Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
babylonsister
babylonsister's Journal
babylonsister's Journal
January 6, 2020
Biden Again Falsely Claims He Opposed Iraq War
Why is he doing this?
https://politicalwire.com/2020/01/06/biden-again-falsely-claims-he-opposed-iraq-war/
Biden Again Falsely Claims He Opposed Iraq War
January 6, 2020 at 9:22 am EST By Taegan Goddard
“Joe Biden dishonestly suggested on Saturday that he had opposed the war in Iraq ‘from the very moment’ it began in 2003 — even though Biden’s campaign said in September that he ‘misspoke’ when he made a similar claim,” CNN reports.
“Biden’s language on Saturday — saying he opposed ‘what he was doing’ at the moment the war commenced — was more vague than his language in September, when he flatly said he had opposed ‘the war’ at that moment. But the new version was highly misleading even under the most generous interpretation.”
“Biden’s language on Saturday — saying he opposed ‘what he was doing’ at the moment the war commenced — was more vague than his language in September, when he flatly said he had opposed ‘the war’ at that moment. But the new version was highly misleading even under the most generous interpretation.”
January 6, 2020
Senior US officials say there is widespread opposition within the Trump administration to targeting cultural sites in Iran
By Jim Sciutto, Chief National Security Correspondent
Updated 3:42 PM ET, Sun January 5, 2020
Washington (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 President Donald Trump saying a day before that such sites are among dozens the US has identified as potential targets.
Another official who formerly worked in both the Trump and Obama administrations told CNN: "As a matter of principle, we as a nation and as a military do not attack the culture sites of any adversary."
Additionally, several sources tell CNN there are no indications at this time that the US would strike cultural sites in Iran.
Pompeo backs Trump's threats to Iran as US braces for possible retaliation
The comments from the current and former officials come hours after Trump, in a series of tweets on Saturday, threatened to attack 52 Iranian sites -- including cultural ones -- should the country respond with military force to a US strike in Iraq last week that killed Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani and several others.
more...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/05/politics/iranian-cultural-sites-us-strikes-donald-trump/index.html
...there is widespread opposition within the Trump administration to targeting cultural sites in Ira
Senior US officials say there is widespread opposition within the Trump administration to targeting cultural sites in Iran
By Jim Sciutto, Chief National Security Correspondent
Updated 3:42 PM ET, Sun January 5, 2020
Washington (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 President Donald Trump saying a day before that such sites are among dozens the US has identified as potential targets.
"Nothing rallies people like the deliberate destruction of beloved cultural sites. Whether ISIS's destruction of religious monuments or the burning of the Leuven Library in WWI, history shows targeting locations giving civilization meaning is not only immoral but self-defeating," one of the officials told CNN.
"The Persian people hold a deeply influential and beautiful history of poetry, logic, art and science. Iran's leaders do not live up to that history. But America would be better served by leaders who embrace Persian culture, not threaten to destroy it," they added.
"Consistent with laws and norms of armed conflict, we would respect Iranian culture," the second senior US official said.
"The Persian people hold a deeply influential and beautiful history of poetry, logic, art and science. Iran's leaders do not live up to that history. But America would be better served by leaders who embrace Persian culture, not threaten to destroy it," they added.
"Consistent with laws and norms of armed conflict, we would respect Iranian culture," the second senior US official said.
Another official who formerly worked in both the Trump and Obama administrations told CNN: "As a matter of principle, we as a nation and as a military do not attack the culture sites of any adversary."
Additionally, several sources tell CNN there are no indications at this time that the US would strike cultural sites in Iran.
Pompeo backs Trump's threats to Iran as US braces for possible retaliation
The comments from the current and former officials come hours after Trump, in a series of tweets on Saturday, threatened to attack 52 Iranian sites -- including cultural ones -- should the country respond with military force to a US strike in Iraq last week that killed Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani and several others.
more...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/05/politics/iranian-cultural-sites-us-strikes-donald-trump/index.html
January 6, 2020
Outrage fatigue is not an option
Laurence Lewis for Daily Kos
Community
Sunday January 05, 2020 · 4:00 PM EST
snip//
Beyond the scandals and crimes and cruelty and general mayhem, Trump's basic political policies also are tearing the nation apart. He's exploded the wealth gap, done nothing about the gun violence crisis, and is making all Americans less safe by destroying decades of environmental protections. But it’s even worse. Much worse. At the end of a year that featured the hottest month on the global record, was among the three hottest years on record, and concludes what was probably the hottest decade on record, Trump helped scuttle the Madrid COP25 international climate talks. Of all his many outrages, what could be worse? It's only the most important issue humanity has ever faced, and he is actively making the crisis even worse. Have no doubt that future historians will consider this, too, a crime against humanity.
Every bit of this is an outrage. Not one bit of it should be forgotten. And none of it should be accepted as normal. Even within the previous range of the Republican Party's decades of drift into far-right extremism, none of this is normal. Republicans used to try to hide what they really were doing. They no longer do. Trump has torn off the mask of their extremism, just as he has torn off the mask of the racists, misogynists, and other multilayered bigots who have become the base of the Republican Party.
It’s overwhelming. The major media outlets are mostly too incompetent or compromised to keep up. Even when individual reporters expose important information, the big picture inevitably is lost in the toxic fog. And then there is their reflexive, habitual need to bothsidesism anything and everything, to create a balance even when the facts don’t provide one. Especially when the facts don’t provide one. But all persons of intelligence must remain alert. All persons of conscience must remain determined. The nation is under attack. Democracy is under attack. The republic is under attack. The future itself is threatened in unprecedented ways, to unprecedented degrees. This is not a time for despair. This is not a time for fatigue. This is a time for focus and determination.
One fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats want to make the world a better place for everyone, while Republicans want to destroy all with which they disagree, including that which they don’t understand, which is a lot. Donald Trump received neither a majority nor even a plurality of the votes in 2016, and his unpopularity has been consistent and historic. This is not sustainable. It is not acceptable. This is not the will of the people.
Republicans are trying to destroy democracy and the republic themselves. From gerrymandering to voter suppression they are ramping up to lock democracy down. Even as Russia ramps up its efforts again to attack the very basis of American governance, Trump and Republicans are trying to open the doors to welcome it. That was what last summer’s Trump/Ukraine scandal was about. That was what the 2016 Trump/Russia scandal was about. Republicans will lose a fair election, so they welcome even a hostile foreign power’s assistance in ensuring that there won’t be one. But knowing this should not leave anyone daunted or discouraged. Far more corrupt and repressive regimes all around the globe are being challenged by brave popular uprisings. That is the real tide of history. That should leave everyone inspired.
After millennia when they didn’t even consciously exist, the yearnings for self-determination and democratic governance are now fundamental to modern human consciousness. Some fear it, and the most debased and depraved see it as a threat. And those who do want to destroy it. But they are in the minority. Know that. You are not alone. Know that. The tide of history is on your side. Demographics are on your side. Basic human decency is on your side. This nation is at a historic crossroads. Outrage fatigue is not an option.
Outrage fatigue is not an option
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/1/5/1908898/-Outrage-fatigue-is-not-an-optionOutrage fatigue is not an option
Laurence Lewis for Daily Kos
Community
Sunday January 05, 2020 · 4:00 PM EST
snip//
Beyond the scandals and crimes and cruelty and general mayhem, Trump's basic political policies also are tearing the nation apart. He's exploded the wealth gap, done nothing about the gun violence crisis, and is making all Americans less safe by destroying decades of environmental protections. But it’s even worse. Much worse. At the end of a year that featured the hottest month on the global record, was among the three hottest years on record, and concludes what was probably the hottest decade on record, Trump helped scuttle the Madrid COP25 international climate talks. Of all his many outrages, what could be worse? It's only the most important issue humanity has ever faced, and he is actively making the crisis even worse. Have no doubt that future historians will consider this, too, a crime against humanity.
Every bit of this is an outrage. Not one bit of it should be forgotten. And none of it should be accepted as normal. Even within the previous range of the Republican Party's decades of drift into far-right extremism, none of this is normal. Republicans used to try to hide what they really were doing. They no longer do. Trump has torn off the mask of their extremism, just as he has torn off the mask of the racists, misogynists, and other multilayered bigots who have become the base of the Republican Party.
It’s overwhelming. The major media outlets are mostly too incompetent or compromised to keep up. Even when individual reporters expose important information, the big picture inevitably is lost in the toxic fog. And then there is their reflexive, habitual need to bothsidesism anything and everything, to create a balance even when the facts don’t provide one. Especially when the facts don’t provide one. But all persons of intelligence must remain alert. All persons of conscience must remain determined. The nation is under attack. Democracy is under attack. The republic is under attack. The future itself is threatened in unprecedented ways, to unprecedented degrees. This is not a time for despair. This is not a time for fatigue. This is a time for focus and determination.
One fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats want to make the world a better place for everyone, while Republicans want to destroy all with which they disagree, including that which they don’t understand, which is a lot. Donald Trump received neither a majority nor even a plurality of the votes in 2016, and his unpopularity has been consistent and historic. This is not sustainable. It is not acceptable. This is not the will of the people.
Republicans are trying to destroy democracy and the republic themselves. From gerrymandering to voter suppression they are ramping up to lock democracy down. Even as Russia ramps up its efforts again to attack the very basis of American governance, Trump and Republicans are trying to open the doors to welcome it. That was what last summer’s Trump/Ukraine scandal was about. That was what the 2016 Trump/Russia scandal was about. Republicans will lose a fair election, so they welcome even a hostile foreign power’s assistance in ensuring that there won’t be one. But knowing this should not leave anyone daunted or discouraged. Far more corrupt and repressive regimes all around the globe are being challenged by brave popular uprisings. That is the real tide of history. That should leave everyone inspired.
After millennia when they didn’t even consciously exist, the yearnings for self-determination and democratic governance are now fundamental to modern human consciousness. Some fear it, and the most debased and depraved see it as a threat. And those who do want to destroy it. But they are in the minority. Know that. You are not alone. Know that. The tide of history is on your side. Demographics are on your side. Basic human decency is on your side. This nation is at a historic crossroads. Outrage fatigue is not an option.
January 5, 2020
Graham Suggests Changing Senate Rules to Begin Trial
So he wants to proceed without the charges that got iq45 there to begin with? 
https://politicalwire.com/2020/01/05/graham-suggests-changing-senate-rules-to-begin-trial/
Graham Suggests Changing Senate Rules to Begin Trial
January 5, 2020 at 2:27 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 112 Comments
“Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham suggested 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,” the Washington Post reports.
“Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell 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, 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.”
“Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell 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, 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.”
