Armitage to back Clinton over Trump
Source: Politico
Richard Armitage, the deputy secretary of state under George W. Bush, says he will vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, in one of the most dramatic signs yet that Republican national security elites are rejecting their partys presumptive nominee.
Armitage, a retired Navy officer who also served as an assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan, is thought by Clinton aides to be the highest-ranking former GOP national security official to openly support Clinton over Trump.
Story Continued Below
If Donald Trump is the nominee, I would vote for Hillary Clinton, Armitage told POLITICO in a brief interview. He doesn't appear to be a Republican, he doesn't appear to want to learn about issues. So, Im going to vote for Mrs. Clinton.
Dozens of Republican foreign policy elites have already declared their unwillingness to support or work for Trump, though far fewer say they would cast a ballot for Clinton. The latter group includes Max Boot, a prominent neoconservative military analyst and historian; Mark Salter, former longtime chief of staff to Republican Sen. John McCain; and retired Army Col. Peter Mansour, a former top aide to retired Gen. David Petraeus.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/richard-armitage-endorses-clinton-224431
More rats fleeing the ship, it would appear
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)On November 15, 2005, journalist Bob Woodward of The Washington Post revealed in an article that "a government official with no axe to grind" leaked to him the identity of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame in mid-June 2003. According to an April 2006 Vanity Fair article (published March 14, 2006), former Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee said in an interview "that Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption", though Bradlee later told the Post that he " not recall making that precise statement" in the interview. The following year, on March 2, 2006, bloggers discovered that "Richard Armitage" fit the spacing on a redacted court document, suggesting he was a source for the Plame leak. In August 2006, the Associated Press published a story that revealed Armitage met with Bob Woodward in mid-June 2003. The information came from official State Department calendars, provided to The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act.
Robert Novak, in an August 27, 2006 appearance on Meet the Press, stated that although he still would not release the name of his source, he felt it was long overdue that the source reveal himself. Armitage has also reportedly been a cooperative and key witness in the investigation. According to The Washington Note, Armitage has testified before the grand jury three times.
On August 29, 2006, Neil A. Lewis of The New York Times reported that Armitage was the "initial and primary source" for columnist Robert Novak's July 14, 2003 article, which named Valerie Plame as a CIA "operative" and which triggered the CIA leak investigation.
On August 30, 2006, CNN reported that Armitage had been confirmed "by sources" as leaking Wilson's CIA role in a "casual conversation" with Robert Novak. The New York Times, quoting people "familiar with his actions", reported that Armitage was unaware of Wilson's undercover status when he spoke to Novak.
In the September 4, 2006 issue of Newsweek magazine, in an article titled "The Man Who Said Too Much", journalist Michael Isikoff, quoting a "source directly familiar with the conversation who asked not to be identified because of legal sensitivities", reported that Armitage was the "primary" source for Robert Novak's piece outing Plame. Armitage allegedly mentioned Wilson's CIA role to Novak in a July 8, 2003 interview after learning about her status from a State Department memo which made no reference to her undercover status. Isikoff also reported that Armitage had also told Bob Woodward of Plame's identity in June 2003, and that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald investigated Armitage's role "aggressively", but did not charge Armitage with a crime because he "found no evidence that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status when he talked to Novak and Woodward".
On September 7, 2006, Armitage admitted to being the source in the CIA leak. Armitage claims that Fitzgerald had originally asked him not to discuss publicly his role in the matter, but that on September 5 Armitage asked Fitzgerald if he could reveal his role to the public, and Fitzgerald consented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_(politician)
Response to Doctor Jack (Original post)
Post removed
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)pnwmom
(108,973 posts)S/he thinks Powell is one, too.
TwilightZone
(25,451 posts)But, hey, don't stop believin'.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_(politician)
In 1998, Armitage signed a letter to President Bill Clinton. The letter urged Clinton to target the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power in Iraq. It stated that Saddam's massive violations of the cease-fire that had ended the First Gulf War has caused erosion of the Gulf War Coalition's containment policy. It also raised the possibility that Iraq, emboldened by Western inaction, might re-develop weapons of mass destruction.
