Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

Graham: Is Mueller fair-minded.
Barr: Absolutely
Graham: Would he be involved in a witch hunt.
Barr: I don't believe Mr. Mueller would be involved in a witch hunt.

It is surreal that these things have to be stipulated to. We have an important investigation being led by someone with a lot of experience and an impeccable reputation and all the president has tried to do is impede and derail the investigation.
 
sturg33 said:
He made NATO stronger
Click to expand...

To revisit this one, there is a NY Times article today about Trump wanting to withdraw from NATO.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/us/politics/nato-president-trump.html

There are few things that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia desires more than the weakening of NATO, the military alliance among the United States, Europe and Canada that has deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.

Last year, President Trump suggested a move tantamount to destroying NATO: the withdrawal of the United States.

Senior administration officials told The New York Times that several times over the course of 2018, Mr. Trump privately said he wanted to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Current and former officials who support the alliance said they feared Mr. Trump could return to his threat as allied military spending continued to lag behind the goals the president had set.

In the days around a tumultuous NATO summit meeting last summer, they said, Mr. Trump told his top national security officials that he did not see the point of the military alliance, which he presented as a drain on the United States.
 
More from the article linked above:

Retired Adm. James G. Stavridis, the former supreme allied commander of NATO, said an American withdrawal from the alliance would be “a geopolitical mistake of epic proportion.”

“Even discussing the idea of leaving NATO — let alone actually doing so — would be the gift of the century for Putin,” Admiral Stavridis said.


This last point deserves to be emphasized. The hesitations over endorsing article 5 are also enormously damaging to NATO's credibility.
 
Its like you guys don't understand negotiations at all.

Lets see what the end result of NATO will be. If it ends up that countries are contributing more then NATO will end up being stronger.
 
thethe said:
Its like you guys don't understand negotiations at all.

Lets see what the end result of NATO will be. If it ends up that countries are contributing more then NATO will end up being stronger.
Click to expand...

I guess Mattis doesn't get it either. From his resignation letter:

One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships. While the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies. Like you, I have said from the beginning that the armed forces of the United States should not be the policeman of the world. Instead, we must use all tools of American power to provide for the common defense, including providing effective leadership to our alliances. NATO's 29 democracies demonstrated that strength in their commitment to fighting alongside us following the 9-11 attack on America. The Defeat-ISIS coalition of 74 nations is further proof.

Similarly, I believe we must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours. It is clear that China and Russia, for example, want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model - gaining veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic, and security decisions - to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies. That is why we must use all the tools of American power to provide for the common defense.

My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues.
 
Respect can also be questioned when these countries are benefitting from our overwhelming investment in their defense without the same committment.
 
nsacpi said:
I know that...a little disingenuous of you to list strengthening NATO as one of Trump's accomplishments eh?...he has as a matter of fact undermined and weakened it
Click to expand...

I didn't call it an accomplishment. I said it's something that doesn't make sense for a Putin Puppet to do
 
nsacpi said:
I know that...a little disingenuous of you to list strengthening NATO as one of Trump's accomplishments eh?...he has as a matter of fact undermined and weakened it
Click to expand...

What specifically is weakened? Is there less troops readiness? Investment in technology? Less communication on future strategy? Rhetoric =/= weakening
 
thethe said:
What specifically is weakened? Is there less troops readiness? Investment in technology? Less communication on future strategy? Rhetoric =/= weakening
Click to expand...
weakened it credibility...deterrence works best when friend and foe believe in the commitments made by an alluance
 
nsacpi said:
weakened it credibility...deterrence works best when friend and foe believe in the commitments made by an alluance
Click to expand...

So a symbolic weakening but not an actual weakening.

Kind of like the whole Russia collusion argument.

Hopefully we will never have to see it but if there is aggression against a NATO ally in the near future I think you will see the expected response.
 
sturg33 said:
That's a great argument.

I look at actions not words. You continue to avert your gaze bc ofnyour fantasies of getting rid of someone you dont like.

Those germans need to come through soon
Click to expand...

You must spend more time with history books Grasshopper
 
So are we supposed to just past the fact that the FBI opened a counter intelligence operation because they didn't agree with the presidents policies? Is this a precedent whereby if you don't agree with those entrenched in power then you will effectively be removed from an elected position, or at least an attempt to?

Remember almost 2 years back when I called it a Coup? Yeah, I was right then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top