2018 American Political Scene

[Double Edge]

I also find the Iraq War arguement to be dis-engious. Both the US and the UK had House Approvals by BOTH majority Parties.

Not following what you mean ?

[Officer of Engineers]

That's the one where the CIA lied to MI6, which in turn fed the info back to the US which then used it to lie to Congress and the American people.

Which part of this was a lie?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Not following what you mean ?

Atsy suggests that Blair politically sufferred big time for committing to the Iraq War. This ignores the fact that both majority parties voted for war in the House of Commons.

[Double Edge]

Atsy suggests that Blair politically sufferred big time for committing to the Iraq War. This ignores the fact that both majority parties voted for war in the House of Commons.

They did. When it came to the invasion there was support on both sides of the aisle. There was a walkout by Robin cook and others but in the end the vote was to go ahead.

The problem with assessing long term damage to relations is it requires us to see into the future. Record as you indicated the damage isn't lasting.

If UK interests demand sending troops the same will happen again in the future. Given Brexit, I expect the UK to become more visible and involved on the global stage than earlier.

Way these actions are judged is by the outcome and then the decision to go is questioned. As i've noted earlier, the invasion had support, the occupation is a different matter.

Its a compartmentalised way of looking at it but the objectives of regime change were acheived. Stability after is another matter

[TopHatter]

Russia Is 'Laughing' At Trump, Former Ambassador to Ex-Soviet Union Says

President Donald Trump's policy toward Russia has puzzled world leaders and amused officials in Moscow, according to the former ambassador to the states that succeeded the Soviet Union in the 1990s.

Stephen Sestanovich, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the former ambassador-at-large for the ex-USSR states, told The New York Times on Tuesday that "Trump seems to think that if he accepts what his advisers recommend on even days of the month and rejects their recommendations on odd days, the result will be a strategy."

[THIS is exactly why Trump supporters claim of "I like his policies" is so utterly laughable and contemptuously naive. The Man Has No Policies, only whims and a congenital lack of impulse-control. It's Donald Trump's presidency in a single sentence - TH]

"By and large, other governments don’t know whether to laugh or cry at all this," he added. "But in Russia, laughter is getting the upper hand."

[All I can think of is this clip. Same Exact Thing. - TH]

In stark contrast to his predecessor, Trump expressed admiration for President Vladimir Putin even before officially running for office. Trump publicly wondered in 2013 if Putin would become his "new best friend" ahead of the Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow and, later that year, told Piers Morgan that Putin "really put it" to former President Barack Obama in response to the use of the term "American exceptionalism." Trump, who would go on to champion phrases like "America First" as president, said at the time that the term was "insulting."

Trump continued to praise the longtime Russian leader in the years and months ahead of the billionaire real estate mogul-turned-celebrity-turned-politician's own campaign trail. He portrayed Putin as a tougher, smarter and more sensible head of state than Obama and, as Trump went on to win the election, floated Russia as a potential partner in the battle against the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) in Syria.

Shortly after being sworn in, however, Trump found himself swamped by allegations that the Kremlin had attempted to influence the U.S. election in his favor, potentially by colluding with his campaign. Trump challenged Russia directly in April 2017 by blasting an air base belonging to its ally Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, accused by some Western governments and their allies of using sarin gas in rebel territory. Days later, Trump made an about-face on Western military alliance NATO, which he said was "no longer obsolete" as he previously described it.

One year later, Trump took on Russia again by defying its warnings and launching an even bigger cruise missile strike in Syrian government territory Friday—this time recruiting France and the U.K. to hit suspected chemical sites after more toxic gas allegations. At the same time, however, U.S.-led coalitiom spokesman Colonel Ryan Dillon revealed to reporters Tuesday that deconfliction lines between the U.S. and Russia remained open in Syria and that the U.S.-led coalition has actually shared intelligence with Moscow regarding potential ISIS threats in areas controlled by the Syrian government.

Putin thanked Trump in December for a CIA tip that helped thwart an ISIS plot in St. Petersburg, according to the Associated Press.

