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

Lest the GOP propaganda be given a free run again, it must be stated that the Inspector General’s report found no evidence of political bias against the Trump campaign, and also that the whole investigation was justified on the basis of the facts.

StephenWilliam Barr having commissioned this report, then disgracefully turned on its author and deprecated its findings because it didn’t conform to the conspiratorial nonsense that the Republicans have been spouting about the Mueller report for the last two years. But, as always with Trump, there is complete disregard for fact.

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.

See - ‘lack of evidence’ is really ‘evidence’!

You can’t reason with the irrational, and you can’t prevail by force of argument with those who don’t recognise facts.

And for free! — Thomas L Freidman

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 it is imo out of the question that Trump is, or could be, managing his own programs or thinking up his own stuff. So who is? Who's running him?

Stephen Barr? It’s William Barr. Not only that but It was Sessions who commissioned the report. Let’s start recognizing these simple fact before we continue.

I was told Russians were trying to infiltrate their campaign. I make an entire argument and you quibble about one word. — NOS4A2

No, you changed the subject. Your "entire argument", was irrelevant to what I said. You haven't even demonstrated a clear understanding of the crime that was being investigated, and who the victim was.

Stephen Barr? It’s William Barr. — NOS4A2

Corrected. And it's true, the report was commissioned prior to its tenure, but his reaction to it exactly mirrored his reaction to the Mueller report, when he declared that it had exonerated Trump, when it said explicitly that it had not.

In this case, the Inspector General's report said that while there were procedural errors in the investigation, it wasn't motivated by political bias and it was 'adequately predicated'. These are the findings that Barr and the GOP are disputing. In other words, having commissioned a report from an independent investigator, then they are refusing to accept the findings of that investigator, because it suits their political purposes not to.

All General Trump Conversations here!!

Good grief. Now we have a general Trump, aside from President Trump.

Next we'll have a high priest Trump.

Unfortunately it gets worse. There is a meme of Trump as God-Emporer, GEOTUS. I think it’s a joke, at least I hope it is.

It's been clear for a long time that Trump and his are dirty little excuses for men, utterly corrupt, and out of whose mouths comes only noise without meaning, like the squeaking of mice and rats. Once properly caged, we will see them in their true selves. McConnell is one of them, but I do not think we'll get him.

But I'll give Cohen credit: he seems to have found self-rehabilitation, and that no small accomplishment given the toxicity of Trump's bite. With luck we're witnessing the beginning of the end of a disgusting chapter in American history. Vidkun Quisling, move over; you're supplanted by Donald Trump!

I heared that God-Emperor reference to Trump used back in 2016 by hardcore Trump fanatics.

It's what I would call a semi-joke. Many Trump fans think of Trump as this "Third way" saviour between the utterly corrupt Democratic and Republican parties. I don't know why really they would take someone as corrupt as Trump to be this messiah, but they did. A great example was how hyped these people got from "draining the swamp".

So it's not the pre-WW2 surrender definition of God Emperor that the Japanese had, but either it isn't only a sarcastic joke for them.

Yeah I figured it was irony born in the toxic nether-regions of the Internet. I don’t think he rises to the level of corruption. I think it’s more that he isn’t swayed by the political niceties and lullabies of previous politicians. That’s projection on my part, but 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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

That’s fair. Personally I refuse to judge his presidency until the entirety of it is apparent.

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?

Yeah, I think it’s the latter. The standard of a politician was too high that to attempt to live up to it becomes quickly absurd. It leads to the public/private view and public relations style of politics—politics as a form of acting, deception and fakery.

That’s fair. Personally I refuse to judge his presidency until the entirety of it is apparent. — NOS4A2

Historical hindsight will give the best view, yet things can be seen even now.

Let's take one of the biggest train wrecks of the US: the Middle East policy. It already had plunged into a catastrophic train wreck with the 2003 invasion of Iraq and didn't get any better with Obama (with the pull out from Iraq creating an opportunity for ISIS to create it's caliphate). Now Iraq is more close to Iran than ever. And close to Russia:

Russia 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.”