January 5, 2020
Trump's America stands utterly alone
Opinion by David A. Andelman
Updated 2:14 PM ET, Sun January 5, 2020
(CNN)This time, the United States stands utterly alone.
snip//
Trump has repeatedly alienated most of America's traditional allies and led them to question his style of leadership. He has railed against fellow NATO members, and attacked leaders like French President Emmanuel Macron.
snip//
By killing Soleimani, Trump has provoked a power that has powerful friends, and little to lose. Last month, Iran joined Russia and China on massive joint naval maneuvers in the Indian Ocean and Gulf of Oman. China has also proved to be a receptive customer for Iran's oil sales, despite Trump's efforts to crush the Islamic Republic's economy. Iran has also aligned with Russia in backing Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria.
History would also suggest that Iran is fully prepared to unleash asymmetric warfare unlike any before seen. Its eight-year war with Iraq from 1980 to 1988 has shown it to be capable of assembling vast reserves of would-be martyrs in the form of human wave attacks unlike anything terrorist groups have been able to mount.
By his action, Trump crossed several critical red lines in the region, without notice and without backup. For the past two years, I have been studying the nature, structure and history of red lines for my forthcoming book, A Line in the Sand: Red Lines in Peace and War," to be published by Pegasus. I've found that the Middle East, particularly Iran, Iraq and Syria today have a density of red lines -- ranging from geographical borders to political, diplomatic or military realities -- replicated in no other region of the world, nor at any other moment in history. Each line must in some fashion be carefully communicated or structured so that all parties understand the reality and the stakes for violating them.
Certainly, Soleimani crossed a critical red line himself by going into Iraq where he was killed in a drone strike at a Baghdad airport. But Trump, by his response, crossed an even more dangerous one by escalating an already tense situation across a red line that was not its own -- without support from crucial allies.
Perhaps most troubling is the fact that Trump does not seem to be at all concerned about his lack of friends and allies, nor for that matter has he expressed any real plan of response beyond a tweeted threat of retaliation against 52 Iranian targets if Iran strikes back. Above all, he does not seem to have an exit strategy or end game in mind. Establishing or violating a red line is not an action to be undertaken cavalierly or without careful consideration as to the response or the outcome.
Trump's America stands utterly alone
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/05/opinions/trump-allies-soleimani-iran-conflict-andelman/index.htmlTrump's America stands utterly alone
Opinion by David A. Andelman
Updated 2:14 PM ET, Sun January 5, 2020
(CNN)This time, the United States stands utterly alone.
snip//
Trump has repeatedly alienated most of America's traditional allies and led them to question his style of leadership. He has railed against fellow NATO members, and attacked leaders like French President Emmanuel Macron.
snip//
By killing Soleimani, Trump has provoked a power that has powerful friends, and little to lose. Last month, Iran joined Russia and China on massive joint naval maneuvers in the Indian Ocean and Gulf of Oman. China has also proved to be a receptive customer for Iran's oil sales, despite Trump's efforts to crush the Islamic Republic's economy. Iran has also aligned with Russia in backing Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria.
History would also suggest that Iran is fully prepared to unleash asymmetric warfare unlike any before seen. Its eight-year war with Iraq from 1980 to 1988 has shown it to be capable of assembling vast reserves of would-be martyrs in the form of human wave attacks unlike anything terrorist groups have been able to mount.
By his action, Trump crossed several critical red lines in the region, without notice and without backup. For the past two years, I have been studying the nature, structure and history of red lines for my forthcoming book, A Line in the Sand: Red Lines in Peace and War," to be published by Pegasus. I've found that the Middle East, particularly Iran, Iraq and Syria today have a density of red lines -- ranging from geographical borders to political, diplomatic or military realities -- replicated in no other region of the world, nor at any other moment in history. Each line must in some fashion be carefully communicated or structured so that all parties understand the reality and the stakes for violating them.
Certainly, Soleimani crossed a critical red line himself by going into Iraq where he was killed in a drone strike at a Baghdad airport. But Trump, by his response, crossed an even more dangerous one by escalating an already tense situation across a red line that was not its own -- without support from crucial allies.
Perhaps most troubling is the fact that Trump does not seem to be at all concerned about his lack of friends and allies, nor for that matter has he expressed any real plan of response beyond a tweeted threat of retaliation against 52 Iranian targets if Iran strikes back. Above all, he does not seem to have an exit strategy or end game in mind. Establishing or violating a red line is not an action to be undertaken cavalierly or without careful consideration as to the response or the outcome.
January 5, 2020
Pentagon Officials Reportedly “Stunned” by Trump’s Decision to Kill Soleimani
By Daniel Politi
Jan 05, 2020
9:29 AM
When top American military officials presented President Donald Trump with the option to kill Maj. Gen. Qassim Soleimani, Iran’s most powerful commander, they didn’t actually think he would take it, reports the New York Times. 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 other options presented to Trump in Mar-a-Lago, his Palm Beach resort, included strikes against Iranian ships or missile facilities or militias backed by Iran that are operating in Iraq. “The Pentagon also tacked on the choice of targeting General Suleimani, mainly to make other options seem reasonable,” reports the Times.
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 . Instead, he authorized airstrikes against an Iranian-supported militia group, Kataib Hezbollah. The strikes ended up hitting three locations in Iraq and two in Syria.
Then things changed when protesters gathered outside the U.S. embassy in Baghdad on Tuesday. Iranians saw the U.S. response as disproportionate but Trump became increasingly angry at the images he saw on television as protesters stormed the embassy. 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. CNN also reports that “some officials emerged surprised” when the president decided to target Soleimani as many expected he would go for a less risky option. There was immediate concern about what kind of retaliation that could spark from Iran, but it is unclear whether top military officials pushed back against Trump’s decision.
