Tag Archives: Russia

Trump fills two key national security posts … next?

Donald J. Trump took the oath of office today and the U.S. Senate managed to do its job by confirming two critical appointments to the new president’s national security team.

Senators confirmed James Mattis as secretary of defense and John Kelly as secretary of homeland security.

Two elements intrigue me about both of these men.

One, they are retired general-grade officers, both Marines, both of them with four stars each on their epaulets. You’ll recall that the president said he knows “more than the generals about ISIS, believe me.”

But … does he? I don’t think so. I am convinced as well that the president didn’t think so either when he blustered that statement while campaigning for the office. It was an applause/laugh line.

The second element that is most interesting to me is that Gens. Mattis and Kelly both contradict some talking points that Trump declared, also while campaigning for the presidency.

Mattis in particular has declared Russia to be a primary threat to our national security, something that Trump has dismissed virtually out of hand as the controversy over Russian hacking has escalated. Kelly, too, has shown to be his own man while discussing ways to protect the nation.

Kelly takes the point now as Trump’s guy in the fight to control illegal immigration. Mattis now gets to assess additional international threats to the nation — and he is seriously concerned about Russia. Perhaps he can persuade the commander in chief that he, too, needs to worry about Vladimir Putin’s intent.

I’m also fascinated that the notion of a retired Marine general with the nickname of “Mad Dog” is seen as the reasonable alternative to the man who nominated him in the first place.

These two men will assume critical roles in the new administration. One word of warning, though, is in order: Donald Trump now needs to concentrate aggressively on filling many of the staff-level national security jobs that are vacant.

He did vow at his inaugural that he would eliminate radical Islamic terrorists from the face of the planet. You must get busy, Mr. President.

CIA boss issues stern, correct warning to Trump

The time will arrive, possibly quite soon after Donald J. Trump becomes president of the United States, when the new president will ask for advice from his intelligence network.

What will he think when the spooks tell him that, oh, the Russians are about to launch an attack on Ukraine, or on the Baltic States, or on Georgia? How might he respond to reports from the CIA that Russians are killing civilians in Syria?

CIA Director John Brennan said today that Trump is treading onto some dangerous territory with his continued dismissal and disparagement of the CIA over its findings that Russian hackers sought to influence the 2016 presidential election.

He needs to make peace with the intelligence professionals who work in the trenches of the CIA, of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cia-director-warns-trump-as-tensions-rise-with-intelligence-agencies/ar-AAlTpg8?li=BBnb7Kz

Brennan said this — among other things — on “Fox News Sunday”: ā€œWhat I do find outrageous is equating intelligence community with Nazi Germany,ā€ said Brennan, who served in the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. ā€œI do take great umbrage at that, and there is no basis for Mr. Trump to point fingers at the intelligence community for leaking information that was already available publicly.ā€

Trump’s continual dismissal of the intelligence apparatus goes directly against traditional Republican orthodoxy, which historically has sided with the spies when questions arise about foreign threats to the nation. Indeed, Trump’s tweet tirades against the CIA have drawn pointed criticism from GOP officials as well as from Democrats.

Then we have Brennan, who served Republican President George W. Bush and Democratic President Barack Obama weighing in with stern words of warning for the next president.

As Bloomberg News reported about Brennan’s “Fox News Sunday” appearance: Brennan admonished Trump, whoā€™s recently suggested he might lift sanctions on Russia, ā€œto be mindful that he doesnā€™t yet, I think, have a full appreciation/understanding of what the implications are of such a moveā€ amid Russiaā€™s actions in Ukraine, Syria and online. He added that Trump ā€œneeds to be very, very careful.ā€

Does the new president have an appreciation or understanding of anything having to do with national security?

This is the kind of thing that frightens the daylights out of millions of Americans.

I amĀ one of them.

New defense boss breaks with commander in chief-to-be

Imagine that … the man picked to lead the Defense Department thinks Russia is our No. 1 worldwide adversary and he’s sounding a good bit more anti-Kremlin than the man who nominated him, Donald J. Trump.

What’s going on here? Sanity is breaking out within the budding Trump administration.

Trump’s CIA director-designate, Mike Pompeo, calls waterboarding a form of “torture” and says he would refuse to obey a direct order to invoke “enhanced interrogation” techniques on enemy captives. Trump campaigned on a pledge to restore waterboarding.

Now we hear from Defense Secretary-designate James Mattis, who tells us that Russia is our top adversary and that the United States should honor the nuclear arms-production agreement it struck with Iran. Let’s see: Trump is buddies with Vladimir Putin and he says he’ll tear up the Iran nuke treaty when he takes office.

Mattis isn’t too keen on either matter, he told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senate-set-to-question-trumps-pentagon-pick-veteran-marine-gen-james-mattis/2017/01/11/b3c6946a-d816-11e6-9a36-1d296534b31e_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.2af606a6369a

Mattis is a retired Marine Corps general with plenty of combat experience. The man is a plain-spoken, in-your-face general-grade officer.

He said this about the Iran nuclear deal: “I think it is in an imperfect arms control agreement ā€” itā€™s not a friendship treaty.Ā But when America gives her word, we have to live up to it and work with our allies.ā€

I’m beginning to believe Trump might be surrounding himself with at least a couple of reasonable minds on his national security team.

He will need their wise counsel. I hopeĀ the hothead/know-it-all/commander in chief chooses to heed it.

Anti-Iraq War president picks pro-war team

john-bolton-very-large

I am pretty sure I heard Donald J. Trump call the Iraq War a “disaster,” a “mistake,” a “terrible decision.”

It’s not clear to me, though, whether the president-elect actually opposed the war fromĀ its beginning, or during the period leading up to the first shots being fired in March 2003.

But during the 2016 presidential campaign Trump did criticize the Bush administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq.

Why, then, is he going to send a deputy secretary of state before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for confirmation?

John Bolton is a serious war hawk. He believes in regime change. He supported the Iraq War. He bought into the notion that the late Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. He has called for going to war with Iran. At least one key Republican committee member, Rand Paul of Kentucky, says he’ll vote automatically against Bolton’s confirmation.

Bolton isĀ hoping to join a State Department team headed by a designated secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, whose confirmation itself isn’t a sure thing. He’ll have to answer many questions about his friendship with Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, who Sen. John McCain has labeled a “butcher” and “murderer.”

But this Bolton character, a former U.N. ambassador, brings a serious dichotomy into play.

The president-elect opposed the Iraq War — he says — and yet he’s going to bring the hawkiest of hawks into his foreign-policy team?

I do not understand any of this.

My head is spinning.

Here’s how you could have handled the Russia problem

President George W Bush visits CIA Headquarters, March 20, 2001.

Donald J. Trump didn’t ask me for my opinion on this, but I’ll give it to him anyway … not that it matters in Trump World.

CIA officials have concluded that Russian computer hackers had some impact on the 2016 presidential election. To what end, they haven’t disclosed; it’s highly classified at the moment.

They aren’t alone in that assessment. Other intelligence agencies and independent experts also have reached that conclusion.

So, what does the president-elect do? He dismisses the CIA’s findings. He says he doesn’t believe them. He says the Russians didn’t do what has been alleged. He blames Democrats for fomenting a false allegation. How does he know any of that? He doesn’t.

A better response would have been for Trump to do the following: Stand before the media and issue a statement.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the press. I want to issue a brief statement. There’ll be no questions.

The news from the CIA is troubling in the extreme. I hereby join President Obama in calling for a full review of the findings and a public disclosure — to the extent that it is possible — of what, if anything, transpired in the Kremlin that might have had an impact on the election.

I am acutely aware of my statements throughout the campaign that the election would be “rigged” in favor of my opponent, Hillary Clinton. As I’ve noted on other campaign-related matters,Ā I said some things for “dramatic effect.” The “rigged election” allegation was one of them.

I did not envision the “rigged election” charge coming back on me and my campaign in this matter.

