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 10, 2020
Live TV
How Ruth Bader Ginsburg is trying to check the conservative majority
By Joan Biskupic, CNN legal analyst & Supreme Court biographer
Updated 10:12 AM EST, Thu January 09, 2020
Washington(CNN) Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is in the liberal minority on the Supreme Court but has a way of steering the debate on a case.
Ginsburg spoke to CNN in a rare interview in her chambers this week. The 86-year-old four-time cancer survivor has resumed an active role in oral arguments and is often the first of the nine justices to pose a question. She regularly asks whether the Supreme Court should even decide the legal issue before it.
By framing the debate in this way, Ginsburg could limit the five conservative justices from setting new precedent over the dissent of the court's four liberals.
Ginsburg's approach goes back to her time in law school -- but her expertise and emphasis offers liberals a path forward when the balance of power on the court is now solidly conservative. Ginsburg has taken up the cause in multiple recent disputes regarding the 2nd Amendment, criminal sentencing and tax law.
In an interview late Tuesday, Ginsburg talked about the rules for getting through the courthouse doors. She would not discuss specifics of any pending case and sidestepped questions about strategy or the ideological stakes on this divided court.
She said that procedural concerns can stop judges from intervening prematurely but noted that procedural safeguards can also ensure that worthy litigants are not kept out of the courthouse.
more...
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/01/08/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-civil-procedure/index.html
How Ruth Bader Ginsburg is trying to check the conservative majority
Live TV
How Ruth Bader Ginsburg is trying to check the conservative majority
By Joan Biskupic, CNN legal analyst & Supreme Court biographer
Updated 10:12 AM EST, Thu January 09, 2020
Washington(CNN) Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is in the liberal minority on the Supreme Court but has a way of steering the debate on a case.
Ginsburg spoke to CNN in a rare interview in her chambers this week. The 86-year-old four-time cancer survivor has resumed an active role in oral arguments and is often the first of the nine justices to pose a question. She regularly asks whether the Supreme Court should even decide the legal issue before it.
By framing the debate in this way, Ginsburg could limit the five conservative justices from setting new precedent over the dissent of the court's four liberals.
Ginsburg's approach goes back to her time in law school -- but her expertise and emphasis offers liberals a path forward when the balance of power on the court is now solidly conservative. Ginsburg has taken up the cause in multiple recent disputes regarding the 2nd Amendment, criminal sentencing and tax law.
In an interview late Tuesday, Ginsburg talked about the rules for getting through the courthouse doors. She would not discuss specifics of any pending case and sidestepped questions about strategy or the ideological stakes on this divided court.
She said that procedural concerns can stop judges from intervening prematurely but noted that procedural safeguards can also ensure that worthy litigants are not kept out of the courthouse.
"It's just instinctive to me," she said. "Procedure is supposed to serve the people that law exists to serve."
more...
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/01/08/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-civil-procedure/index.html
January 10, 2020
January 9, 2020 / 3:01 PM / Updated 2 hours ago
'Empty chairs' across Canada’s academic community after Iran plane crash
Moira Warburton, Denise Paglinawan
4 Min Read
TORONTO (Reuters) - The crash in Iran of a Ukrainian Airlines jet bound for Toronto killed dozens of professors and researchers from campuses across Canada, leaving a painful hole in Canadian academia where Iranians have taken on starring roles in engineering.
Many of the dead were highly qualified Iranian-Canadians, some of whom had studied together at Tehran’s Sharif University. The number of Iranian international students in Canada more than doubled between 2016 and 2018, according to Canada’s immigration department.
Many Iranians pursued graduate studies in Canada after the United States’ policy toward Iran hardened in 2017.
more...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-crash-canada-academia-idUSKBN1Z82I9?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1o8TT5kXIh47YnFcm6mh-m-Ra6BEVfqUeSGin3mODasns3SPBs-EciKoA
'Empty chairs' across Canada's academic community after Iran plane crash
January 9, 2020 / 3:01 PM / Updated 2 hours ago
'Empty chairs' across Canada’s academic community after Iran plane crash
Moira Warburton, Denise Paglinawan
4 Min Read
TORONTO (Reuters) - The crash in Iran of a Ukrainian Airlines jet bound for Toronto killed dozens of professors and researchers from campuses across Canada, leaving a painful hole in Canadian academia where Iranians have taken on starring roles in engineering.
