They weren’t protecting the campaigns; they were gathering intel, spying on them. Besides that, the strategic briefing was merely a “baseline” of security threats, including both Russian and Chinese threats, and nothing specific nor any warning to the Trump campaign about Russian infiltration into their campaign. — NOS4A2
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) topped them all, arguing that the failure to find political bias proved there was political bias. “Is not the lack of evidence that you’re talking about itself evidence of bias?” he asked Horowitz.
This is questionable. McConnell, for example, apparently got a good deal for his state from a Russian concern, and his wife is a whole other matter. It is not out of the question that the Russians have played a long game in which they have compromised in small but insidious ways many Americans. Then having hooked the fish, they play it, or the ones worth playing. It would all be really very clever, and the result would be that no one could be trusted. Trump seems a poster child for this: I can think of only two things he's done that were not specifically beneficial to Russian interests: those not manifestly so being acts done, or done in such a way, as to be divisive in nature. We really did not, for example, have to separate hundreds - or is it thousands - of children from their parents at the border, and then lose track of them!And for free! — Thomas L Freidman
I was told Russians were trying to infiltrate their campaign. I make an entire argument and you quibble about one word. — NOS4A2
A lot of Trump supporters love this side of Trump. Basically the reason is that they are fed up with the ordinary politics done by the two parties. And why wouldn't they? The two party system has gone on and on. Another thing that many are happy about is that those who they dislike in general are extremely irritated by Trump.we’ve seen entire political careers destroyed by minor gaffes, political incorrectness and other nonsense, that it’s not only refreshing to see someone who is immune to it, but also renders useless the power and sway of those who until now thought they were king-makers. — NOS4A2
we’ve seen entire political careers destroyed by minor gaffes, political incorrectness and other nonsense, that it’s not only refreshing to see someone who is immune to it — NOS4A2
A lot of Trump supporters love this side of Trump. Basically the reason is that they are fed up with the ordinary politics done by the two parties. And why wouldn't they? The two party system has gone on and on. Another thing that many are happy about is that those who they dislike in general are extremely irritated by Trump.
I get it, but that still doesn't make him a great President.
Why is he immune to it? Is it that the voters don’t care if he does it, but do if others do it? Is it that others are too quick to apologise and resign, but could in fact get away with it if they shrug it off and ignore it?
Historical hindsight will give the best view, yet things can be seen even now.That’s fair. Personally I refuse to judge his presidency until the entirety of it is apparent. — NOS4A2
See The Future of Iraq’s Oil Is RussianRussia was not always so enmeshed in Iraq’s oil and gas sector. After the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime in 2003 and following the occupation of Iraq, Russian companies were largely absent from the playing field. All that changed with increased sectarian conflict in 2009. Around that time, many Western oil companies (such as ExxonMobil and Chevron) partially or totally left the region due to the security concerns. Russian companies, hungrier for risk, took their place.
Russia’s entry was welcomed in Iraq. As one KRG leader told us this month, “long time before the recent political, security, and financial crisis, in early 2012, Russians entered Iraqi Kurdistan as a strong international investor. At the time, there was no need for Russians since the Americans had a strong presence and support in the region. Later, when the Kurdish leaders got disappointed with Americans, Russians appeared stronger and friendlier. The common belief in Kurdistan was that having a trade deal with them will also bring other, political and security, benefits.”
How about not invading countries because of nonexistent WMD's and creating the turmoil of the present? — ssu
How about not basing your foreign policy of the whole area on the feelings of blissfully ignorant wacky Jesus Freaks — ssu
How insane is the idea that you occupy a country well know for it's historical resentment of foreign occupiers is occupied because the financier of a small cabal of 19 terrorists (of whom some were relatives to prior terrorists that attacked the same US target unsuccessfully earlier) was living in the country? — ssu
And you are totally capable of it, being sane that is. — ssu
No, but the ignorance of US foreign policy seems to be an epidemicThe purpose was to democratize the middle east. That was made public like a decade ago. News travels really slow to finland — frank
?Yea, that didnt happen. — frank
Again you are simply wrong. President Bush made it TOTALLY CLEAR that the US was in Afghanistan only to hunt and destroy Al Qaeda, not to build a democracy (ie. state building). From start, anything to do with democracy and nation building was not the way Bush would do it. And this basically meant the whole war would be a mess.Um. Refer to answer #1. — frank
Not Exactly a Bush Flip-FlopAfter the overthrow of the Taliban regime, the United States will become politically responsible for what happens next in Afghanistan.
Last month, President Bush once again repudiated nation-building. "We're not into nation-building," he said at a September 25th news conference with Japan's prime minister. "We're into justice."
At his prime-time news conference the following week, Bush signaled that he had gotten the message. "I think we did learn a lesson, and should learn a lesson, from the previous engagement in the Afghan area, that we should not just simply leave after a military objective has been achieved," the President said on October 11.
Does that mean Bush has flip-flopped on nation-building? Not exactly, because he has set some rules.
• Rule 1: The United States should keep out of Afghan politics. Or, as the President puts it, "We shouldn't play favorites between one group or another within Afghanistan." That is why the United States has not openly supported the Northern Alliance as an alternative government. Allowing minority ethnic groups to take power would split the country along ethnic lines, rally many Afghans to the Taliban regime, and antagonize the Pakistanis. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has even hinted that the United States might be willing to allow some role for "moderate" elements of the Taliban regime in a new Afghan government.
• Rule 2: The United States should share the political burden with other countries. "It would be a useful function for the United Nations to take over the so-called 'nation-building,' " Bush said at his news conference. "I would call it the stabilization of a future government." In other words, it's a distasteful task for a distasteful institution. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage seemed to capture Bush Administration thinking on Afghanistan when he remarked, "We have said we don't want to run it. It's not ours."
• Rule 3: Keep the military as far away from politics as possible. That means, in effect, not tying the military down with a peacekeeping role. "I wouldn't read anything [Bush] is saying to suggest he plans to keep American troops on the ground in Afghanistan," a senior Administration official told The New York Times. "He's quite adamant on the point."
See a great article At War with the Truth“What did we get for this $1 trillion effort? Was it worth $1 trillion?”
Jeffrey Eggers, a retired Navy SEAL and White House staffer for Bush and Obama, told government interviewers. He added, “After the killing of Osama bin Laden, I said that Osama was probably laughing in his watery grave considering how much we have spent on Afghanistan.”
The purpose was to democratize the middle east. — frank
If you have a subscription to the NY Times, search that site for "Paul Wolfowitz Iraq war".
You'll read it in his own words. I think you're scoffing because you think democratization is a benign goal. It's not. Fit it into the broader Wolfowitz doctrine and you'll see how it's an aspect of American 'imperialism'. — frank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.