detail the surreal experience in the latest Media Roots Radio podcast with Abby Martin, where I play the recording in full. Full transcript below.
View: https://soundcloud.com/media-roots/obama-doesnt-want-nuclear-war-with-russia-neoconservatives-for-hillary-clinton
Robbie Martin: I wanted to know what your feeling was on Hillary’s approach to Ukraine, is she going to send the weapons to the Ukrainian army?
Robert Kagan: I mean, I’m sure, I mean the answer to that question is I don’t know. I know she cares a lot about Ukraine and certainly cares more about it than the current president does
Robbie Martin: With arms, why do you think the president has sort of dragged his feet?
Robert Kagan: Uh, because he said to me because he doesn’t want to get into a nuclear war with Russia.
Robbie Martin: That’s literally what he said?
Robert Kagan: Yeah, I don’t think…he’s not…he’s through with his agenda with Putin, I don’t think he cares about Putin anymore at all, I think he’s hopeless–uh, he thinks Putin is hopeless, but he says, he thinks Ukraine is part of Russian sphere of influence, and it means more to them than it means to us and therefore we shouldn’t escalate in a situation like that, that’s why he doesn’t want to send arms.
Robbie Martin: He actually said he doesn’t want a nuclear war over Ukraine?
Robert Kagan: He did, ‘I don’t want to have a nuclear war over Ukraine’–my response is well who do you want to have a nuclear war over? Do you want to have a nuclear war over Estonia? I’ll go down the list, Germany? If that’s your going in position, then okay, fine. Whatever nuclear countries don’t want, we won’t do.
He proceeded to speak about the importance of the NATO alliance and how Hillary Clinton understands this better than Trump.
Robert Kagan: I think that my instructions are to–uh, explain to you why Hillary Clinton would be better for the U.S. transatlantic European relationship than for alliances than Donald Trump, um, I’m going to operate on the assumption than all your mental faculties are intact and skip past that. I mean for me, I gotta tell you quite honestly if Donald Trump wins the election, the transatlantic relationship would be item number 10 or 20 on my list, given the threat that I think he poses to our democracy, which is fundamental, and if America is capable of electing someone like Trump and he does behave in the kind of way that I think he will behave, our ability to lead our ability to show…act as an example, our ability to–you know–have close relations with other democracies is going to be severely damaged. I’m going to operate on the second assumption, which is that Donald Trump doesn’t win the election and that Hillary Clinton does, a horrifying as it is to even have to think about that prospect.
I think that American’s understanding of the value of these alliances and the value of america’s role in sustaining these alliances, I think Americans have either forgotten it or are too young to remember. You really do have to have some history in your mind, in order to understand why we are out there, why any of these things matter. You really have to have some memory of of what the world looked like before the United States created this international system based very heavily on the two pillars of our European relations with our allies and our relations with our allies like Japan and Korea and Australia and others. People have to remember that in the absence of that structure, uh, we saw what happened in the first half of the 20th century. Two world wars in both theaters and it was the American commitment to move beyond its own borders and not think narrowly about its own interests, but to regard its interest more broadly to include becoming in effect a European power, with American forces in place to keep the peace and becoming an Asian power with American forces in place to keep the peace in both regions. Uh, before that they had both been engaged in cycles of warfare for quite some time. It was really the American role and sort of putting a plug in some of those conflicts it was created the extraordinary period we’ve been living through. And that’s another thing I think Americans just don’t understand. I don’t think they realize because they’re so focused on the things that have gone in recent years, and things have gone wrong they went wrong during the Cold War too that they miss the sort of basic underlying unusual quality of the international order that we’ve been living in. Um, I’ve been reading all kinds of people saying American foreign policy for the last 25 years has been a disaster, in my view American foreign policy for all its failings–and I’ve commented on those failings myself–has nevertheless continued an extraordinary success. It continues to be a period of great power peace.
Neocons for Hillary: Obama “Doesn’t Want Nuclear War”
EXCLUSIVE: While left leaning voters in the United States are having a conniption fit over the possibility of a Trump presidency, Hillary Clinton has been quietly building a bridge to a sect of Cold War nostalgic neoconservative policymakers in Washington, D.C., getting regular advice from the likes of Project for The New American Century (PNAC) co-founder Robert Kagan, and Center for New American Security (CNAS) member and former Cheney staff member Eric Edelman.
Hill Clinton's Biggest Fan Bob Kagan
This neocon collaboration was mostly done under the radar until recently, when Foreign Policy Magazine announced that “young foreign policy professionals” in collaboration with The Center for New American Security would be hosting an official fundraiser for Hillary.