See The Future of Iraq’s Oil Is Russian

The US involvement in Syria has been a tragicomedy starting with the famous humiliating Obama's red line. Then came Trump. Putting your son-in-law in charge of the Middle East policy with absolutely no idea about politics in the area is truly absurd. That he was played as a fiddle is quite visible: the US secretary of state and other US foreign policy leaders had no idea what son-in-law or Trump were up to. Then Trump gave on a platter what Israel wanted: moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem and recognized Israeli sovereignty over the annexed Golan Heights. In exchange of basically nothing. As an return gift a 'new Jewish colony', basically a dilapidated village simply renamed "Trump Heights". Bravo!

And Libya? One soon to be President was all for invading Libya and shows how totally clueless he was (and actually is):



Now consider this compared to the policy of Russia. Even if there were some rocky bumps on the road with Turkey shooting down a Russian fighter bomber, Russia helped it's ally Syria to avoid a collapse, stabilized the situation and with smart diplomacy gained cordial relations with Israel, Turkey and Jordan. Russian involvement in Syria has been limited and hasn't ended up in quagmire (as Americans hope it would as they have it). Jordania has even bought Russian weapons (like Turkey) and Netanyahu has visited five times Putin's Russia in the last two years (and only twice the US).

Telling picture of the result of US invasion of Iraq: Pro-Iranian fighter posing on his M1 Abrams tank in Iraq


Russians taking over immediately an abandoned US airbase:


In all, Russia looks to be mopping up Middle East as Trump is going home. It's thanks to a basically having a persistent down to Earth approach to the area and engaging with the countries, Russia reaps the fruits it has sown.

The unfortunate thing is that Trump supporters either don't care about the US in the Middle East or think it's a good thing simply to leave. Or it's just bad mouthing of their favorite president by 'Hillary supporters'. Perhaps it's simply so bad that Americans don't even care anymore at all.

What do you want the US to do and why?

Simple answer: How about not being so utterly insane when it comes to the Middle East and Central Asia?

How about not invading countries because of nonexistent WMD's and creating the turmoil of the present? Even more, how can the SAME POLITICIAN that earlier in 1992 had the following clear and truthful vision of the unavoidable quagmire that an invasion would become (please view the short speech clip below)


...AND THEN THIS SAME POLITICIAN GOES AND INVADES THE COUNTRY WITH EXACTLY THE BAD OUTCOMES HAPPENING THAT HE FORECASTED IN THE ABOVE VIDEO CLIP?

How about not basing your foreign policy of the whole area on the feelings of blissfully ignorant wacky Jesus Freaks that see an ordinary modern nation state as this sign of the second coming of Jesus and end times? Nope, the whacky Holy Rollers have to be supported: Hence you give this well off country that is totally capable of defending itself of any regional threat, is basically the dominant power in the region, the most aid that US gives to anybody in the World?



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? The US response was to start the longest war in American history because... otherwise there might be a safe haven for further attacks. That none of the terrorist came from this country doesn't matter.

And when you did get the earlier perpetrators of the same cabal you could put them into an US jail and process them through the Justice System as typically terrorists ought to be done. Not this time. Because a police response would be too wimpy. And when you finally got this financier through a special ops mission, the war of course goes on... because it has absolutely nothing to do with the fateful terrorist attack. Yet the best thing was to invade and is to occupy a whole country. Yeah, nothing else I guess would have mattered because you felt like it.

I could go on and on, but the basic reason is that when Americans can do things for totally whacky reasons, they'll do it if it pleases some voters and plays well in domestic politics for US politicians. What the reality is on the ground on the different continents doesn't matter at all. As the sole Superpower that can pay for everything just by printing more money, there are no limitations what the US can do... so I guess then you do what you do. That's simply insanity.

So I guess what you should do is not to have a foreign policy based on less insane ideas.

And you are totally capable of it, being sane that is. When a war could result in tens of thousands of Americans or more dying, you won't start it. Hell no. Suddenly, the hawks morph into doves. Pre-emptive strikes are off the table. And diplomacy is remembered to be a tool.



That is sanity.

How about not invading countries because of nonexistent WMD's and creating the turmoil of the present? — ssu

The purpose was to democratize the middle east. That was made public like a decade ago. News travels really slowly to finland?

How about not basing your foreign policy of the whole area on the feelings of blissfully ignorant wacky Jesus Freaks — ssu

Yea, that didnt happen.

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

Um. Refer to answer #1.

And you are totally capable of it, being sane that is. — ssu

Probably not.

a must read.

So, Trump's defense is: it's all lies.

The GoP defense is: whatever Trump says.





Did I miss anything?