Although top U.S. national security officials continue to insist that the killing of Soleimani was in response to an imminent threat against Americas, there continues to be skepticism about that claim as the administration has failed to provide convincing evidence to make its case. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley also made clear that the attacks could still happen, meaning that killing Soleimani did not get rid of the supposed imminent threat. Several Democratic lawmakers have expressed skepticism at the president’s claims. “My staff was briefed by a number of people representing a variety of agencies in the United States government and they came away with no feeling that there was evidence of an imminent attack,” Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico said.
Pentagon Officials Reportedly "Stunned" by Trump's Decision to Kill Soleimani
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/pentagon-officials-reportedly-stunned-trump-kill-soleimani.htmlPentagon Officials Reportedly “Stunned” by Trump’s Decision to Kill Soleimani
By Daniel Politi
Jan 05, 2020
9:29 AM
When top American military officials presented President Donald Trump with the option to kill Maj. Gen. Qassim Soleimani, Iran’s most powerful commander, they didn’t actually think he would take it, reports the New York Times. 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 other options presented to Trump in Mar-a-Lago, his Palm Beach resort, included strikes against Iranian ships or missile facilities or militias backed by Iran that are operating in Iraq. “The Pentagon also tacked on the choice of targeting General Suleimani, mainly to make other options seem reasonable,” reports the Times.
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 . Instead, he authorized airstrikes against an Iranian-supported militia group, Kataib Hezbollah. The strikes ended up hitting three locations in Iraq and two in Syria.
Then things changed when protesters gathered outside the U.S. embassy in Baghdad on Tuesday. Iranians saw the U.S. response as disproportionate but Trump became increasingly angry at the images he saw on television as protesters stormed the embassy. 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. CNN also reports that “some officials emerged surprised” when the president decided to target Soleimani as many expected he would go for a less risky option. There was immediate concern about what kind of retaliation that could spark from Iran, but it is unclear whether top military officials pushed back against Trump’s decision.
Although top U.S. national security officials continue to insist that the killing of Soleimani was in response to an imminent threat against Americas, there continues to be skepticism about that claim as the administration has failed to provide convincing evidence to make its case. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley also made clear that the attacks could still happen, meaning that killing Soleimani did not get rid of the supposed imminent threat. Several Democratic lawmakers have expressed skepticism at the president’s claims. “My staff was briefed by a number of people representing a variety of agencies in the United States government and they came away with no feeling that there was evidence of an imminent attack,” Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico said.
January 5, 2020
Serial liar Trump doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt on leading us into war
Written by Kerry Eleveld / Daily Kos January 5, 2020
It finally arrived. Not the New Year, rather the moment we have all been bracing for when Donald Trump would take unilateral and irrevocable military action that likely puts America on the path to another intractable war.
snip//
If it all weren’t so terrifying and consequential, it would be amusing. Apparently, every single person in Trump’s orbit is suffering from some kind of crippling brain disorder. Trump is precisely the least credible person on earth to make the case for escalating tensions with Iran because, just trust him, bad things were about to happen. Did the White House crackerjacks forget that six of Trump’s top deputies have been convicted of federal crimes, including his top campaign official, first national security adviser, close friend and confidant, and longtime personal lawyer and fixer? Did they forget his current personal lawyer is under federal investigation? Did they forget Trump just became the third U.S. president in history to be impeached and by the biggest vote margin ever—that’s how devastating the evidence was? Did they forget that lies spout from Trump’s lips like a city fire hydrant loosed in the blistering summer heat? In fact, when times are tough and the politics are dicey, you can absolutely count on Trump to lie (see: health care policy, personal taxes, hush money payments, Russian collusion, Russian interference, Putin convos, firing Mueller, North Korea denuclearization, Mexico border wall funding, Hurricane paths, tariffs/trade wars, Puerto Rico relief, the Bidens, and Ukraine, just to name a few). If Trump says it, it’s inherently suspicious, and that includes his repeated claims that he would put America first and get out of “endless war.”
Trump quite simply hasn’t earned the trust necessary to get the benefit of the doubt on anything of import. Instead of building trust with American voters, he has spent his entire tenure destroying it. As former Florida Congressman David Jolly noted on MSNBC Friday, Trump not only lies, he’s not temperamentally fit enough to be trustworthy in a moment of true national crisis.
Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill are reportedly “relishing the optics” of Democrats’ push for a fair trial of Trump, whom Republicans have now elevated to wartime president status in their own minds. “In an interview Friday, top Trump ally Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) argued that Democrats were ‘playing politics’ with impeachment while Trump was ‘taking out a general who has American bloodstains on his hands,'” writes the Washington Post. But as New York Times foreign correspondent Rukmini Callimachi notes in a must-read thread, it’s “hard to decouple [Soleimani’s] killing from the impeachment saga” while pondering the question, Why now?
Americans do usually rally around a wartime president, and Trump may manage to eke out a small bump in approval ratings from his military intervention. But Trump isn’t just any president—he is an eminently untrustworthy human being. More than likely, the political trajectory of the military conflict Trump just invited upon the country will be about as atypical as everything else in his presidency. Not only have roughly half of voters repeatedly pledged to pollsters to vote against Trump in 2020, a recent Civiqs poll found that nearly a third of Trump voters said their support for Trump could change later. Wars are game changers. Perhaps some of Trump’s support will harden. But just as likely, at least some of those tepid Trump supporters who have held their nose for the orange menace because they like the economy or the look of their 401(k)s will start reconsidering whether there’s more downsides than upsides to allowing an impulsive megalomaniac free reign over the most powerful military in the world.