Trump has not yet abandoned Putin as an ally in tackling "North Korea, Syria, Ukraine, ISIS, Iran and even the coming Arms Race" as the president tweeted after congratulating his Russian counterpart on his re-election. Trump's advisers reportedly urged him not to call Putin after the Russian leader won an unprecedented fourth term last month, but the president argued: "Getting along with Russia (and others) is a good thing, not a bad thing."

In the latest sign that Trump still viewed Moscow as a potential partner, the White House contradicted U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley on Monday after she said Sunday that the U.S. was planning to roll out further sanctions against Russian companies allegedly involved in Assad's chemical weapons program, which Moscow argues has been defunct since 2013.

"We are considering additional sanctions on Russia and a decision will be made in the near future," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Monday in a statement.

Sanders told reporters that "the president has been clear that he's going to be tough on Russia," according to ABC News. "But at the same time, he'd still like to have a good relationship with them." Link
___________

My comments bracketed in red

[astralis]

That's the one where the CIA lied to MI6, which in turn fed the info back to the US which then used it to lie to Congress and the American people.

not quite.

there was a general concurrence between the CIA and the other major agencies regarding WMDs. the DIA, not CIA, was ordered to sex it up.

the intel agencies work in gradations of confidence. the Bush administration essentially took the weaker gradations (low/medium) and presented it as fact.

[astralis]

This ignores the fact that both majority parties voted for war in the House of Commons.

yes, but Blair's Labour went into civil war afterwards, because Labour is not a naturally hawkish faction. Blair himself left in disgrace after monopolizing British political power for a decade. he paid an enormous price, far higher than Conservatives...because Blair was in power.

political leaders tend to notice and remember what type of decisions will screw them over.

[astralis]

TH, speaking of laughing....

====

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...e-white-house/

Nikki Haley’s extraordinary rebuke of the White House

by Aaron Blake April 17 at 8:02 PM Email the author

Nikki Haley might as well have called the White House a bunch of liars.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations on Tuesday rebuffed White House aides’ claims that she bungled an announcement of new sanctions against Russia. After Haley said Sunday that the sanctions were on the way by Monday, the White House appeared to change course and said a decision had not been made. But rather than an admission that President Trump had had a change of heart, word ventured out that Haley had gotten out over her skis.

One anonymous official said Haley had made “an error that needs to be mopped up.” Another more charitably said there had been confusion. Then on Tuesday afternoon, chief White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow was significantly less charitable to Haley, telling CNN that she “got ahead of the curve” and “There might have been some momentary confusion about that.”

Not so, says Haley. And in fact, she said that even the more charitable explanation is wrong.

“With all due respect, I don’t get confused,” Haley said in a statement.

The situation was fraught from the beginning, with Haley making an ironclad and unmistakable announcement of new sanctions. And there was no correction for more than 24 hours, even though it was a major story for that whole time.

After airstrikes against Syrian chemical weapons facilities on April 13, lawmakers and Trump administration officials weighed in on the attack. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

From the outside, it looked a lot as if the notoriously fickle Trump had simply changed his mind, but the White House tried to play it off as a mix-up and even Haley’s fault. Haley clearly was not having it -- especially when Kudlow publicly called her out.

But to be clear, her comment Tuesday is a pretty big repudiation of both Kudlow and what the White House has been saying anonymously. Kudlow may have sealed the deal, but he wasn't the first to go down this road. And it's a relatively rare public rebuke of the official White House line on an issue of huge substance internationally, in that it comes directly from a Cabinet-level official.

It also means Haley is effectively saying Trump and/or the White House did change their minds — that their increasingly tough posture on Russia has at least momentarily been arrested.

The exact reason for that is up for debate. The Kremlin complained about the new sanctions, calling them “international economic raiding.” And in what seems like possibly the tipping point for Trump, The Washington Post reported Sunday night that Trump “has battled his top aides on Russia and lost.” I argued Monday that perhaps Trump just decided to exert his authority, even if it made his administration look unmoored.

Whatever the reasons, though, Haley made clear this was not handled well by the administration, and that it was not her fault. It will be interesting to see what lies ahead for her relationship with the White House — and Kudlow.