The purpose was to democratize the middle east. That was made public like a decade ago. News travels really slow to finland — frank

No, but the ignorance of US foreign policy seems to be an epidemic
.
The purpose wasn't to democratize the Middle East. The purpose was to get rid of a nonexistent WMD program, which the last remnants had been already destroyed in Operation Desert Fox in 1998 by Clinton, which later was found out as the country was occupied. It was about the mushroom cloud, if you would have followed things back then. Secondly, the emphasis was NEVER on the democratization or state building. The Bush administration was adamant on that they weren't in the business of state building. When the Chief of Staff of the Army Shinseki purposed troop levels based on Balkan experience of Bosnia on how many troops should be used to pacify such a large country (Bosnia was a successful operation btw), he was fired. Only years later with "the Surge" troop levels were brought up to what Shinseki had argued for and that did have effect. Of course then it was just a time we the troops were pulled out and all the effort the Armed Forces (without much political leadership from Washington) to pacify the country and defeat Al Qaeda would be thrown away, as the sectarian Iraqi leadership quickly lost the Sunni territories to ISIS (which de facto emerged from Al Qaeda). And Al Qaeda in the Levant, a sunni insurgency fighting the American occupation, had picked the name brand from a small group of eccentric terrorist, which they didn't at all follow right from the start. So absolutely no, some fance words in a speech aren't a policy. A true policy is implemented in hard decisions and the last time the US truly engaged in nation building was during the Balkan wars, a policy the Republicans absolutely hated.

Yea, that didnt happen. — frank

?

I highly recommend to find out yourself about why the US has such peculiar relationship with Israel.

In fact it wasn't such from the start. Israel's main ally was France, which also helped the country to get it's nuclear weapons. During the Israeli war of Independence, the FBI was stopping Israel from buying weapons from the US. In fact the Eisenhower administration (and earlier the Truman administration) remained neutral and kept the distance of not become too closely allied with Israel. At this time, the only assistance the US provided Israel was food aid. Of course, at this time it had the the Baghdad Pack (CENTO), equivalent of SEATO and NATO.

US Fighters in Iran in 1977 before Iran withdrew from CENTO.

Um. Refer to answer #1. — 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.

From October 1st 2001 from the Atlantic:

After 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."

Not Exactly a Bush Flip-Flop

From the above article you can see how utterly confused the war effort in Afghanistan was to be right from the start. Even now, the main reason to be in Afghanistan is to "prevent it to be a safe haven for terrorists". Hence you have this totally absurd way of fighting an insurgency that basically your presence has brought up. One trillion dollars has been spent in the war in Afghanistan devoid of a true war winning strategy.

“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.”

See a great article At War with the Truth

I guess where you Frank live, news doesn't came just late, but perhaps drips only in limited quantity and quality.

The purpose was to democratize the middle east. — frank

If you actually believe the US has been some kind of champion of democracy in the Middle East - or anywhere else on Earth - it's time to put down the philosophy for a spell and do some depth-history.

Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq, by Stephen Kinzer, is a good place to start.

https://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-Change/dp/0805082409

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'.

Congress passed a law in 1995 called the Jerusalem Embassy Act, wherein the embassy was supposed to be moved to Jerusalem by 1999. So by the standards of today’s house, subsequent presidents abused their power and broke the law to keep that from happening—well, until Trump came along. So I’m not sure it’s such an empty gesture.

I agree with what you say. The Middle East policy is a disaster and an utter failure. All the more reason to get out of there. Russia neighbors the Middle East, so it only makes sense to let them and other middle eastern countries keep each other in check. So instead of keeping countries like Russia at bay with military force, we partner with them. This a roadmap to world peace.

Trump, through his twitter feed and economic posturing, can bring countries to their knees without shedding a drop of blood. I’d love to see any technocratic politician manage that with empty and ineffective diplomacy.

Trump, through his twitter feed and economic posturing, can bring countries to their knees without shedding a drop of blood. — NOS4A2

His supporters will believe this is true regardless of whether or not it is true. He can’t lose in that regard.

Fair enough. To some he’s a folk hero. To other’s he’s a folk devil. The reality is somewhere in between.

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

I don't have a subscription.

Not sure why imperialism is in quotes.

Fair enough. To some he’s a folk hero. To other’s he’s a folk devil. The reality is somewhere in between. — NOS4A2

You really do not understand the nature of evil, do you.

Nor heroism.