You can’t lie your ass off, rage against everything and everyone, toy with starting a war for reasons no one can explain, and not suffer a point or two at the ballot box—points Trump simply cannot afford to lose. That’s especially true when your incompetence leads to the betrayal of one of your biggest campaign promises—ending endless wars. Voters went to the polls in record numbers in 2018 to put a check on Trump, electing an historic number of Democrats to the House. Trump is once again reminding those voters just how imperative it will be to boot him from office once and for all in November.
Serial liar Trump doesn't get the benefit of the doubt on leading us into war
https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/serial-liar-trump-doesnt-get-the-benefit-of-the-doubt-on-leading-us-into-war/Serial liar Trump doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt on leading us into war
Written by Kerry Eleveld / Daily Kos January 5, 2020
It finally arrived. Not the New Year, rather the moment we have all been bracing for when Donald Trump would take unilateral and irrevocable military action that likely puts America on the path to another intractable war.
snip//
If it all weren’t so terrifying and consequential, it would be amusing. Apparently, every single person in Trump’s orbit is suffering from some kind of crippling brain disorder. Trump is precisely the least credible person on earth to make the case for escalating tensions with Iran because, just trust him, bad things were about to happen. Did the White House crackerjacks forget that six of Trump’s top deputies have been convicted of federal crimes, including his top campaign official, first national security adviser, close friend and confidant, and longtime personal lawyer and fixer? Did they forget his current personal lawyer is under federal investigation? Did they forget Trump just became the third U.S. president in history to be impeached and by the biggest vote margin ever—that’s how devastating the evidence was? Did they forget that lies spout from Trump’s lips like a city fire hydrant loosed in the blistering summer heat? In fact, when times are tough and the politics are dicey, you can absolutely count on Trump to lie (see: health care policy, personal taxes, hush money payments, Russian collusion, Russian interference, Putin convos, firing Mueller, North Korea denuclearization, Mexico border wall funding, Hurricane paths, tariffs/trade wars, Puerto Rico relief, the Bidens, and Ukraine, just to name a few). If Trump says it, it’s inherently suspicious, and that includes his repeated claims that he would put America first and get out of “endless war.”
Trump quite simply hasn’t earned the trust necessary to get the benefit of the doubt on anything of import. Instead of building trust with American voters, he has spent his entire tenure destroying it. As former Florida Congressman David Jolly noted on MSNBC Friday, Trump not only lies, he’s not temperamentally fit enough to be trustworthy in a moment of true national crisis.
Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill are reportedly “relishing the optics” of Democrats’ push for a fair trial of Trump, whom Republicans have now elevated to wartime president status in their own minds. “In an interview Friday, top Trump ally Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) argued that Democrats were ‘playing politics’ with impeachment while Trump was ‘taking out a general who has American bloodstains on his hands,'” writes the Washington Post. But as New York Times foreign correspondent Rukmini Callimachi notes in a must-read thread, it’s “hard to decouple [Soleimani’s] killing from the impeachment saga” while pondering the question, Why now?
Americans do usually rally around a wartime president, and Trump may manage to eke out a small bump in approval ratings from his military intervention. But Trump isn’t just any president—he is an eminently untrustworthy human being. More than likely, the political trajectory of the military conflict Trump just invited upon the country will be about as atypical as everything else in his presidency. Not only have roughly half of voters repeatedly pledged to pollsters to vote against Trump in 2020, a recent Civiqs poll found that nearly a third of Trump voters said their support for Trump could change later. Wars are game changers. Perhaps some of Trump’s support will harden. But just as likely, at least some of those tepid Trump supporters who have held their nose for the orange menace because they like the economy or the look of their 401(k)s will start reconsidering whether there’s more downsides than upsides to allowing an impulsive megalomaniac free reign over the most powerful military in the world.
You can’t lie your ass off, rage against everything and everyone, toy with starting a war for reasons no one can explain, and not suffer a point or two at the ballot box—points Trump simply cannot afford to lose. That’s especially true when your incompetence leads to the betrayal of one of your biggest campaign promises—ending endless wars. Voters went to the polls in record numbers in 2018 to put a check on Trump, electing an historic number of Democrats to the House. Trump is once again reminding those voters just how imperative it will be to boot him from office once and for all in November.
January 5, 2020
How Donald Trump’s perverse brand of BS took over American politics
Written by The Washington Monthly January 4, 2020
Are you tired of the limitless avalanche of B.S. from the White House, not to mention the well-oiled GOP mendacity machine? Are you worried that masses of “low-information” MAGA voters will gleefully upturn the American experiment and replace it with a racist, theocracy-infused non-stop reality show? Well, you have reason worry.
I used to be optimistic that the systemic antibodies embedded in our democratic structure would always tackle political infections like Trump. Indeed, I thought that would be enough to rid us of them. I am no longer. When a society is split into parallel universes—each with its own enclosed informational ecosystem, divergent values, and expanding mutual animus—expect the worst. If our functional democracy comes to a demise, the key catalyst will be our lacking a shared baseline of facts. Olympian liars like Trump (and his enablers) will be the handmaidens of destruction.
Of the more than 15,000 lies (about 14 per day) Donald Trump has spouted since taking the oath of office, the fact checker PolitiFact has chosen his attack against the Ukraine whistleblower as its “Lie of the Year.” The reason: It “speaks to a falsehood that proves to be of real consequence and gets repeated in a virtual campaign to undermine an accurate narrative.” Simply put, Donald Trump is a bullshitter in a class of his own.
snip//
In the backdrop, Trump and the GOP are sowing the seeds for the country’s unraveling—be it through voter suppression efforts, packing the courts, and an inflammatory, truth-immunized right-wing media. A disturbing consequence: Perhaps a third of Americans view those who call out this administration’s corruption and lawless actions as existential enemies. As George Orwell once put it, “The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.”
We have been through wrenching and divisive periods before. Eventually, we emerged healed, But today is different. A sizable portion of the country has walled itself off with the help of a balkanized media. It has become more radical, demonstrated a dwindling devotion to democratic norms and has come to view those with different worldviews as sworn enemies. This is how the societal seams then begin to come apart.
As we turn a new decade, America eerily resembles the charged atmosphere of the 1850s. It took an enormously bloody civil war to sort things out then. I’m not predicting a repeat scenario, but I fear our domestic instability could lead to more violence, which would then make it easier for foreign adversaries to take advantage of our weakness.
Once Trump is gone, it will take exceptional moral and political leadership to overcome the underlying causes of our current dysfunction. The first step will be to abandon Trump’s perverse form of bullshit.
How Donald Trump's perverse brand of BS took over American politics
https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/how-donald-trumps-perverse-brand-of-bs-took-over-american-politics/How Donald Trump’s perverse brand of BS took over American politics
Written by The Washington Monthly January 4, 2020
Are you tired of the limitless avalanche of B.S. from the White House, not to mention the well-oiled GOP mendacity machine? Are you worried that masses of “low-information” MAGA voters will gleefully upturn the American experiment and replace it with a racist, theocracy-infused non-stop reality show? Well, you have reason worry.
I used to be optimistic that the systemic antibodies embedded in our democratic structure would always tackle political infections like Trump. Indeed, I thought that would be enough to rid us of them. I am no longer. When a society is split into parallel universes—each with its own enclosed informational ecosystem, divergent values, and expanding mutual animus—expect the worst. If our functional democracy comes to a demise, the key catalyst will be our lacking a shared baseline of facts. Olympian liars like Trump (and his enablers) will be the handmaidens of destruction.
Of the more than 15,000 lies (about 14 per day) Donald Trump has spouted since taking the oath of office, the fact checker PolitiFact has chosen his attack against the Ukraine whistleblower as its “Lie of the Year.” The reason: It “speaks to a falsehood that proves to be of real consequence and gets repeated in a virtual campaign to undermine an accurate narrative.” Simply put, Donald Trump is a bullshitter in a class of his own.
snip//
In the backdrop, Trump and the GOP are sowing the seeds for the country’s unraveling—be it through voter suppression efforts, packing the courts, and an inflammatory, truth-immunized right-wing media. A disturbing consequence: Perhaps a third of Americans view those who call out this administration’s corruption and lawless actions as existential enemies. As George Orwell once put it, “The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.”
We have been through wrenching and divisive periods before. Eventually, we emerged healed, But today is different. A sizable portion of the country has walled itself off with the help of a balkanized media. It has become more radical, demonstrated a dwindling devotion to democratic norms and has come to view those with different worldviews as sworn enemies. This is how the societal seams then begin to come apart.
As we turn a new decade, America eerily resembles the charged atmosphere of the 1850s. It took an enormously bloody civil war to sort things out then. I’m not predicting a repeat scenario, but I fear our domestic instability could lead to more violence, which would then make it easier for foreign adversaries to take advantage of our weakness.
Once Trump is gone, it will take exceptional moral and political leadership to overcome the underlying causes of our current dysfunction. The first step will be to abandon Trump’s perverse form of bullshit.
January 4, 2020
1/04/20 9:32am
Former Obama Aide: Iran Strike 'Insane Way To Conduct American Foreign Policy'
On Joy Reid's show, Ben Rhodes destroyed Donald Trump’s flimsy explanation for having deliberately escalated tensions with Iran by assassinating its General Qasem Soleimani.
By NewsHound Ellen
VIDEO @ link~
5 hours ago by Aliza Worthington
Ben Rhodes’ comments, made on AM Joy this morning, were prefaced by a 2015 clip of Trump displaying Palin-esque ignorance of Soleimani, Iran and the Middle East. It would have been hilarious if it weren’t such a dangerous situation.
Host Joy Reid followed up by questioning Trump’s claim that he ordered the strike based on intelligence when he has made it clear he doesn’t trust his own intelligence community.
Rhodes demolished what was left of Trump’s fig leaf:
But wait, there’s more. Rhodes noted that Trump was using the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force, used to go to war with Iraq under false pretenses, “to justify killing the official of a different government, almost 20 years later.
“This is an insane way to conduct American foreign policy,” Rhodes added, “and to potentially get us into a war with a country that is three times the size of Iraq and far more sophisticated.”
Former Obama Aide: Iran Strike 'Insane Way To Conduct American Foreign Policy'
https://crooksandliars.com/2020/01/nat-sec-expert-explains-trumps-iran-strike1/04/20 9:32am
Former Obama Aide: Iran Strike 'Insane Way To Conduct American Foreign Policy'
On Joy Reid's show, Ben Rhodes destroyed Donald Trump’s flimsy explanation for having deliberately escalated tensions with Iran by assassinating its General Qasem Soleimani.