“It is an unspeakable loss,” said Neda Maghbouleh, a sociology professor at the University of Toronto who studies Iranian migration through the United States and Canada. Four University of Toronto students were killed in the crash.
“The people we lost in the plane truly represented the smartest young researchers in the entire world,” Maghbouleh said.
“The people we lost in the plane truly represented the smartest young researchers in the entire world,” Maghbouleh said.
Many of the dead were highly qualified Iranian-Canadians, some of whom had studied together at Tehran’s Sharif University. The number of Iranian international students in Canada more than doubled between 2016 and 2018, according to Canada’s immigration department.
Many Iranians pursued graduate studies in Canada after the United States’ policy toward Iran hardened in 2017.
more...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-crash-canada-academia-idUSKBN1Z82I9?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1o8TT5kXIh47YnFcm6mh-m-Ra6BEVfqUeSGin3mODasns3SPBs-EciKoA
January 10, 2020
U.S.
Army Veteran Has Prosthetic Legs Repossessed After VA Refuses to Pay for Them: 'Medicare Did Not Send Me to Vietnam'
By Jason Lemon On 1/09/20 at 4:08 PM EST
A decorated military veteran who served in Vietnam and Iraq has claimed that his prosthetic legs were taken away after the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) would not cover the cost.
Jerry Holliman, 69, told the Clarion Ledger that he was in his room at the Veterans Home in Collins, Mississippi just a couple days before Christmas when a man walked in and took away his prosthetic limbs. According to Holliman, the VA said it would not cover the cost of the limbs, while Medicare said there'd be a copay required.
"Medicare did not send me to Vietnam," Holliman, who received Bronze Stars in both wars in which he served, told the Ledger in an article published Thursday. "I was sent there by my country...with the understanding that if something bad happened to me, that it would be covered by the VA."
more...
https://www.newsweek.com/army-veteran-has-prosthetic-legs-repossessed-after-va-refuses-pay-them-1481390?amp=1&utm_source=Public&utm_medium=Feed&utm_campaign=Distribution&__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR0Ouszwt1FyNWzatLzgiZgLyVlDQSYIx6TANzoYF8d1-4TnNcYeAcoXjlE
Army Veteran Has Prosthetic Legs Repossessed After VA Refuses to Pay for Them...
U.S.
Army Veteran Has Prosthetic Legs Repossessed After VA Refuses to Pay for Them: 'Medicare Did Not Send Me to Vietnam'
By Jason Lemon On 1/09/20 at 4:08 PM EST
A decorated military veteran who served in Vietnam and Iraq has claimed that his prosthetic legs were taken away after the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) would not cover the cost.
Jerry Holliman, 69, told the Clarion Ledger that he was in his room at the Veterans Home in Collins, Mississippi just a couple days before Christmas when a man walked in and took away his prosthetic limbs. According to Holliman, the VA said it would not cover the cost of the limbs, while Medicare said there'd be a copay required.
"Medicare did not send me to Vietnam," Holliman, who received Bronze Stars in both wars in which he served, told the Ledger in an article published Thursday. "I was sent there by my country...with the understanding that if something bad happened to me, that it would be covered by the VA."
more...
https://www.newsweek.com/army-veteran-has-prosthetic-legs-repossessed-after-va-refuses-pay-them-1481390?amp=1&utm_source=Public&utm_medium=Feed&utm_campaign=Distribution&__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR0Ouszwt1FyNWzatLzgiZgLyVlDQSYIx6TANzoYF8d1-4TnNcYeAcoXjlE
January 10, 2020
These Democrats voted no on the War Powers resolution
Why would they vote this way?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/09/politics/war-powers-resolution-democrats-no-votes/index.html
These Democrats voted no on the War Powers resolution
By Clare Foran, Haley Byrd, Holmes Lybrand and Caroline Kelly, CNN
Updated 6:51 PM ET, Thu January 9, 2020
House votes to limit Trump's war powers in Iran
(CNN)Eight Democrats broke with their party on Thursday to vote against the Iran War Powers resolution -- an effort to restrain President Donald Trump's ability to use military action against Iran without congressional approval -- that passed the House of Representatives.
