Sunday
Jan052020
The Commentariat -- January 6, 2020
Afternoon Update:
Allan Smith of NBC News: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced the House will vote soon on a war powers resolution to limit ... Donald Trump's military actions after he ordered the killing of a top Iranian general last week, escalating tensions with Tehran. 'Last week, the Trump administration conducted a provocative and disproportionate military airstrike targeting high-level Iranian military officials,' Pelosi said in a letter to colleagues Sunday. 'This action endangered our servicemembers, diplomats and others by risking a serious escalation of tensions with Iran. As members of Congress, our first responsibility is to keep the American people safe,' she continued. 'For this reason, we are concerned that the administration took this action without the consultation of Congress and without respect for Congress's war powers granted to it by the Constitution.' She said the House resolution is similar to one introduced in the Senate by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va."
New York Times live updates: "Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wept and offered prayers over the coffin of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani at the funeral in Tehran on Monday, as throngs of people filled the city's streets to mourn.... Ayatollah Khamenei had a close relationship with the general, who was widely considered to be the second most powerful man in Iran. The military commander was hailed as a martyr, and his successor swore revenge during the funeral ceremony, while chants of 'Death to America' rang out from the crowds in the capital." An AP story is here. ~~~
~~~ Peter Baker of the New York Times: "For three years, President Trump's critics have expressed concern over how he would handle a genuine international crisis, warning that a commander in chief known for impulsive action might overreach with dangerous consequences. In the angry and frenzied aftermath of the American drone strike that killed Iran's top general, with vows of revenge hanging in the air, Mr. Trump confronts a decisive moment that will test whether those critics were right or whether they misjudged him. 'The moment we all feared is likely upon us,' Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut and vocal critic of Mr. Trump, wrote on Twitter over the weekend. 'An unstable President in way over his head, panicking, with all his experienced advisers having quit, and only the sycophantic amateurs remaining. Assassinating foreign leaders, announcing plans to bomb civilians. A nightmare.'... [Trump] faces enormous skepticism from the critics who have long warned that he was too erratic to face moments of crisis.... [But] And some experts on the [Mideast] region suggested that Mr. Trump's very unpredictability was a deterrent in itself...." ~~~
~~~ Mrs. McCrabbie: What Baker doesn't acknowledge is that this is a crisis of Trump's own making: first, by cancelling the nuclear deal with Iran, then by imposing crippling sanctions on Iran, then by overreacting to the murder of a U.S. contractor by making multiple strikes on militia sites, then by overreacting to protesters' attacks on the U.S. embassy in Tehran by assassinating Suleimani. So we already know how Trump "responds" to a crisis: (1) he creates it, and (2) he makes it worse & worse.
~~~ Lara Jakes of the New York Times: "More than 2,300 years ago, the Persian capital of Persepolis was burned by a foreign warrior in a fatal blow to the empire and its rich heritage. The ruins of the ancient city, in modern-day southwest Iran, could now be on President Trump's target list of 52 sites he has threatened to attack as tensions escalated between Washington and Tehran.... But the targeting of cultural sites is against international law, and critics denounced Mr. Trump for his statement.... The United States is a signatory to a 1954 international agreement to protect cultural property in armed conflict. Violating it with attacks on Iran's historical sites would represent a huge turnabout. The United States was among the harshest critics of the Islamic State's destruction of antiquities in Mosul, Iraq, and Palmyra, Syria, as well as the Taliban's obliteration of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan in 2001.... By Sunday, under the hashtag #IranianCulturalSites, a Twitter campaign cropped up in the form of history buffs taking verbal aim at Mr. Trump's threat." See also unwashed's comment below. ~~~