During the 2000 Presidential election campaign, he served as a foreign policy advisor to George W. Bush as part of a group led by Condoleezza Rice that called itself The Vulcans.[13] The United States Senate confirmed him as Deputy Secretary of State on March 23, 2001; he was sworn in three days later. A close associate of Secretary of State Colin Powell, Armitage was regarded, along with Powell, as a moderate within the presidential administration of George W. Bush.
According to President Musharraf of Pakistan, shortly after 9/11, Armitage presented him with demands for assistance in the campaign against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban which were non-negotiable. Should Pakistan accept, it would be considered a United States ally. Should it decline, Pakistan would be considered an enemy. According to Musharraf, Armitage further averred that, should Pakistan decline, the United States would bomb it "back to the Stone Age". Armitage denies having used those words.
TwilightZone
(25,451 posts)Bernie Sanders is a neocon. Except, he isn't, of course, though he voted for regime change in Iraq, using a similar argument to that put forth by Armitage.
Sanders, in 1998: Hussein is a brutal and illegitimate dictator who should be removed from office, and his capability to make weapons of mass destruction must be eliminated. In order to do that, we must develop a political strategy and support the democratic forces in Iraq who are prepared to overthrow him.
As for Musharraf's comments, he had a book to plug (he refused to provide details ostensibly because his publisher asked him not to), so his comments should probably be taken with the same grain of salt as Armitage's. As noted earlier in your article, "Armitage confirmed he had held a conversation with the Pakistani general to whom Musharraf had sourced the comments, but stated he had not used a threat of military action couched in such terms, as he was not authorized to do so."
Armitage is no doubt a long-term weasel and his involvement in Iran-Contra and the Plame affair were abhorrent, but let's not pretend that he is on par with Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearle, etc. He was Powell's subordinate and a relative moderate in the Bush administration, as your quoted excerpt notes. He and Powell were on the losing end of the argument with Cheney et al about Iraq and should have resigned, as Armitrage later claimed he considered doing, rather than going along with it. They're about the only two who have ever expressed regrets, though that's no less inexcusable.
yardwork
(61,585 posts)What's the problem here?
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Takes one to know one.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)wanted to invade Iraq. She agrees with the Republicons on keeping the min wage down below a living wage, keeping medical marijuana illegal, the so-called Free Trade (Job Killing) Agreements like NAFTA, TPIP and the TPP, more defense spending, fracking for oil profits, and a hawkish foreign policy.
TwilightZone
(25,451 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Ontheissues is bogus. How about all the issues I mentioned?
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,336 posts)I Don't Know's playing third base.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,336 posts)TwilightZone
(25,451 posts)I guess your issues are the only ones that are important enough to stick on a graph, eh?
Perhaps that's why your candidate didn't do so hot with people who consider other issues important.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)People are complex in their viewpoints. The graph is a spin to rationalize the neoliberal into the liberal ranks.
IOW, in today's situation it is hiding reaganomics trickledown economic principles inside a socially liberal package and saying:
there ya go --- that's a liberal. Now shut up and be happy I let you work in a right to work state.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,294 posts)http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/31/1374629/-Hillary-Clinton-Was-the-11th-Most-Liberal-Member-of-the-Senate#
Also:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/elizabeth-warren-would-be-the-most-liberal-democratic-nominee-since-1972/
TwilightZone
(25,451 posts)Otherwise known as "in the real world".
Sarcasm aside, I still find it funny that some find her to be some kind of conservative neanderthal, considering the kinds of things that she's known for supporting over the decades - kids, women, families, health care, environment, choice, human rights, etc.
The right thinks that she's some kind of ultra-liberal. Part of the left thinks she's a ultra-conservative. The right's actually closer.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)Her foreign views are conservative.
The right is only looking at the social part.
Just like you.
mdbl
(4,973 posts)the one from the decades you mention.
yardwork
(61,585 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)to a RW scumbag like Richard Armitage, not something he could get behind.
Do you believe Armitage "evolved?"
I don't.
yardwork
(61,585 posts)This is a serious question.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)In the liberal conception of domestic politics, the state is not an actor but a representative institution constantly subject to capture and recapture, construction and reconstruction by coalitions of social actors. Representative institutions and practices constitute the critical "transmission belt" by which the preferences and social power of individuals and groups are translated into state policy. Individuals turn to the state to achieve goals that private behavior is unable to achieve efficiently.9 Government policy is therefore constrained by the underlying identities, interests, and power of individuals and groups (inside and outside the state apparatus) who constantly pressure the central decision makers to pursue policies consistent with their preferences.