By NewsHound Ellen
VIDEO @ link~
5 hours ago by Aliza Worthington
Ben Rhodes’ comments, made on AM Joy this morning, were prefaced by a 2015 clip of Trump displaying Palin-esque ignorance of Soleimani, Iran and the Middle East. It would have been hilarious if it weren’t such a dangerous situation.
Host Joy Reid followed up by questioning Trump’s claim that he ordered the strike based on intelligence when he has made it clear he doesn’t trust his own intelligence community.
Rhodes demolished what was left of Trump’s fig leaf:
RHODES: The specificity of the intelligence I think is an enormous question. Frankly, if they had that type of specific intelligence of an imminent threat, I would think that they would have presented it to Congress by now. What is the reason for this delay?
And I think there are a couple of other things that are relevant here, Joy. First of all, they claim that they took the strike to prevent an attack on our personnel, but every analyst knows that taking the strike just raised the threat of attacks on our personnel, so the logic of their entire case falls apart.
Secondly, his own intelligence community had told him that the Iran nuclear deal was working and he lied and said that Iran wasn't complying and used that to justify pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal which started this whole escalatory cycle that we've been on for the last two years, Joy.
So there's a fundamental incoherence in what Donald Trump's strategy is here, what he thinks he's trying to achieve and frankly whether we can trust whatever he says about the information he puts forward. Frankly, the rest of the world doesn't put any trust in anything Donald Trump says so the United States is also completely isolated as we find ourselves now on the brink of a much, much more serious conflict with Iran.
And I think there are a couple of other things that are relevant here, Joy. First of all, they claim that they took the strike to prevent an attack on our personnel, but every analyst knows that taking the strike just raised the threat of attacks on our personnel, so the logic of their entire case falls apart.
Secondly, his own intelligence community had told him that the Iran nuclear deal was working and he lied and said that Iran wasn't complying and used that to justify pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal which started this whole escalatory cycle that we've been on for the last two years, Joy.
So there's a fundamental incoherence in what Donald Trump's strategy is here, what he thinks he's trying to achieve and frankly whether we can trust whatever he says about the information he puts forward. Frankly, the rest of the world doesn't put any trust in anything Donald Trump says so the United States is also completely isolated as we find ourselves now on the brink of a much, much more serious conflict with Iran.
But wait, there’s more. Rhodes noted that Trump was using the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force, used to go to war with Iraq under false pretenses, “to justify killing the official of a different government, almost 20 years later.
“This is an insane way to conduct American foreign policy,” Rhodes added, “and to potentially get us into a war with a country that is three times the size of Iraq and far more sophisticated.”
January 4, 2020
With a War Against Iran Brewing, Don’t Listen to the Hawks Who Lied Us Into Iraq
Here we go again.
David Corn
Matt Cohen
Shortly after the news broke that a US airstrike in Baghdad ordered by President Donald Trump had killed Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the leader of Iran’s Quds Force, Ari Fleischer went on Fox News and proclaimed, “I think it is entirely possible that this is going to be a catalyst inside Iran where the people celebrate this killing of Soleimani.”
Here we go again.
Fleischer was press secretary for President George W. Bush when the Bush-Cheney administration deployed a long stretch of false statements and lies—Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with al Qaeda! Saddam had WMDs! Saddam intended to use WMDs against the United States! Saddam’s defeat would lead to peace and democracy in Iraq and throughout the region!—to grease the way to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. In that position, Fleischer was a key spokesperson for the war. Prior to the invasion, he promised the war would lead to a bright future: “Once the Iraqi people see that Saddam and those around him will be removed from power, they’ll welcome freedom, they’ll be a liberated people.” Instead, Iraq and the region were wracked with destabilization and death that continues to this day. About 200,000 Iraqi civilians lost their lives in the chaos and violence the Bush-Cheney invasion unleashed, and 4,500 US soldiers were killed in their war.
Back then, Fleischer was just one of many cheerleaders for the Iraq war inside and outside the administration. In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush-Cheney officials (including Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney), neocon pundits, Capitol Hill lawmakers, and some liberal pundits were beating the drums of war, inciting the public with claims that Saddam was a direct and immediate threat to the United States. They insisted that a war with Iraq would be quick, easy, and cheap and turn Iraq and the Middle East into a bastion of democracy brimming with gratitude to the United States. They were wrong, they were misguided, they were arrogant, and in some cases they outright lied to whip up fear and boost popular support for the war. With Trump’s attack in Baghdad prompting talk about another US war in the Middle East, it’s a good time to remember those who misled the public prior to the Iraq war, so if they now try to participate in the national discourse about Trump’s potential war with Iran, we won’t get fooled again. At least not by them.
At the top of this list, of course, are the key architects and salespeople of that war: Bush, Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. None of these people should be given a podium—unless they come clean with the mother of all mea culpas. Colin Powell, the secretary of state at the time, may be a slightly different case. He became the No. 1 pitchman for the war, delivering an important speech at the United Nations weeks before the invasion to lay out the case for military intervention, but he was widely known at the time to be hesitant about the assault. He still has not disavowed his support for the attack, but he did concede in 2015 that the Bush-Cheney administration made “terrible strategic mistakes” during the war.