Democratic Reps. Ben McAdams of Utah, Joe Cunningham of South Carolina, Elaine Luria of Virginia, Kendra Horn of Oklahoma, Stephanie Murphy of Florida, Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, and Max Rose and Anthony Brindisi of New York all opposed the resolution.
The measure, which passed by a nearly party line vote of 224-194 on Thursday evening, will next go to the Senate.
The structure of the House resolution is unique, however, calling into question whether it is actually legally binding. It was introduced as a concurrent resolution, a type of resolution often used for "sense of Congress" bills. They don't go to the President for a signature, and they aren't legally binding.
But House Democrats are arguing that concurrent resolutions under the War Powers Act are a special case, and they are legally binding. Republicans, however, say the resolution is not binding.
Rep. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, a former CIA analyst and freshman Democrat, is the sponsor of the resolution, which calls on the President "to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran" unless Congress declares war or enacts "specific statutory authorization" for the use of armed forces.
January 9, 2020
Donald Trump Not Causing Nuclear War Is What Now Qualifies as Good News in America, Hooray?
By Ben Mathis-Lilley
Jan 08, 2020
8:32 PM
The remarks that Donald Trump delivered about the Iran situation on Wednesday from the entrance hall to the White House did not answer or even address many of the issues that concerned United States citizens might be wondering about in the aftermath of the American attack that killed Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad last Friday.
Trump didn’t discuss whether the U.S. is planning to withdraw forces from Iraq, as a letter that the Department of Defense issued but then disavowed Tuesday suggested. He said he is “going to ask NATO to become much more involved in the Middle East process,” but didn’t say anything about what that meant, or why any of the NATO countries would have an incentive to hear him out. He didn’t explain, more broadly, what his administration wants from Iran—what the country could do to relieve the economic and military pressure that Trump is apparently so keen to put on it.
Typically, these kinds of details might be filled in during background briefings by other high-ranking administration officials or by a White House press secretary. But there hasn’t been a White House press briefing since March 2019, and there do not appear to have been any “senior administration official” conference calls Wednesday about NATO. Given past incidents, as when Trump said at a rally in 2018 that a middle-class tax-cut bill was going to be passed within two weeks when in fact no such bill had been or ever would be written, or as with the announcements he has been making for years about the major infrastructure proposal that is purportedly on the verge of being released, it is possible that there is no plan related to NATO at all. The administration has also still not presented any description, even a one concocted dubiously from low-confidence intelligence reports, of the allegedly “imminent” operation that Soleimani was planning against U.S. personnel in Iraq. This is not a war effort that is getting a lot of legwork and shoe leather put into it.
Trump’s remarks did include the inaccurate claim that Iran had escalated proxy attacks against the U.S. after signing a nuclear agreement with the Obama administration, the non-topical assertion that “under my leadership, our economy is stronger than ever before,” and a description of the U.S. military’s missiles as “big” and “fast.”
Most upsettingly, all of this happened because Donald Trump is the president. Of America!
And yet, in the third paragraph of his speech, Trump said that “Iran appears to be standing down”—a conclusion drawn from the non-lethal outcome of its missile attacks on U.S. military facilities earlier Wednesday. Thus the modal reaction to seeing a famously spray-tanned, fake-haired brand-marketing CEO and tabloid personality in the White House, delivering a Fox News call-in segment disguised as an “address to the nation,” was one of relief. It meant that President Donald Trump is not, for now, following through on his sickening threats to escalate a quasi-war by bombing Iranian cultural sites, an act that could justify prosecution at the Hague , or by doing anything else that might bring about a devastating full-scale conflict involving hundreds of thousands of soldiers (or worse).
And indeed, by the standards of a few hours before—the only time horizon that exists within the president’s attention span, and therefore the only one that matters—this was a tremendous improvement! Why worry about the details if the person in charge doesn’t think about them either? He was mad enough to start a war but then maybe Tucker Carlson, on his TV, talked him out of it. Everything is fine for now.
Donald Trump Not Causing Nuclear War Is What Now Qualifies as Good News in America, Hooray?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/sure-the-president-is-donald-trump-but-at-least-today-he-seemed-to-stop-escalating-his-pointless-war.htmlDonald Trump Not Causing Nuclear War Is What Now Qualifies as Good News in America, Hooray?
By Ben Mathis-Lilley
Jan 08, 2020
8:32 PM
The remarks that Donald Trump delivered about the Iran situation on Wednesday from the entrance hall to the White House did not answer or even address many of the issues that concerned United States citizens might be wondering about in the aftermath of the American attack that killed Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad last Friday.
Trump didn’t discuss whether the U.S. is planning to withdraw forces from Iraq, as a letter that the Department of Defense issued but then disavowed Tuesday suggested. He said he is “going to ask NATO to become much more involved in the Middle East process,” but didn’t say anything about what that meant, or why any of the NATO countries would have an incentive to hear him out. He didn’t explain, more broadly, what his administration wants from Iran—what the country could do to relieve the economic and military pressure that Trump is apparently so keen to put on it.
Typically, these kinds of details might be filled in during background briefings by other high-ranking administration officials or by a White House press secretary. But there hasn’t been a White House press briefing since March 2019, and there do not appear to have been any “senior administration official” conference calls Wednesday about NATO. Given past incidents, as when Trump said at a rally in 2018 that a middle-class tax-cut bill was going to be passed within two weeks when in fact no such bill had been or ever would be written, or as with the announcements he has been making for years about the major infrastructure proposal that is purportedly on the verge of being released, it is possible that there is no plan related to NATO at all. The administration has also still not presented any description, even a one concocted dubiously from low-confidence intelligence reports, of the allegedly “imminent” operation that Soleimani was planning against U.S. personnel in Iraq. This is not a war effort that is getting a lot of legwork and shoe leather put into it.
Trump’s remarks did include the inaccurate claim that Iran had escalated proxy attacks against the U.S. after signing a nuclear agreement with the Obama administration, the non-topical assertion that “under my leadership, our economy is stronger than ever before,” and a description of the U.S. military’s missiles as “big” and “fast.”
Most upsettingly, all of this happened because Donald Trump is the president. Of America!
And yet, in the third paragraph of his speech, Trump said that “Iran appears to be standing down”—a conclusion drawn from the non-lethal outcome of its missile attacks on U.S. military facilities earlier Wednesday. Thus the modal reaction to seeing a famously spray-tanned, fake-haired brand-marketing CEO and tabloid personality in the White House, delivering a Fox News call-in segment disguised as an “address to the nation,” was one of relief. It meant that President Donald Trump is not, for now, following through on his sickening threats to escalate a quasi-war by bombing Iranian cultural sites, an act that could justify prosecution at the Hague , or by doing anything else that might bring about a devastating full-scale conflict involving hundreds of thousands of soldiers (or worse).
And indeed, by the standards of a few hours before—the only time horizon that exists within the president’s attention span, and therefore the only one that matters—this was a tremendous improvement! Why worry about the details if the person in charge doesn’t think about them either? He was mad enough to start a war but then maybe Tucker Carlson, on his TV, talked him out of it. Everything is fine for now.
January 9, 2020
Will Trump Get Away With This?
by Robert Kuttner
January 8, 2020
snip//
When you are certifiably nuts and capable of almost anything, that does tend to keep your adversaries off-balance. The Iranians must be thinking twice about taking any actions that kill Americans.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo sounds almost convincing when he ticks off all of the horrific things Qassem Soleimani did over the years. Surely he had it coming?
According to a new Reuters poll, about 53 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of Iran, an increase of nine points since their December poll, but still about the same percentage who disapprove of him generally.
So the assassination of Soleimani, in plain violation of international law, hasn’t cost Trump significantly with either his base or with swing voters, though it hasn’t benefited him either.
My sense is that the geopolitical damage will be long term. Among other reverberating effects, this killing damages our relations with Iraq, creates unity inside a fractious Iran, sets back the effort to contain ISIS, and reverses Trump’s promise to avoid other wars and bring troops home. It may soon bring new conflict to Israel as well. That’s a lot.
Whether Trump is held accountable politically depends partly on how, and how soon, all of this plays out, and on whether the Democrats are effective at pinning the new instability on him. But all of this needs to be about the perverse substance of what Trump has done, and not about whether it violated the War Powers Act.
Will Trump Get Away With This?
https://prospect.org/blogs/tap/will-trump-get-away-with-this-iran/Will Trump Get Away With This?
by Robert Kuttner
January 8, 2020
snip//
When you are certifiably nuts and capable of almost anything, that does tend to keep your adversaries off-balance. The Iranians must be thinking twice about taking any actions that kill Americans.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo sounds almost convincing when he ticks off all of the horrific things Qassem Soleimani did over the years. Surely he had it coming?
According to a new Reuters poll, about 53 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of Iran, an increase of nine points since their December poll, but still about the same percentage who disapprove of him generally.
So the assassination of Soleimani, in plain violation of international law, hasn’t cost Trump significantly with either his base or with swing voters, though it hasn’t benefited him either.
My sense is that the geopolitical damage will be long term. Among other reverberating effects, this killing damages our relations with Iraq, creates unity inside a fractious Iran, sets back the effort to contain ISIS, and reverses Trump’s promise to avoid other wars and bring troops home. It may soon bring new conflict to Israel as well. That’s a lot.
Whether Trump is held accountable politically depends partly on how, and how soon, all of this plays out, and on whether the Democrats are effective at pinning the new instability on him. But all of this needs to be about the perverse substance of what Trump has done, and not about whether it violated the War Powers Act.
January 9, 2020
https://www.politicususa.com/2020/01/09/unwell-trump-rants-about-the-song-ymca-at-the-white-house.html
Posted on Thu, Jan 9th, 2020 by Jason Easley
Unwell Trump Rants About The Song YMCA At The White House
Donald Trump went off on a rant and claimed nobody remembers the name NAFTA, which is why he named his trade deal after the Village People’s YMCA.
Trump said, “I’m good at names. USMCA. Like the song “YMCA.” Now everybody says it. They don’t remember the previous name of the bad deal. Commonly known as NAFTA.”
https://twitter.com/i/status/1215368240857264128
Trump thinks that he is good at names in the same way that a toddler thinks that they are good at hide and seek when they put their fingers over their eyes. USMCA is not a good name for a trade deal. Trump hasn’t come up with a good name for either his programs or his political opponents since he was a candidate. Trump is still trying to make “Sleepy” Joe a thing, even though Biden is more active in a day than Trump is in a month.
The president is clearly not well. He sounded drugged as he slurred his words, snorted, and breathed heavily during his statement on Iran.
Trump has blown past the standard of not presidential behavior and descended to not normal human behavior.
The White House won’t tell the American people, but there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that something appears to be wrong with this president.
Unwell Trump Rants About The Song YMCA At The White House
https://www.politicususa.com/2020/01/09/unwell-trump-rants-about-the-song-ymca-at-the-white-house.html
Posted on Thu, Jan 9th, 2020 by Jason Easley
Unwell Trump Rants About The Song YMCA At The White House
Donald Trump went off on a rant and claimed nobody remembers the name NAFTA, which is why he named his trade deal after the Village People’s YMCA.
Trump said, “I’m good at names. USMCA. Like the song “YMCA.” Now everybody says it. They don’t remember the previous name of the bad deal. Commonly known as NAFTA.”
https://twitter.com/i/status/1215368240857264128
Trump thinks that he is good at names in the same way that a toddler thinks that they are good at hide and seek when they put their fingers over their eyes. USMCA is not a good name for a trade deal. Trump hasn’t come up with a good name for either his programs or his political opponents since he was a candidate. Trump is still trying to make “Sleepy” Joe a thing, even though Biden is more active in a day than Trump is in a month.
The president is clearly not well. He sounded drugged as he slurred his words, snorted, and breathed heavily during his statement on Iran.
Trump has blown past the standard of not presidential behavior and descended to not normal human behavior.
The White House won’t tell the American people, but there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that something appears to be wrong with this president.
January 8, 2020
Posted on Wed, Jan 8th, 2020 by Jason Easley
Sen. Tammy Duckworth Rocks The Senate By Calling Out Toddler Trump
Combat vet Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) said that her 20-month-old has better impulse control than Donald Trump.
Sen. Duckworth said on the Senate floor, “Once again he’s been manipulated by a hostile regime into decisions that further their goals while endangering the security of the nation Trump’s actually supposed to lead… All these dictators have realized the same thing: the President of the United States is as easy to control as a toddler. Sweet talk him or thump your chest and issue a few schoolyard threats, and you’ve got him. He’ll fall for it every time, doing your bidding as if it’s his own. I wish this weren’t true, but my diaper-wearing 20-month-old has better impulse control than this president.”
Video @ link~
Sen. Duckworth’s remarks are an example of why Trump’s approval rating has plunged with the military. Trump’s behavior is the opposite of what our troops believe in. The president is disrespectful, undisciplined, lacking in impulse control, disloyal, and reckless.
Sen. Duckworth was right. There are children with better impulse control than Trump. Trump is soft and easy to manipulate. He is easy for any authoritarian to control, and he puts the lives of US troops in jeopardy with each bad decision that he makes.,
Sen. Tammy Duckworth Rocks The Senate By Calling Out Toddler Trump
https://www.politicususa.com/2020/01/08/sen-tammy-duckworth-rocks-the-senate-by-calling-out-toddler-trump.htmlPosted on Wed, Jan 8th, 2020 by Jason Easley
Sen. Tammy Duckworth Rocks The Senate By Calling Out Toddler Trump
Combat vet Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) said that her 20-month-old has better impulse control than Donald Trump.
Sen. Duckworth said on the Senate floor, “Once again he’s been manipulated by a hostile regime into decisions that further their goals while endangering the security of the nation Trump’s actually supposed to lead… All these dictators have realized the same thing: the President of the United States is as easy to control as a toddler. Sweet talk him or thump your chest and issue a few schoolyard threats, and you’ve got him. He’ll fall for it every time, doing your bidding as if it’s his own. I wish this weren’t true, but my diaper-wearing 20-month-old has better impulse control than this president.”
Video @ link~
Sen. Duckworth’s remarks are an example of why Trump’s approval rating has plunged with the military. Trump’s behavior is the opposite of what our troops believe in. The president is disrespectful, undisciplined, lacking in impulse control, disloyal, and reckless.
Sen. Duckworth was right. There are children with better impulse control than Trump. Trump is soft and easy to manipulate. He is easy for any authoritarian to control, and he puts the lives of US troops in jeopardy with each bad decision that he makes.,
January 8, 2020
‘The worst national security team that I’ve ever seen’
01/08/20 10:27 AM—Updated 01/08/20 11:15 AM
By Steve Benen
Andrea Mitchell, NBC News’ chief foreign affairs correspondent, sat down with Brian Williams last night and reflected on the White House team responding to the crisis in the Middle East. She characterized Donald Trump’s existing operation as “least experienced, the least effective, and the smallest” in recent memory.
Mitchell, a veteran journalist who’s covered a variety of Democratic and Republican administrations, concluded that the current president has “the worst national security team that I’ve ever seen.”
I think that’s unambiguously true, and to appreciate its accuracy, there are two broad angles to consider. The first is that Trump’s team, to the extent that it can even be called a “team,” is woefully incomplete. As Garrett Graff noted yesterday, the Trump administration does not currently have, for example, a Senate-confirmed director of National Intelligence or a deputy director of National Intelligence.
There’s also no Senate-confirmed Homeland Security secretary or deputy secretary. There’s no Senate-confirmed undersecretary for arms control and international security affairs or assistant secretary for arms control, verification, and compliance.
At the Pentagon, meanwhile, there’s been a scramble of top officials resigning, including six notable departures in the last five weeks.
For several of the aforementioned positions, the White House hasn’t even nominated anyone to fill the posts. As Trump’s presidency enters its fourth year, and as circumstances require a competent and experience national security team, it stands to reason that the administration wouldn’t still be struggling with vacancies and acting officials.
And yet, here we are.
more...
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-worst-national-security-team-ive-ever-seen
'The worst national security team that I've ever seen'
‘The worst national security team that I’ve ever seen’
01/08/20 10:27 AM—Updated 01/08/20 11:15 AM
By Steve Benen
Andrea Mitchell, NBC News’ chief foreign affairs correspondent, sat down with Brian Williams last night and reflected on the White House team responding to the crisis in the Middle East. She characterized Donald Trump’s existing operation as “least experienced, the least effective, and the smallest” in recent memory.
Mitchell, a veteran journalist who’s covered a variety of Democratic and Republican administrations, concluded that the current president has “the worst national security team that I’ve ever seen.”
I think that’s unambiguously true, and to appreciate its accuracy, there are two broad angles to consider. The first is that Trump’s team, to the extent that it can even be called a “team,” is woefully incomplete. As Garrett Graff noted yesterday, the Trump administration does not currently have, for example, a Senate-confirmed director of National Intelligence or a deputy director of National Intelligence.
There’s also no Senate-confirmed Homeland Security secretary or deputy secretary. There’s no Senate-confirmed undersecretary for arms control and international security affairs or assistant secretary for arms control, verification, and compliance.
At the Pentagon, meanwhile, there’s been a scramble of top officials resigning, including six notable departures in the last five weeks.
For several of the aforementioned positions, the White House hasn’t even nominated anyone to fill the posts. As Trump’s presidency enters its fourth year, and as circumstances require a competent and experience national security team, it stands to reason that the administration wouldn’t still be struggling with vacancies and acting officials.
And yet, here we are.
more...
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-worst-national-security-team-ive-ever-seen
January 8, 2020
House Democrat calls administration's Iran briefing 'sophomoric and utterly unconvincing'
By Rebecca Klar - 01/08/20 03:06 PM EST
Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) said after an administration briefing on Wednesday that he is unconvinced that President Trump's decision to launch the drone strike that killed Iran's top military commander was necessary.
Connolly stressed the urgency for Congress to act to limit the president’s ability to take further military action against Iran.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1214987526055837696
Connolly said the administration’s rationale for targeting Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani wouldn’t “pass a graduate school thesis test” and he was “utterly unpersuaded” that there was new or compelling evidence that showed an imminent threat.
more...
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/477390-house-democrat-calls-administrations-iran-briefing-sophomoric-and-utterly
House Democrat calls administration's Iran briefing 'sophomoric and utterly unconvincing'
House Democrat calls administration's Iran briefing 'sophomoric and utterly unconvincing'
By Rebecca Klar - 01/08/20 03:06 PM EST
Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) said after an administration briefing on Wednesday that he is unconvinced that President Trump's decision to launch the drone strike that killed Iran's top military commander was necessary.
Connolly stressed the urgency for Congress to act to limit the president’s ability to take further military action against Iran.
“Without commenting on content, my reaction to this briefing was it was sophomoric and utterly unconvincing and I believe that more than ever the Congress needs to act to protect that constitutional provisions about war and peace,” Connolly told reporters as he left the briefing.
“I believe this administration is after the fact trying to piece together a rationale for its action that was impulsive, reckless and put this country's security at risk,” he added.
“I believe this administration is after the fact trying to piece together a rationale for its action that was impulsive, reckless and put this country's security at risk,” he added.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1214987526055837696
Connolly said the administration’s rationale for targeting Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani wouldn’t “pass a graduate school thesis test” and he was “utterly unpersuaded” that there was new or compelling evidence that showed an imminent threat.
more...
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/477390-house-democrat-calls-administrations-iran-briefing-sophomoric-and-utterly
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: NY
Home country: US
Current location: Florida
Member since: Mon Sep 6, 2004, 09:54 PM
Number of posts: 171,102