The event was especially notable for me, having just wrapped production on a 7.5 hour documentary series ‘A Very Heavy Agenda‘ about the new neocons in D.C., who have reinvented themselves to maintain credibility and influence in foreign policy making–most notably interventionist ideologue, Robert Kagan. The final installment of ‘A Very Heavy Agenda‘ shows how Hillary invited them into the U.S. State Department while at the same time Kagan’s wife Victoria Nuland served as Assistant Secretary of State of Eurasian Affairs.
Originally I intended go to this event to tell Kagan about ‘A Very Heavy Agenda’, but instead we ended up having a very revealing and candid conversation about Ukraine. Journalist Rania Khalek accompanied me to this unusual fundraiser.
I detail the surreal experience in the latest Media Roots Radio podcast with Abby Martin, where I play the recording in full. Full transcript below.
View: https://soundcloud.com/media-roots/obama-doesnt-want-nuclear-war-with-russia-neoconservatives-for-hillary-clinton
Robbie Martin: I wanted to know what your feeling was on Hillary’s approach to Ukraine, is she going to send the weapons to the Ukrainian army?
Robert Kagan: I mean, I’m sure, I mean the answer to that question is I don’t know. I know she cares a lot about Ukraine and certainly cares more about it than the current president does
Robbie Martin: With arms, why do you think the president has sort of dragged his feet?
Robert Kagan: Uh, because he said to me because he doesn’t want to get into a nuclear war with Russia.
Robbie Martin: That’s literally what he said?
Robert Kagan: Yeah, I don’t think…he’s not…he’s through with his agenda with Putin, I don’t think he cares about Putin anymore at all, I think he’s hopeless–uh, he thinks Putin is hopeless, but he says, he thinks Ukraine is part of Russian sphere of influence, and it means more to them than it means to us and therefore we shouldn’t escalate in a situation like that, that’s why he doesn’t want to send arms.
Robbie Martin: He actually said he doesn’t want a nuclear war over Ukraine?
Robert Kagan: He did, ‘I don’t want to have a nuclear war over Ukraine’–my response is well who do you want to have a nuclear war over? Do you want to have a nuclear war over Estonia? I’ll go down the list, Germany? If that’s your going in position, then okay, fine. Whatever nuclear countries don’t want, we won’t do.
He proceeded to speak about the importance of the NATO alliance and how Hillary Clinton understands this better than Trump.
Robert Kagan: I think that my instructions are to–uh, explain to you why Hillary Clinton would be better for the U.S. transatlantic European relationship than for alliances than Donald Trump, um, I’m going to operate on the assumption than all your mental faculties are intact and skip past that. I mean for me, I gotta tell you quite honestly if Donald Trump wins the election, the transatlantic relationship would be item number 10 or 20 on my list, given the threat that I think he poses to our democracy, which is fundamental, and if America is capable of electing someone like Trump and he does behave in the kind of way that I think he will behave, our ability to lead our ability to show…act as an example, our ability to–you know–have close relations with other democracies is going to be severely damaged. I’m going to operate on the second assumption, which is that Donald Trump doesn’t win the election and that Hillary Clinton does, a horrifying as it is to even have to think about that prospect.
I think that American’s understanding of the value of these alliances and the value of america’s role in sustaining these alliances, I think Americans have either forgotten it or are too young to remember. You really do have to have some history in your mind, in order to understand why we are out there, why any of these things matter. You really have to have some memory of of what the world looked like before the United States created this international system based very heavily on the two pillars of our European relations with our allies and our relations with our allies like Japan and Korea and Australia and others. People have to remember that in the absence of that structure, uh, we saw what happened in the first half of the 20th century. Two world wars in both theaters and it was the American commitment to move beyond its own borders and not think narrowly about its own interests, but to regard its interest more broadly to include becoming in effect a European power, with American forces in place to keep the peace and becoming an Asian power with American forces in place to keep the peace in both regions. Uh, before that they had both been engaged in cycles of warfare for quite some time. It was really the American role and sort of putting a plug in some of those conflicts it was created the extraordinary period we’ve been living through. And that’s another thing I think Americans just don’t understand. I don’t think they realize because they’re so focused on the things that have gone in recent years, and things have gone wrong they went wrong during the Cold War too that they miss the sort of basic underlying unusual quality of the international order that we’ve been living in. Um, I’ve been reading all kinds of people saying American foreign policy for the last 25 years has been a disaster, in my view American foreign policy for all its failings–and I’ve commented on those failings myself–has nevertheless continued an extraordinary success. It continues to be a period of great power peace.