Whether or not the Bush-Cheney gang ride into the current picture, we will be seeing some of the same commentators from 2003 who paved the path to war. Here are a few to watch out for:
Sean Hannity: The Fox News loudmouth was pushing the same bombastic style in 2003. A month before the invasion, he declared, “We’re going to go in and we’re going to liberate this country in a few weeks and it’s going to be over very quickly. No, it’s going to be over very quickly. And what I’m going to tell you here is, you’re going to find, I predict, mass graves. We’re going to open up those…gulags and those prisons and you’re going to hear stories of rape and torture and misery, and then we’re going to find all of the weapons of mass destruction.” In the aftermath of the Soleimani attack—no surprise—he hailed Trump. As the top propagandist at Trump State TV, he will undoubtedly blow a similar horn this time.
David Brooks: Shortly before the invasion of Iraq, Brooks, then a writer for the Weekly Standard, participated in a panel discussion and summed up his support for the war by asking: Don’t you believe the people of Iraq desire democracy just as much as we do? It was really that simple for him. Days prior to the attack, he penned a column poking fun at people who approached the question of invading Iraq as a complex matter, and he praised Bush for being “resolute.” Bush’s manner seemed to matter more to him than pondering the possible consequences of the upcoming war. Now at his perch at the New York Times, will Brooks once again try to make the simplistic seem sophisticated?
more...
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/01/with-a-war-against-iran-brewing-dont-listen-to-the-hawks-who-lied-us-into-iraq/
David Corn, Matt Cohen:With a War Against Iran Brewing, Don't Listen to the Hawks Who Lied Us Into
With a War Against Iran Brewing, Don’t Listen to the Hawks Who Lied Us Into Iraq
Here we go again.
David Corn
Matt Cohen
Shortly after the news broke that a US airstrike in Baghdad ordered by President Donald Trump had killed Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the leader of Iran’s Quds Force, Ari Fleischer went on Fox News and proclaimed, “I think it is entirely possible that this is going to be a catalyst inside Iran where the people celebrate this killing of Soleimani.”
Here we go again.
Fleischer was press secretary for President George W. Bush when the Bush-Cheney administration deployed a long stretch of false statements and lies—Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with al Qaeda! Saddam had WMDs! Saddam intended to use WMDs against the United States! Saddam’s defeat would lead to peace and democracy in Iraq and throughout the region!—to grease the way to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. In that position, Fleischer was a key spokesperson for the war. Prior to the invasion, he promised the war would lead to a bright future: “Once the Iraqi people see that Saddam and those around him will be removed from power, they’ll welcome freedom, they’ll be a liberated people.” Instead, Iraq and the region were wracked with destabilization and death that continues to this day. About 200,000 Iraqi civilians lost their lives in the chaos and violence the Bush-Cheney invasion unleashed, and 4,500 US soldiers were killed in their war.
Back then, Fleischer was just one of many cheerleaders for the Iraq war inside and outside the administration. In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush-Cheney officials (including Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney), neocon pundits, Capitol Hill lawmakers, and some liberal pundits were beating the drums of war, inciting the public with claims that Saddam was a direct and immediate threat to the United States. They insisted that a war with Iraq would be quick, easy, and cheap and turn Iraq and the Middle East into a bastion of democracy brimming with gratitude to the United States. They were wrong, they were misguided, they were arrogant, and in some cases they outright lied to whip up fear and boost popular support for the war. With Trump’s attack in Baghdad prompting talk about another US war in the Middle East, it’s a good time to remember those who misled the public prior to the Iraq war, so if they now try to participate in the national discourse about Trump’s potential war with Iran, we won’t get fooled again. At least not by them.
At the top of this list, of course, are the key architects and salespeople of that war: Bush, Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. None of these people should be given a podium—unless they come clean with the mother of all mea culpas. Colin Powell, the secretary of state at the time, may be a slightly different case. He became the No. 1 pitchman for the war, delivering an important speech at the United Nations weeks before the invasion to lay out the case for military intervention, but he was widely known at the time to be hesitant about the assault. He still has not disavowed his support for the attack, but he did concede in 2015 that the Bush-Cheney administration made “terrible strategic mistakes” during the war.
Whether or not the Bush-Cheney gang ride into the current picture, we will be seeing some of the same commentators from 2003 who paved the path to war. Here are a few to watch out for:
Sean Hannity: The Fox News loudmouth was pushing the same bombastic style in 2003. A month before the invasion, he declared, “We’re going to go in and we’re going to liberate this country in a few weeks and it’s going to be over very quickly. No, it’s going to be over very quickly. And what I’m going to tell you here is, you’re going to find, I predict, mass graves. We’re going to open up those…gulags and those prisons and you’re going to hear stories of rape and torture and misery, and then we’re going to find all of the weapons of mass destruction.” In the aftermath of the Soleimani attack—no surprise—he hailed Trump. As the top propagandist at Trump State TV, he will undoubtedly blow a similar horn this time.
David Brooks: Shortly before the invasion of Iraq, Brooks, then a writer for the Weekly Standard, participated in a panel discussion and summed up his support for the war by asking: Don’t you believe the people of Iraq desire democracy just as much as we do? It was really that simple for him. Days prior to the attack, he penned a column poking fun at people who approached the question of invading Iraq as a complex matter, and he praised Bush for being “resolute.” Bush’s manner seemed to matter more to him than pondering the possible consequences of the upcoming war. Now at his perch at the New York Times, will Brooks once again try to make the simplistic seem sophisticated?
more...
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/01/with-a-war-against-iran-brewing-dont-listen-to-the-hawks-who-lied-us-into-iraq/
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: NY
Home country: US
Current location: Florida
Member since: Mon Sep 6, 2004, 09:54 PM
Number of posts: 171,056