[Officer of Engineers]

yes, but Blair's Labour went into civil war afterwards, because Labour is not a naturally hawkish faction. Blair himself left in disgrace after monopolizing British political power for a decade. he paid an enormous price, far higher than Conservatives...because Blair was in power.

Your point, however, is will the UK commit to any future military adventures beyond Trump's administration. The very fact that the UK lead the charge for the Libyan intervention and then back down on Obama's Syrian adventure states that the UK's military decisions have nothing to do with any American administration but with their own self interests. Again, case in point. They said no to Obama and said yes to Trump.

political leaders tend to notice and remember what type of decisions will screw them over.

*** Looking at Justin Trudeau *** You sure about that?

[astralis]

Your point, however, is will the UK commit to any future military adventures beyond Trump's administration. The very fact that the UK lead the charge for the Libyan intervention and then back down on Obama's Syrian adventure states that the UK's military decisions have nothing to do with any American administration but with their own self interests. Again, case in point. They said no to Obama and said yes to Trump.

i'm actually a bit confused here because you seem to be agreeing with me. Blair stuck his neck out for a perceived mainly-US interest for the sake of the special relationship and his own relationship with Clinton/Bush.

that will not happen again. i fully agree with you that European nations will now consider their foreign policy action through a more narrow self-interested lens because the prospect of a US President burning them like this still rankles.

*** Looking at Justin Trudeau *** You sure about that?

don't think he'll go to India again anytime soon, lol.

[Officer of Engineers]

i'm actually a bit confused here because you seem to be agreeing with me. Blair stuck his neck out for a perceived mainly-US interest for the sake of the special relationship and his own relationship with Clinton/Bush.

that will not happen again. i fully agree with you that European nations will now consider their foreign policy action through a more narrow self-interested lens because the prospect of a US President burning them like this still rankles.

US Presidents have burned allies before. Eisenhower with the Suez Crisis. The French under Reagan's Lebonon adventure. It did not stopped them from following US leadership when it deemed in their national interests.

Case in point. What has Somalia got to do with European Security except to live up to Bush Sr's New World Order? After that came crashing down, we've gone into Kosovo to let a mafia run a whorehouse selling drugs just because Albright's obsession of going into the history books and Clinton needed a distraction from Monica.

The records strongly suggest that Trump's damage (I disagree with that) to the alliance will not survive his administration.

[astralis]

The records strongly suggest that Trump's damage (I disagree with that) to the alliance will not survive his administration.

as an American, i sure hope so. i look forward to a bright future of bending Canadians to our evil plans >:-)

[Officer of Engineers]

We're not taking Celine Dion back.

[Double Edge]

i'm actually a bit confused here because you seem to be agreeing with me. Blair stuck his neck out for a perceived mainly-US interest for the sake of the special relationship and his own relationship with Clinton/Bush.

that will not happen again. i fully agree with you that European nations will now consider their foreign policy action through a more narrow self-interested lens because the prospect of a US President burning them like this still rankles.

No confusion. Your point that UK leaders will think long and hard before committing to any joint action with the Americans stands belied with the Syrian strikes.

It will take more time to test your theory. In the end self interests will dominate. Always has.

Has Blair's brain child R2P, responsibility to protect, gone away ? No. Blair was done by the middle of 2007.

When Libya came up a few years later, they used R2P to intervene. I tried to dig further as to motivations for Libya but came up dry.

The same argument somehow just didn't fly in Syria but for other reasons. Primary being American lack of will.

[Ironduke]

as an American, i sure hope so. i look forward to a bright future of bending Canadians to our evil plans >:-)

If Justin Trudeau put on a wig, Trump would probably think he was Jacinda Ardern, at which point the Canadians could probably bend us to their evil plans. ^^

[Officer of Engineers]

If Justin Trudeau put on a wig, Trump would probably think he was Jacinda Ardern, at which point the Canadians could probably bend us to their evil plans. ^^

You, Sir, are sick, evil, twisted, and mentally deranged.

Bravo.