Do I believe the Russians tilted the election in my favor? No. But you shouldn’t just take my word for it.

I remain confident that a thorough review of the evidence and the facts will determine we would have won anyway.

But let’s find out the truth of what happened, starting with the review that the president has demanded from the intelligence community.

He didn’t say anything like that. Instead, he has denigrated the intelligence community, as he has done with manyĀ other facets of government.

Trump’s stubborn denial of any possible hanky-panky — and his stated disbelief in the work of the CIA’sĀ professional intelligence officersĀ — only darkens the clouds forming over his administration.

The questions only will deepen the distrust many Americans are expressing at this moment over what might have transpired on Election Day.

Secretary of State Tillerson? We’ll see about that one

90

Rex Tillerson will get the nod from the president-elect as the next secretary of state.

Let’s hand it to Donald J. Trump: He appears unafraid to pick a major fight with the U.S. senators who will be asked to confirm his appointment.

Tillerson’sĀ pending nominationĀ troubles a lot of senators, Republicans and Democrats alike.

He has zero diplomatic experience. Tillerson is a 40-year employee of ExxonMobil, the oil giant he now runs as CEO. He is friends with Russian President Vladimir Putin, with whom he has worked in cutting big deals on behalf of his company. Oh, and Putin’s government now has been fingered by the CIA as seeking to influence the 2016 presidential election in Trump’s favor.

Gosh, do you think Tillerson brings some serious baggage to this job at Foggy Bottom?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2016/12/trump-to-name-secretary-of-state-pick-tuesday-232544

Donald Trump has selected a number of unconventional nominees for various Cabinet posts. The Tillerson pick likely takes the cake.

His friendship with Putin is going to drive Senate Republicans nuts. One of them, John McCain, is emerging as the top GOP lawmaker who is set to become the inquisitor in chief of this selection.

McCain calls Putin a “thug” andĀ a “butcher.” He is in no mood to reset our nation’s relationship with the former head of the KGB, the Soviet Union’s dreaded spy agency.

Then we have this ongoing discussion about what role Russia played in seeking to undermine the U.S. presidential election. The CIA says the Russians interfered with the electoral process. Trump’s reaction? He said the intelligence pros at the CIA are wrong, that they don’t know what they’re talking about. He said he doesn’t believe the CIA’s analysis.

So, we have a Putin pal getting the call from the president-elect to serve as secretary of state and the CIA saying that Russia — which Putin rules — has sought to interfere with our election.

I believe Tillerson and his political benefactor — Donald Trump — are going to get roughed up big time by the U.S. Senate.

Bipartisanship emerges … in opposition to Trump picks

aalr3ki

What do you know about that?

Donald J. Trump might be learning that he doesn’t have as many friends on Capitol Hill as he thought he did.

It appears that some of the president-elect’s Cabinet picks aren’t going down well … with some Republican lawmakers. Never mind the Democrats. You know they’ll detest almost any pick the GOP president-elect is going to make.

I was struck this morning when I heard Republican U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky declare himself to be almost an automatic “no” vote against probable secretary of state nominee Rex Tillerson. Why the intense opposition? That would be the selection of John Bolton to be Tillerson’s deputy secretary, according to Paul. Bolton believes in “regime change” and has all but advocated going to war with Iran, both views that Paul opposes strongly.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-opposition-to-potential-trump-cabinet-nominees-grows/ar-AAlqKVs?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Others among Trump’s Republican base of support are bristling at some of the picks. Steve Mnuchin, Trump’s pick to be treasury secretary, represents the “status quo,” according to Erick Erickson, the longtime TEA party activist. Labor Department nominee Andrew Puzder is said to be in favor of “open borders.”

Now we have Tillerson at State. U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the 2008 GOP presidential nominee, said he has “concerns” about Tillerson’s relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Tillerson is CEO of ExxonMobil, which is exploring for oil throughout Russia; Tillerson has brokered numerous business deals involving Russian government officials, including Putin.

Where do we go from here?