Neocons for Hillary: Obama “Doesn’t Want Nuclear War”
LOL she was shook the fuck up, look at her eyes get big as saucers. With all the talk of Trump being too emotional/unstable to handle the duties of "The Button", I think this is a clear example that this particular woman is not up for the job.
Contrast this to how The Donald handles the same type of protests, he was fixing to soccer kick this bitch in to Bolivia...notice he was moving toward the threat and not frozen with fear like Shillary.
*Nate Diaz*
Her presidency will be the 16th-20th years of chicken hawk POTUS's, its horrible, the Bernie supporters that transitioned to her side are supporting a PNAC affiliated candidate...
...so god damn absurd, the foreign policy / MIC absurdity is amazing - 10x the outright absurdity of the economic absurdity that the fight for $15, unions and occupy folks are now supporting the Wall Street hooker
Hill is the most hawkish serious candidate for president I can remember in my lifetime and yet her blood drenched foreign policy record flies under the media radar; it's absurd. A real tragedy. Obama at least has pushed back against the neocons manning the think tanks in Washington (especially after Hillary left the state department). Hillary IS a neocon.
- Jan 14, 2015
- 12,562
- 16,994
- Jan 14, 2015
- 12,562
- 16,994
smart marketing. everyone loves tendies
The guy who served the DNC and DWS with a lawsuit found dead.
DNC Lawsuit Process Server Shawn Lucas Has Died
Shawn Lucas, depicted in a viral video serving the DNC with a lawsuit in July 2016, died suddenly of unknown causes in early August 2016.
In August 2016, rumors began circulating that Shawn Lucas had died unexpectedly; Lucas was known to many frustrated Democrats as the young man who served the Democratic National Committee (DNC) with a lawsuit in early July 2016 charging that the DNC had committed "fraud" in favoring Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primary process:
The rumor spread on Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter, where many users were concerned that Lucas' death may have been connected to his role as the process server for the DNC lawsuit. Some versions asserted Lucas was the "lead attorney" on the case, but we were unable to corroborate that claim. Lucas was named in a motion [PDF] filed on 22 July 2016 by the DNC, seeking to dismiss the suit on partial grounds of improper service.
We contacted Lucas' employer on 4 August 2016 to ask whether there was any truth to the rumor. According to an individual with whom we spoke at that company, Shawn Lucas died on 2 August 2016. The audibly and understandably shaken employee stated that interest in the circumstances of Lucas' death had prompted a number of phone calls and other queries, but the company had not yet ascertained any details about Lucas' cause of death and were unable to confirm anything more than the fact he had passed away.
DNC Lawsuit Process Server Shawn Lucas Has Died
Shawn Lucas, depicted in a viral video serving the DNC with a lawsuit in July 2016, died suddenly of unknown causes in early August 2016.
In August 2016, rumors began circulating that Shawn Lucas had died unexpectedly; Lucas was known to many frustrated Democrats as the young man who served the Democratic National Committee (DNC) with a lawsuit in early July 2016 charging that the DNC had committed "fraud" in favoring Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primary process:
The rumor spread on Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter, where many users were concerned that Lucas' death may have been connected to his role as the process server for the DNC lawsuit. Some versions asserted Lucas was the "lead attorney" on the case, but we were unable to corroborate that claim. Lucas was named in a motion [PDF] filed on 22 July 2016 by the DNC, seeking to dismiss the suit on partial grounds of improper service.
We contacted Lucas' employer on 4 August 2016 to ask whether there was any truth to the rumor. According to an individual with whom we spoke at that company, Shawn Lucas died on 2 August 2016. The audibly and understandably shaken employee stated that interest in the circumstances of Lucas' death had prompted a number of phone calls and other queries, but the company had not yet ascertained any details about Lucas' cause of death and were unable to confirm anything more than the fact he had passed away.
DNC Lawsuit Process Server Shawn Lucas Has Died
No, just ironic slut-shaming by the left grasping for straws
Former modeling agent reveals details about Melania Trump's visa
Besides we all knew that it was going to be false. If it were true she would have been invited to be a keynote speaker at the DNC.
M
member 3289
Guest
No. This was in 1996. She did modeling work in 1995, before she got the H1B visa in the article you sourced.
Didn't read the article did you?
An entire scandal built on supposition and no facts. Typical.
M
member 3289
Guest
I'm driving right now so I skimmed it