~~~ Rick Noack of the Washington Post: "By suggesting strikes on '52 Iranian sites,' including some that are important to 'the Iranian culture,' Trump threatened a way of waging war that has drawn growing outrage in recent decades, critics argued Monday.... 'Targeting civilians and cultural sites is what terrorists do. It's a war crime,' tweeted Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In Britain, a spokesman for Prime Minister Boris Johnson cautioned that 'there are international conventions in place which prevent the destruction of cultural heritage.'... In March 2017 -- only weeks after Trump's inauguration -- the U.N. Security Council, with the United States as a permanent member, unanimously adopted a resolution condemning the 'unlawful destruction of cultural heritage, inter alia destruction of religious sites and artefacts' in armed conflicts.... But with a U.S. president now threatening to attack cultural sites in Iran, the narrative that the United States helped to advance now appears in doubt." ~~~
~~~ John Bellinger in Lawfare: "On Sunday, Jan. 5, President Trump -- as he is wont to do when criticized -- doubled down on his threat to bomb Iranian cultural sites if Iran attacks the United States in response to the killing of Qassem Soleimani. Although the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, which makes intentional attacks on historic monuments a war crime, the United States is a party to the 1954 Hague Convention on Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, which the Senate approved in September 2008, when I was legal adviser.... Trump and Vice President Mike Pence should learn the domestic and international law rules that govern the use of military force and the conduct of military operations and to understand why they are important." ~~~
~~~ Jonathan Chait: "The unfolding Iran adventure seems to open once again the question of what principle, if any, defines this president's foreign policy. Isolationism? Nationalism? Whatever Fox News is demanding at any given moment? His real North Star is in fact an idea he has explicated many times, but -- perhaps because it is so horrifying -- even his critics seem hesitant to accept as a true motivation. Trump's plan is to collapse the moral space between America and its enemies.... Our enemies are stronger and tougher, [Trump believes,] willing to do the hard things that must be done in order to win. To defeat them, we must become like them. Trump has long dismissed respect for human rights, international law, and innocent life as a form of political correctness.... The protective cordon surrounding Trump has eroded..., and it would be foolish to assume [aides] will necessarily succeed in stopping his latest unthinkable act.... From [his] premise that the authoritarians of the world are strong and correct, and its (small-d) democrats are politically correct fools, his broader recasting of America's alliances makes perfect sense. Of course he would draw the United States closer to Russia, the Gulf States, and the emerging autocrats of Europe...."
Wild Card. Nicholas Fandos & Michael Schmidt of the New York Times: "John R. Bolton, the former White House national security adviser, said on Monday that he was willing to testify at President Trump's impeachment trial if he was subpoenaed. 'I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify,' Mr. Bolton said in a statement on his website. The development is a dramatic turn in the impeachment proceeding, which has been stalled over Democrats' insistence on hearing from critical witnesses Mr. Trump blocked from testifying in the House inquiry.... Mr. Bolton is a potential bombshell of a witness, with crucial knowledge of the president's actions and conversations regarding Ukraine that could fill out key blanks in the narrative of the impeachment case. His willingness to tell the Senate what he knows ratchets up pressure on Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, who has refused to commit to calling witnesses at the impeachment trial, to change his stance. It is unclear how the White House will respond to Mr. Bolton's declaration, but his statement strongly suggested that he would testify regardless of whether Mr. Trump sought to prevent him." Politico's story is here.
Caitlin Oprysko of Politico: "Julián Castro on Monday threw his backing behind Sen. Elizabeth Warren for president, only days after suspending his own bid for the White House. 'There's one candidate I see who's to fight like hell to make sure America's promise will be there for everyone, who will make sure that no matter where you live in America or where your family came from in the world, you have a path to opportunity, too,' Castro says in a video announcing his endorsement." The New York Times story is here.