Trump will need a lot of friends on Capitol Hill to rally to his side as he sends his Cabinet picks to the Senate for confirmation.

Here’s the deal, though: He ran against many of them within his own Republican Party on his highly improbable victorious campaign for the presidency.

Good luck, Mr. President-elect.

Rex Tillerson? Huh? Where did he come from?

rex-tillerson-003_jpg_800x1000_q100

Eyes had turned to Mitt Romney, then to David Petraeus, then to Rudy Giuliani, then back to Mitt.

Then the president-elect shakes it all up and appears now set to name Rex Tillerson as the next secretary of state.

Rex the Texan. He’s the man Donald J. Trump is about to pick as the nation’s top diplomat.

Wow! Who knew?

Tillerson is president and CEO of Exxon Mobil. He’s another gazillionaire headed for Trump’s Cabinet.

You may ask: What does this fellow bring to the world of international statecraft? Man, I am officially baffled in the extreme.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/12/10/trump-taps-texan-and-exxon-mobil-ceo-rex-tillerson/

But here’s what many folks do know about Tillerson: His oil interests reach into Russia, where he reportedly has a good relationship with the Russian strongman, President Vladimir Putin. Oh, boy. Here come the questions.

Will the business interests get in the way of hard-nosed diplomacy? Does Tillerson’s friendship with Putin spell curtains for NATO, the Ukraine, Georgia and other nations affected by Russia’s sword-rattling? Does the apparent nominee’s lack of diplomatic experience hinder his knowledge of world affairs and the nuance required to deal effectively with foreign governments?

The Trumpkins aren’t yet confirming anything. Tillerson, though, appears headed for the State Department. For now. Unless the president-elect changes his mind. Again.

Pence is right about Russia; Trump … is wrong!

p34_dwi22303

Mike Pence demonstrated quite nicely just how badly the Republican Party has messed up its campaign for the presidency.

It has put the wrong guy at the top of the ticket.

My belief is based on Pence’s assessment of Russian dictator/strongman/tyrant Vlad Putin. He called him a “small bully” at the vice-presidential debate Tuesday night who must be met with stern resolve and military might.

Trump’s view of Putin? He believes the United States and Russia can become allies in the fight against the Islamic State. “Wouldn’t it be great if we got along with Russia?” Trump has asked. He has expressed admiration for Putin.

Pence doesn’t seem to think U.S.-Russian relations can improve as long as Putin is kicking backsides in the Kremlin.

This is the kind of thing that might have Republicans gnashing their teeth over what their party has done. It has nominated a presidential candidate who is spectacularly clueless on the geopolitical relationships that complicate U.S. foreign policy. Meanwhile, it has a vice-presidential nominee who sees the world through a more realistic prism.

The worst news, for Republicans of course, is that Americans are going to vote next month for the candidates at the top of their respective tickets.

Trump keeps straying over ‘the line’

BBuXnWg

I’m trying to process this latest bit of news regarding the Republican Party’s nominee for president of the United States.

Donald J. Trump — if I understand this correctly — has called on Russia to locate some missing e-mails belonging to his Democratic Party opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton. He has suggested the Russians shouldĀ hack into her e-mails, those that were deleted from her personal account while she was serving as secretary of state.

If they do, Trump said, they would be rewarded by the American media.

I’m left to wonder: Has a major-party presidential nominee just asked a major geopolitical foe of this country — of his country — to put our national security into potential jeopardy?

Aren’t there charges that could be filed in relation to such utterly reckless and dangerous rhetoric coming from someone who’s about to start receiving classified briefings from the president’s National Security Council?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-calls-on-russia-to-find-hillary-clinton%E2%80%99s-missing-emails/ar-BBuXlAC?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

If the Russians were to hack into some cyber storage area where those e-mails might be kept, what on Earth else would they be able to find?

Clinton and the Democrats are calling Trump a “dangerous” individual. They are echoing the language uttered during the primary season by his Republican foes.

This irresponsible suggestion by the GOP presidential nominee only demonstrates the grave danger he would pose as our head of government.

Unbelievable!