Tuesday, October 8, 2019
What could possibly have influenced Trump's disastrous decision to abandon the Kurds?
Here are a few reasons Trump may have betrayed the Kurds' and America's interests:
Trump On Turkey: ‘I Have A Little Conflict Of Interest ... It’s Called Trump Towers’
The president, in his own words in 2015, zeroes in on a problem linked to his order to abandon Kurdish allies to a Turkish assault in Syria.
Donald Trump’s Ukraine Scandal Has Its Roots in Russia
Both situations stem from the President’s apparent willingness to accept political favors from foreign leaders, and his eagerness to do Putin’s bidding.
This decision by Trump should come as no surprise to anyone. This is a president who does not care about foreign policy (as evidenced by the fact that there are so many unfilled positions - including ambassadorships - in his state department).
Trump gives more thought to what he's having for lunch than he does to foreign policy. If he does consider other countries at all it's only in the context of how they might make him money or win him an election. His base doesn't care about Kurds, and so neither does he. So, it must have come as a huge surprise to him that so many Republican senators are up in arms over his decision.
I'm sure when he made it he thought it was as meaningful as ketchup or no ketchup on his steak.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
*
Much is being said about why 'the chosen one' has made this move. But keep in mind, his handlers are threatening Congress, "You follow through on the impeachment, and before he goes down, el presidente stupido will tear up all treaties, alliances, allegiances, and agreements. He will burn down the USA."
Ema Nymton
-@;?.
*
Shaw... I share Trump's reticence to get entangled in foreign wars, much like, I believe Obama did too. The difference here is that if you are going to withdraw, you do so in coordination with your allies, in this case, the Kurds.
We have become to reflexively militaristic with our foreign policy, a result of many years of bipartisan support for the arms industry and the near deification of all things soldier related.
I'd love to see us out of the area too, but as the classic Stone tune went, You Cant Always Get What You Want... no matter how enticing it may look.
What this points out is Pres Trump's penchant, as CIC, to act alone, without consultation, as he alone, as a "stable genius and with his "great and unmatched wisdom", is smart enough to figure out the entire world and make it all better for his MAGA world.
And they said Pres Obama was arrogant.
Dave and Ema,
I'm reading Jill LePore's "These Truths, A History of the US," and I thought about what she wrote in the chapters on the slavery era.
Politics and the country got ugly like this at the end stages of slavery: a SCOTUS that vindicated the practice, a congress paralyzed on the issue, partisanship distorting the fundamental arguments in law and media, profit motive behind the disagreement.
We fought a civil war, over half a million died, the slave owners lost, here we are.
I don't think civil war is in the offing, but i do think that analyzing the motives of the Republicans is beside the point. I mean, it would make sense if we could negotiate with them, but we can't.
We can see what the Republicans are about, we see what they are willing to do and to tolerate or ignore in order to wield power. Their actions speak louder than their motives. Deal with the actions, and leave the motives to history.
We are living in interesting and perilous times. With a madman who believes he's a stable genius in possession of the nuclear launch codes.
So here's some thinking...
Pelosi does not want a vote to make this an official impeachment inquiry. Both the Clinton and the Nixon impeachment's proceeded under an official inquiry.
I think Trump has a point, and I bet voters will agree, that without an formal vote of the House, he's not being treated fairly.
And what's the reason behind no vote? Pelosi does not want to give the GOP the right, which they get with a formal vote, to subpoena their own witnesses.
Speaker Pelosi is trying to make all this happen without giving the GOP a role, which the opposition party had in both the last two impeachments.
We've got to ask why...
Dave, it's not a Constutional requirement to have a vote in the House for impeachment. I will assume Speaker Pelosi knows what she's doing and the reasons for it.
"There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a full House vote to launch an impeachment inquiry," Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky told Newsweek. "That has been done before, but it is not a constitutional requirement. President Trump is wrong in saying that it is not a legitimate impeachment inquiry without a floor vote."
This may be the reason:
"Trump and Republicans—who've been daring Pelosi to vote on the matter—believe that a vote by the full chamber would put vulnerable swing district Democrats in a tough spot and force members to more officially go on the record, as all but a handful of House Democrats support an impeachment inquiry into Trump."
Source: Newsweek
I remember that a blogger named Willis Hart railed on RN's blog about how President Obama lied when he claimed (prior to his reelection) that al Quadea was "on the run". Now Dotard claims he has defeated ISIS, and NOTHING from Mr. Hart (I still read his blog and he mostly defends Dotard).
Also, from what I hear, the Kurds have something like 9,000 fighters detained and are going to let them go (not detain them any longer) if we abandon them. You can't keep people detained when you're being slaughtered.
BTW, I agree with the reasons given in Shaw's post for Dotard's betrayal of the Kurds. Both explain his actions, I think.
Dave Here's more on having that House vote on the impeachment inquiry.
Derv The Goopers are not consistent in anything. They have a set of rules for the Dems and one for themselves that are completely the opposite. When Clinton was being impeached, Lindsey Graham claimed the Republicans didn't even need a crime to impeach him, just the appearance of wrong doing was enough. The Dems have a MOUNTAIN of corruption and crimes against President Dotard, but the Goopers are protecting him. They are the very definition of dishonesty and hypocrisy.
Post a Comment