~~~~~~~~~~
** Ben Hubbard, et al., of the New York Times: "Mr. Trump has said that the killing of General Suleimani on Friday was aimed at preventing war. But so far, it has unleashed a host of unanticipated consequences that could dramatically alter where the United States operates. Increasingly, the killing appeared to be generating effects far beyond the United States' ability to control. That may include Iran's nuclear future. On Sunday, the Iranian government said it was abandoning its 'final limitations in the nuclear deal,' the international agreement intended to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. The decision leaves no restrictions on Iran's nuclear program, the statement said, including on uranium enrichment, production, research and expansion." A Politico story is here. Mrs. McC: Obviously, this is what to expect when you privilege drones over diplomats. ~~~
~~~ David Sanger & William Broad of the New York Times: "When President Trump withdrew the United States from the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018, he justified his unilateral action by saying the accord was flawed, in part because the major restrictions on Iran ended after 15 years, when Tehran would be free to produce as much nuclear fuel as it wanted. But now, instead of buckling to American pressure, Iran declared on Sunday that those restrictions are over -- a decade ahead of schedule. Mr. Trump's gambit has effectively backfired. Iran's announcement essentially sounded the death knell of the 2015 nuclear agreement. And it largely re-creates conditions that led Israel and the United States to consider destroying Iran's facilities a decade ago, again bringing them closer to the potential of open conflict with what was avoided by the accord. Iran did stop short of abandoning the entire deal on Sunday..., and its foreign minister held open the possibility that his nation would return to its provisions in the future -- if Mr. Trump reversed course and lifted the sanctions he has imposed since withdrawing from the accord." ~~~
OMG, Trump thinks a crazed Tweet satisfies his War Powers Act obligations to Congress. Our President has taken us to the brink of war and is now vamping with no plan and no clue. Please, someone in the GOP, take the car keys - read the 25th Amendment. -- Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), in a tweet ~~~
~~~ Felicia Sonmez of the Washington Post: "President Trump claimed Sunday that his tweets are sufficient notice to Congress of any possible U.S. military strike on Iran, in an apparent dismissal of his obligations under the War Powers Act of 1973. Trump's declaration ... was met with disbelief and ridicule from congressional Democrats.... 'These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner,' Trump tweeted from his Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Fla., late Sunday afternoon. 'Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!' Trump's claim that the United States will retaliate against Iran 'perhaps in a disproportionate manner' also contrasts with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's statement hours earlier on 'Fox News Sunday' that the administration 'will take responses that are appropriate and commensurate with actions that threaten American lives.' The War Powers Act of 1973 mandates that the president report to lawmakers within 48 hours of introducing military forces into armed conflict abroad. On Saturday, the White House delivered a formal notification to Congress of the strike that killed Soleimani.... But the document, which is entirely classified, drew scathing criticism from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who said in a statement that the notification 'raises more questions than it answers.'" A Hill story is here. ~~~
~~~ Jim Sciutto of CNN: "Two senior US officials on Sunday described widespread opposition within the administration to targeting cultural sites in Iran should the United States launch retaliatory strikes against Tehran, despite ... Donald Trump saying a day before that such sites are among dozens the US has identified as potential targets.... Among those critics was Colin Kahl, former deputy assistant to President Barack Obama and national security adviser to Vice President Joe Biden, who tweeted on Saturday that targeting such sites would be 'a war crime' and that he finds it 'hard to believe the Pentagon would provide Trump targeting options that include' them." ~~~
~~~ MEANWHILE. Guardian liveblog: "Donald Trump has defended his threat to target Iranian cultural sites -- widely seen as a war crime -- if Tehran retaliates for the killing of General Qassem Suleimani.... Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One a day later, he sought to offer a justification. 'They're allowed to kill our people,' Trump said, according to a pool report. 'They're allowed to torture and maim our people. They're allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we're not allowed to touch their cultural site? It doesn't work that way.'" Mrs. McC: Actually, it does work that way, according to international law & U.S. military code. Government operatives are not "allowed" to commit war crimes. They face punishment when they do commit them. On the other hand, if it's an American who has committed a war crime, you're likely to pardon him. ~~~
~~~ Quint Forgey of Politico: "Congressional Democrats on Sunday expressed skepticism toward the evidence the Trump administration has cited to justify its killing of Iran's top military commander -- an explosive American military maneuver that inflamed regional tensions and heightened the potential for further conflict between Washington and Tehran. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) demanded that administration officials make public more details regarding the intelligence that precipitated ... Donald Trump's unexpected decision last week to order the drone strike targeting Qassem Soleimani, the leader of the Islamic Republic's elite paramilitary Quds Force." ~~~
~~~ David Atkins in the Washington Monthly: "Interventionists and anti-imperialists don't agree on much in foreign policy. But even if they take directly opposite approaches, they tend to agree that championing democratic values and human rights should be a primary goal of American foreign policy, and that it's better for other nations to see the United States as a friend than as an enemy. On both of those counts, Donald Trump's reckless decision to assassinate a prominent Iranian general has been a colossal failure.... The attack itself was ostensibly a violation of international law and Geneva Conventions. The president's gross threat the following day to attack Iranian cultural sites was an even clearer crime, and far less strategically or morally defensible.... Trump and his enablers have dramatically weakened the position of both America and western liberal values, setting the world on a much more dangerous course." ~~~
~~~ ** Alissa Rubin, et al., of the New York Times: "Lawmakers in Iraq heeded the demands of angry citizens and voted on Sunday to expel United States troops from the country after the United States ordered the killing of the Iranian leader of the elite Quds Force, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, on Iraqi soil. The decision came as hundreds of thousands of mourners poured into the streets of Iran to pay their respects to General Suleimani, the most powerful figure in the country after the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The vote is not final until Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi of Iraq signs the draft bill. Earlier on Sunday, Mr. Mahdi indicated that he would do so.... American troops are in Iraq 'at the invitation' of the Iraqi government, according to the legal agreement between Baghdad and Washington. Presumably, if Baghdad withdrew that invitation, the United States would have to withdraw." A Deutsche Welle story is here. (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Pompeo, Minutes Earlier. Felicia Sonmez of the Washington Post: "Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Sunday dismissed calls by Iraq's caretaker prime minister for a timetable for all foreign troops to exit the country.... 'He's under enormous threats from the very Iranian leadership that it is that we are pushing back against,' Pompeo said on 'Fox News Sunday.' 'We are confident that the Iraqi people want the United States to continue to be there to fight the counterterror campaign. And we'll continue to do all the things we need to do to keep America safe.' Pressed by host Chris Wallace on what the United States will do if the Iraqi parliament demands that American troops leave the country, Pompeo declined to say." (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Riley Beggin of Vox: "Some Iraqi officials -- including Mahdi -- have complained that the US' attack on Soleimani violated Iraqi sovereignty. In a Sunday speech before Parliament recommending a 'yes' vote on the resolution, Mahdi told lawmakers ... Donald Trump spoke to him ahead of the strike and failed to mention it, according to the Washington Post's Mustafa Salim. Mahdi said he also explicitly told Trump the US was not to bring additional US military resources into the country." Beggin describes several complications surrounding the vote & how an expulsion of troops might play out. ~~~
~~~ Jonathan Swan of Axios: "The Trump administration tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade top Iraqi officials to kill a parliamentary effort to force the U.S. military out of Iraq, according to two U.S. officials and an Iraqi government official familiar with the situation.... Trump administration officials have warned senior Iraqi officials that Iraq would suffer dangerous consequences if the U.S. withdrew its military and its funding of the Iraqi security apparatus, according to sources familiar with the outreach. On the other hand, Trump has also told advisers he thinks it's ridiculous that America has been paying billions of dollars to support an Iraqi security apparatus that, in his view, is demonstrably incompetent, disloyal to America and close to Iran." ~~~