~snip~
This is not to adopt a narrowly pluralist view of domestic politics in which all individuals and groups have equal influence on state policy, nor one in which the structure of state institutions is irrelevant. No government rests on universal or unbiased political representation; every government represents some individuals and groups more fully than others. In an extreme hypothetical case, representation might empower a narrow bureaucratic class or even a single tyrannical individual, such as an ideal-typical Pol Pot or Josef Stalin. Between theoretical extremes of tyranny and democracy, many representative institutions and practices exist, each of which privileges particular demands; hence the nature of state institutions, alongside societal interests themselves, is a key determinant of what states do internationally.
Representation, in the liberal view, is not simply a formal attribute of state institutions but includes other stable characteristics of the political process, formal or informal, that privilege particular societal interests. Clientalistic authoritarian regimes may distinguish those with familial, bureaucratic, or economic ties to the governing elite from those without. Even where government institutions are formally fair and open, a relatively inegalitarian distribution of property, risk, information, or organizational capabilities may create social or economic monopolies able to dominate policy. Similarly, the way in which a state recognizes individual rights may shape opportunities for voice.10 Certain domestic representational processes may tend to select as leaders individuals, groups, and bureaucracies socialized with particular attitudes toward information, risk, and loss.
Moravcsik, A. (1997). Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international politics. International Organization, 51(4), 513-553.
jmowreader
(50,546 posts)Armitage feels Trump's policies are antithetical to human life on this planet, which is true.
Let's approach this strategically. If we can get a dozen Reagan-administration officials to go on television and say something like "I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Hillary because Trump is too dangerous to allow near the White House," we can win a LOT of Reagan votes. Hillary will be a good president. Donald Trump will bring about the end of the world - not the United States, the world.
This is the year we get payback for 1984's "Reagan Democrats" - people who were good Democrats but couldn't bring themselves to vote for Walter Mondale. This year we're going to get Hillary Republicans - staunch Republicans who can't force their hands to put their mark next to Donald Trump's name. (And in 2020, we're going to get Republican superdelegates.)
yardwork
(61,585 posts)seabeckind
(1,957 posts)But then the enemy of my enemy is my friend in the minds of some.
But then I guess I'm a little more discriminating about who I shake hands with.
yardwork
(61,585 posts)Do you understand how elections work? Hillary needs votes.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)That's how elections work.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)bucolic_frolic
(43,115 posts)no one has to say she's a quick study
or makes it up as she goes along
because she doesn't.
I still wonder if Trump is going to get dumped from the GOP ticket
phazed0
(745 posts)..and if the D's are all right with that, well, it sets a precedent for Bernie to have the nomination regardless of votes... right?
Just thinking aloud, not picking on ya.. just adding to..
bucolic_frolic
(43,115 posts)the Republicans will care very much what the D's think
but if their own nominee becomes a spontaneous selection
they will use that argument against HRC
That said, spontaneous is not the way parties work, they filter
popularity every bit as much as the electoral college
Smoke filled rooms had their purpose, but there would be too much
cynicism if they were really used today ... which is the predicament
of the Republican Party. With their candidate getting more insane by the
day, they seek a way out, and can't find one.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I think Trump could be bought.
tanyev
(42,540 posts)MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)Looks like they're bringing the plague with them, too.
Doctor Jack
(3,072 posts)We often say "god, how could anyone vote for these republicans!? Can't they see the democrats are so much better?" and with Trump the question takes on a new urgency. Well if someone, even a conservative says "you know what, you guys are right, I can't vote for these republicans anymore, I'm going to vote Democrat" then I say that is good. Our response shouldn't be "you know what, on second thought, you can go fuck yourself, we don't care what you do!".
If republicans are starting to flee in droves from their party because it has become too extreme, we should welcome their votes, not kick them back to the GOP. The only way the republicans are going to change is if they lose so many voters that they have to moderate/reform. Telling those Republican refugees to fuck off is only going to end up screwing us over.
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)Trump is not controllable by the powers that be. Democrat or Republican makes little difference to them.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts).