No you don’t you dumb Dem. You don’t like him because he brings a warrior attitude to the Pentagon.
“No you don’t you dumb Dem. You don’t like him because he brings a warrior attitude to the Pentagon.”
Absolutely right.
And then there’s this, by Jefferson:
Were our State a pure democracy...there would yet be excluded from their deliberations...women, who, to prevent depravation of morals and ambiguity of issue, should not mix promiscuously in the public meetings of men.
“Gentlemen, this is the War Room...stop fighting!!!” ;)
If it was obama nominating him she would we be singing a different tune
Mattis isn’t a neocon, is he? I only ask because I’ve read media reports that he favors war with Iran, something I believe Trump would oppose. Also, with the rumored nominations of Bolton and Newt (yes, I realize the irony of me questioning this one), he seems to be picking foreign policy hardliners, many who have expressed antagonism towards Russia.
What do my fellow FReepers think is at play here? Is Trump abandoning his noninterventionist foreign policy (except for his pledge to destroy ISIS), or does he just want opposing views to his own on his team, to challenge him? Is that his management style? Some of you may not like my example (Democrats would flip out), but JFK seemed to have that management style, but also got to the point where he just didn’t trust his advisors and did what he thought was right, in spite of them.
I think Reagan is an excellent example of this as well with the “Evil Empire” speech, though I think we missed a historic chance of cooperation, and only antagonized and humiliated Russia by the actions of Bush I and Clinton. I blame them both for the rise of Putin, much as historians blame the treaty of Versailles for Hitler.
I just don’t want him getting terrible advice in regards to Russia (who we may finally have a chance to establish rapport with) and other hot spots. I hope Trump stays his own man, with the populist, noninterventionist streak.
I wish he would nominate someone like Pat Buchanan, or others of the same caliber and mindset, to push back against the hawks, and give opposing views.
Putin may not be the ideal guy to work with (and we can’t blindly trust him), but he isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, and he and Trump did signal a willingness to begin again.
Honestly, the threat of miscalculation and accidental nuclear war is one of the largest, untalked about threats facing both of our countries (and mankind), so I will be glad to see any form of new cooperation between the two of our nations, as long as Putin is not naive enough to run roughshod over our NATO allies (although, quite frankly, allowing some of these buffer nations to join was a mistake and a clear betrayal of HW Bush’s promise not to by Clinton and his neolib/neocon advisors).
I also think The Donald should lift sanctions against Russia over Crimea. I honestly believe the Ukraine debacle was caused by Hillary and Obama’s efforts to overthrow an elected government, and Crimea was Putin pushing back. Honestly, Russia has a much more compelling claim to Crimea than Ukraine to begin with, and everyone knows it, with the Peninsula being “given” to Ukraine as a mere symbolic gesture by Kruschev to begin with. It was a strategic mistake by Russia not to reclaim it, when they allowed the Soviet Union to disband at the end of the Cold War, which created this unnecessary hotspot.
What do you guys think? I hope to get some serious, thoughtful replies on this.
Also, I promise I am not a Kremlin apologist or Guccifer 2.0, so help me Mother Ru- err... God.