~~~ Update 2. Trump Threatens Iraq. Joanna Tan of CNBC: "... Donald Trump threatened Sunday to slap sanctions on Iraq after its parliament passed a resolution calling for the government to expel foreign troops from the country.... Speaking to reporters on Air Force One, the U.S. president said: 'If they do ask us to leave, if we don't do it in a very friendly basis, we will charge them sanctions like they've never seen before ever. It'll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame. We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that's there. It cost billions of dollars to build. Long before my time We're not leaving unless they pay us back for it.' He added that 'If there's any hostility, that they do anything we think is inappropriate, we are going to put sanctions on Iraq, very big sanctions on Iraq.'" ~~~
~~~ Stephen Collinson of CNN: "The Trump administration is already in danger of losing control of the swift chain reaction and political storm unleashed by its killing of Iran's top general, Qasem Soleimani.... Donald Trump's claim that the drone strike last week made Americans safer is being challenged by cascading events that appear to leave the US more vulnerable and isolated. The administration's basis for the attack also came under renewed suspicion after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told CNN that it was not 'relevant' for him to reveal how imminent the attacks on US interests were that Trump said Soleimani was planning.... Washington's European allies, meanwhile, distanced themselves from Trump's assault. The US-led ISIS coalition temporarily stopped action against the terror group to protect Iraqi bases from Iranian-backed militias." Mrs. McC: Otherwise, everything is going very smoothly. ~~~
~~~ Blame the Briefers! Daniel Politi of Slate: "Pentagon officials usually include a far-out option when they present possibilities to the president in order to make the others seem less extreme.... 'The Pentagon also tacked on the choice of targeting General Suleimani, mainly to make other options seem reasonable,' reports the [New York] Times. [Story by Helene Cooper & others also linked here yesterday.] At first, it seemed everything was going according to plan. Trump rejected the option to kill Soleimani to respond to a wave of recent Iranian-sponsored violence in Iraq.... Then things changed when protesters gathered outside the U.S. embassy in Baghdad on Tuesday.... Suddenly, Trump was worried that failing to respond to the protests would look weak. By Thursday, Trump had decided to go forward with the killing of Soleimani and 'top Pentagon officials were stunned,' reports the Times." ~~~
~~~ John Cole of Balloon Juice: "Don't give him any extreme options. The saying 'POWERPOINT IS GOING TO BE THE DEATH OF US' was not supposed to be literal." ~~~
~~~ Erin Cunningham of the Washington Post covers many of the weekend's developments in this report.
Ryan Browne & Michael Callahan of CNN: "Three Americans were killed in Sunday's terror attack in Kenya. The Americans -- a US service member and two civilian contractors working for the Defense Department -- were killed in the attack carried out by Al-Shabaab, US Africa Command, which is responsible for military relations with nations on the continent, confirmed to CNN. Two DOD members wounded in the attack are now in stable condition and are being evacuated, Africa Command said. The attack occurred at a Kenya Defense Force in Manda Bay, Kenya. Sources have previously told CNN that the base was used by US Special Operations forces working with the Kenyans.... Al-Shabaab has previously pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda."
Rachel Bade of the Washington Post: "Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham suggested Sunday that Republicans should try to change Senate rules governing impeachment if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi continues to withhold the charges against President Trump -- an unlikely 11th-hour bid to begin a trial within days without the actual documents. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was unequivocal in a Senate floor speech on Friday that 'we can't hold a trial without the articles; the Senate's own rules don't provide for that.' But Graham (R-S.C.), a close ally of Trump, floated the idea of a unilateral GOP move, saying he would work with McConnell to allow the Senate to proceed without the two charges against Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The suggestion, while unlikely due to the high threshold of votes required for changing Senate impeachment rules, underscores the pressure some Trump allies feel as the president stews over the impeachment delay."
Presidential Race. David Leonhardt of the New York Times: "So where are you supposed to find a comfortably electable, qualified candidate who won't turn 80 while in office? Senator Amy Klobuchar has become an answer to that question in the final month before voting begins.... Her greatest strength is her understanding of how to beat Republicans.... I am also struck by Klobuchar's views about how to run against Trump this time -- to talk about how he has let down the country (which gives his old supporters permission to switch sides), to use humor against his demagoguery and to appeal to voters' emotions and patriotism.... Many Democratic voters care more about beating Trump than anything else. For them, Klobuchar deserves a look." Mrs. McC: Based on my reading of his NYT columns, Leonhardt is quite liberal. If he can consider voting for Klobuchar, I can too. And yeah, I'm still bothered by reports of her throwing stuff at staffers more than her too-moderate views.
** Hansi Lo Wang of NPR: "More than a year after his death, a cache of computer files saved on the hard drives of Thomas Hofeller, a prominent Republican redistricting strategist, is becoming public.... They have been cited as evidence of gerrymandering that got political maps thrown out in North Carolina, and they have raised questions about Hofeller's role in the Trump administration's failed push for a census citizenship question... Now more of the files are available online through a website called The Hofeller Files, where Hofeller's daughter, Stephanie Hofeller, published a link to her copy of the files on Sunday.... The files document the wide reach of Thomas Hofeller's work on political maps across the country -- including in Arizona, Florida, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee and Virginia, as well as New York's Nassau County and Texas' Galveston and Nueces counties." --s
Share Article
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.
Reader Comments (14)
"We are confident that the Iraqi people want the United States to continue to be there to fight the counterterror campaign".
Yes, and we will be greeted as liberators.
I'm guessing Parscale/FoxNews internal polls are showing wild bade support for raining down missiles on mosques across Iran. Not even a doubt the Republican base either supports it or would be indifferent.
Since day 1, the GOP strategy (McConnell's and his paymasters) seems to be give Deranged Don free rein until he loses support of the base. What we've all come to realize now is that conservatives in groupthink and groupact across America are all nihilist, self-serving, unpatriotic, amoral patsies. And now every GOP elected official cowers under the threats of the toxicity they carefully brewed.
Dan Lowery: "Yes, and we will be greeted as liberators."
Greeted with candy and flowers.
Drooling, screaming, hateful, unpatriotic Trumpbots might salivate at the idea of bombing mosques and Iranian cultural sites, believing themselves and their Dear Leader to be above reproach if it comes to that because, of course, Iranians are not Christians. They don't love Trump, and, well, they just suck. Right? So who cares what we do to them? But similar attacks on American cultural sites would be met with howls of "Animals! Evil! Kill them all!"
Funny how that works.
As for the Orange Menace (becoming more menacing by the hour), he continues to operate under the premise of "What's good for me today? What will make me feel tough, feel good, feel powerful, in charge?" Killing an Iranian general seemed to have done the trick for now. He'll come up with a good excuse any day now.
But here's the thing. If one thinks of international relations (including, especially, situations involving enemies) as a chess match, it's important to remember that what will give you a quick burst of satisfaction in the short run (taking that bishop) can very easily turn out to be an extremely bad decision, putting you on the defensive, giving your opponent an opening through your own unforced error. My nine year old is learning this with every game we play. When we began, it was all capturing the other pieces that engaged his interest. Now, he's beginning to understand the importance of the long game, setting up a strategy, developing your pieces, planning both defensive and offensive goals.
He is already far beyond Fatty who still delights in the quick kill, thumping his chest as the other side plans the best use of the opening he gives them.
And, naturally, the Trumpbots tell each other "What can they do? They're nothing! They can't beat us." In a straight ahead war? No. Iran couldn't. But that sort of hubris is dangerous, and they can make it very tough for us if they want to. And getting into ANOTHER Republican initiated, Fox supported, protracted war in the Middle East with no clear goals and no exit strategy (that exit strategy for Iraq has really worked out, hasn't it? We're still there 17 years later. Nice job, Dubya) might benefit Fatty in the short run (stealing another election), but the fallout for the United States, our allies, and a fair portion of the rest of the world could be terrible.
But who cares? He got him a bishop. And if he's wrong and fucks it all up?
There is no "J'adoube" in war.
"And now every GOP elected official cowers under the threats of the toxicity they carefully brewed." Very apt way of describing those elephants in the rooms, safari. "Ye reap what ye sow" so says the old farmer who learned the hard way.
The video above depicting Obama's "scandals" is hard to watch. It reeks of hypocrisy and pure idiocy while being somewhat hilarious, but holy cow, this should be catnip for some nifty campaign ads I would think.
Many at the Golden Globes last night urged us all to Vote! "Get the bastard out!" Was there anyone in that audience who wanted the bastard in?
And speaking of voting: I was surprised at Leonhardt's push for Amy K. If he's as liberal as we think he is it sounds as if he is willing –-or has given up–-wanting to dramatically change our broken system and like many others want someone who could beat Trump. Concerned about age, he is; Warren should not be a worry–- but Biden and Bernie might very well pose age related problems.What a damn shame it is that we are considering applicants for the highest office in the land in this way. And since money plays such a significant part in all this so called democratic operation I'd bet Wall Street would love it if Amy became the front runner.
I take great issue with Ben Hubbard et al when they say "the killing of General Suleimani on Friday ... has unleashed a host of unanticipated consequences that could dramatically alter where the United States operates." This makes it sound as if only policy wonk nerds could anticipate the consequences.
It should read "... a host of consequences that [the idiots in] the White House refused to take into account before acting." Previous administrations, even Cheney and W and their "let's invade Iraq" team, understood what fresh hell this would unleash.
The opening of last night's All Things Considered included something along the lines of "and we will talk with R congressman X about why the killing of General Suleimani was a good thing." I turned it off right there.
I remember how barbaric it seemed when the Taliban blew up the Buddhas of Bamyan. Giant stone carvings cut in the side of a mountain. And when ISIS destroyed other antiquities because they weren't of the right type of religion, regardless of their history throughout time. Once they're gone you can never put them back together again. Drumpf's threat to do the same in Iraq puts him in the same league as both the Taliban and ISIS.
I read somewhere that mentioned one potential site - Persepolis. Here's the Wiki and Google Maps info. It looks like an amazing place. If he makes good on his threat, we should haul him into the Hague.
Fatty better watch out since there's now a bounty out on him. $80MM, $1 for every Iranian. This leads me to ponder a few questions:
1. Do impeached presidents* get lifetime SS protection?
2. Do his kids?
3. Will there be a sliding scale where the full amount goes for Fatty, and lesser amounts for Ooday, Oosay, and Javanka?
4. Does one have to be Iranian to collect?
Just wondering.
Forgot to thank you, Marie, for adding that golden nugget of a story re: T.S.Eliot and Emily Hale plus your advice to your husband. Stories like this make the day a little more bearable after having to wade through the fuck-ups of Fatty and friends.
I've always been disturbed by the fact that we've invested a tremendous amount of power in a single individual to make the decision to wage war. It disturbed me when Obama unilaterally decided to start bombing all over the Middle East. But at least in that instance Obama was acting against non-state actors like al Qaeda and Isis.
What Trump has done is ratchet this up a major notch by committing an act of war against a sovereign nation. He has done this without any Congressional authorization to commit us to war. He has done this without even consulting anyone in Congress. He has done this without consulting any of our allies (if we have any left). And there will be absolutely no consequences to him for having done so.
I'm scared out of my ever-lovin' mind that we have given this sort of power over to a man as erratic - often unhinged - as Donald Trump.
To all of those people (not here) who called me an alarmist for saying this guy was assuming the powers of a dictator, to all those who told me our institutions would save us from the excesses of this wannabe Putin, I ask you: what do you have to say now?
But trump will claim the bounty is $80 billion, not million, because
he's a stable genius with the best words. Or maybe he thinks they
want him to throw them some paper towels (Bounty).
So Bolton wants to throw his fuzzy hat into the impeachment ring, eh? Unlike Fatty, Bolton IS a chess player. He's no idiot. But if he weren't so unhinged himself in certain areas, he could be a much more formidable character.
I'm reminded of a scene in Michael Mann's filmed version (the first) of the Thomas Harris novel "Red Dragon". The FBI agent who captured Hannibal Lecter, Will Graham, approaches Lecter for help profiling another serial killer. Lecter suggests that Graham probably thinks he's smarter because he caught him. Graham demurs. "I don't think I'm smarter than you Dr. Lecter". "Then how did you catch me?" "You had disadvantages." "What disadvantages?" asks Lecter. "You're insane" says Graham.
I kind of think that about Bolton.
As for testifying at the Senate show trial, it's mostly a gag on Bolton's part. He knows McConnell will never call any witnesses and he most certainly won't call someone like Bolton. It's not that Bolton is lying. I believe (mostly) that he'd love to do a tarantella on Fatty's Hairclub for Men dim dome. But since he knows McConnell has forsaken his oath of office as surely as has Trump and the rest of the Party of Treason, this is more a finger in the eye of the Dear Leader. He just wants to put a burr under Fatty's saddle, remind him that he knows where some significant bodies are buried and stick it to him. If McConnell calls witnesses, they're liable to be Junior, Hannity, and the three slugs on Fox and Friends, and that's it.
As for the Party of Treason, I heard yesterday that Trump Tiny Testicle Cozy Lindsay Graham is tooting that the Senate may hold it's own (three minute) trial without even getting the Articles of Impeachment from the House. Hey, once you've gone to the Dark Side, why bother with even a semblance of propriety. Just announce that Fatty is innocent of any and every thing and be done with it.
They couldn't do it better in Iran.
AK-- you said it. I feel not one whit of patriotic warmth toward any of the people running our country. If it wouldn't be immoral and war-criminal-y, I would not care if someone took out OUR cultural treasures, as long as it took out the people running things. There doesn't seem to be anyone left with a moral compass. My New Year wish is that they would collectively die of lack-of-heart failure, or move to a monastery to contemplate their sins. Their fat faces are only worthy of jack-o-lantern artistry. Fatty and the boys...
Nisky Guy,
Such interviews (why it was a good thing to kill...whomever) entirely miss the point. It's all of a piece with the couple of dozen other hand wringing ledes I've been seeing that ask ridiculous questions like "What's Trump's Strategy for Iran?"
Silly wabbit. Strategies are for people with brains.
Trump, and his lizard brain, has only one strategy and he works it every minute of every day. "Lie, cheat, steal, dissemble, delay, misdirect, mislead, and lie some more". That's it. It's a parade of trickeration. And trying to suss out the "real" underlying strategy is a game for jamokes and the not very bright. The only strategy is "What's good for Donald right now?"
The guy is being impeached. So let's kill someone, let's threaten cultural destruction on a scale not seen outside the most barbaric murderers in history, and let's just change the subject. It ain't analytic philosophy. It's Fatty being Fatty. It's what he's always done. Someone calls him on a crime, he points in another direction. "Ho...what's that shiny thing over there?!" and the media race over to gander at some nonsense and fell a few forests writing about yet another bullshit con job, courtesy of King Con.
There IS NO IRAN STRATEGY. It's same as it ever was. Trump is the only thing that matters to Trump. Any strategy worthy of the name is employed to help Trump, period. It has nothing to do with Iran, Iraq, the betterment of the United States, with bunions, butterscotch, or bunny rabbits. It's all about Trump. End of song, end of story, as Louis Armstrong once said.
So I've been reading that the option to kill Soleimani was tacked on at the end of a list of more proportional and responsible (and sane) responses to the US embassy situation. The idea, I'm reading, was that, well, of COURSE, Trump, like a real leader, would choose one of the more prudent courses of action.
Really? Who fucking thinks that?
I'd love to find out who tacked on that bit about killing Soleimani. They had to know that an idiotic, narcissistic asshole like Trump, already afraid of looking weak to his drooling mob of traitors, would pick the most inflammatory, dangerous choice. Suggestions to the contrary are bullshit.
It's like taking a rich, fat, spoiled brat and presenting him with a menu for lunch. "Okay little Donnie, you can have broccoli, boiled carrots and rice, grilled chicken with steamed vegetables...OR...hold on...here's another option your pal Mike Pompeo just added...Cocoa Puffs and a Big Mac."
Someone is pulling on some very dangerous strings here. Fatty probably had no idea who Soleimani was before he was handed this list of options with "Kill this Iranian General and look tough for the goons" tacked on at the end.