The Politics of National Security

The odds are excellent that you will leave this forum hating someone.
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17508
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

jhu72 wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 12:17 pm
youthathletics wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 11:13 am
jhu72 wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 10:05 am The current Prince Faisal says US is not an honest broker. Just saying what the rest of the world knows.
:roll: Like this hasn't been going on for decades. At some point you have to get sick of eating chit sandwiches.
Hence I said "US". Faisal actually specified Trump. Both are true statements.
Faisal is now irrelevant.

HR McMaster is a true team player. Refuses to take the bait. I look forward to reading his book.
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17508
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

youthathletics wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:35 am
CU88 wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:04 am Time to drain the SWAMP. Seriously, why do we have a "Russia House"?
Our military intelligence is a joke and full of career idiots just going to ride on our dime.


CIA clamps down on flow of Russia intelligence to White House
Critics of the shift in approach say it seems designed to appease the president.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/2 ... use-420351
Can you be specific, you speak factual, but quote opinion. What is it the military intelligence doing wrong?
:? ...no, he can't. His link says nothing about military intelligence. It's about the CIA.
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17508
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

How 'bout telling us the subject, author & why it's worth using a free read.
User avatar
RedFromMI
Posts: 5023
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:42 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by RedFromMI »

old salt wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:01 pm
How 'bout telling us the subject, author & why it's worth using a free read.
Let's just say there was some unusual interest and potentially interference with the clearance process for Bolton's book that the person doing the clearance found disturbing...
seacoaster
Posts: 8866
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by seacoaster »

old salt wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:01 pm
How 'bout telling us the subject, author & why it's worth using a free read.
Cheapskate. The first is a letter from the law firm representing the head of the review team, rebuffing the notion that Bolton’s book contained secret intelligence, and suggesting that Trump functionaries attempted to impede publication of the book.

The second is the Times article about the pending court case.
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17508
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

seacoaster wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 6:40 am
old salt wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:01 pm
How 'bout telling us the subject, author & why it's worth using a free read.
Cheapskate. The first is a letter from the law firm representing the head of the review team, rebuffing the notion that Bolton’s book contained secret intelligence, and suggesting that Trump functionaries attempted to impede publication of the book.

The second is the Times article about the pending court case.
Politics, not National Security. I save my free reads for when I might learn substantive details from reporting on national security issues.
seacoaster
Posts: 8866
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by seacoaster »

old salt wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:49 pm
seacoaster wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 6:40 am
old salt wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:01 pm
How 'bout telling us the subject, author & why it's worth using a free read.
Cheapskate. The first is a letter from the law firm representing the head of the review team, rebuffing the notion that Bolton’s book contained secret intelligence, and suggesting that Trump functionaries attempted to impede publication of the book.

The second is the Times article about the pending court case.
Politics, not National Security. I save my free reads for when I might learn substantive details from reporting on national security issues.
Not a moderator anymore. I think reviewing and clearing books from secret intelligence is “the politics of national security.” You’re welcome for the opportunity to read it. You’re just a dog walker now.
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17508
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

seacoaster wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:05 pm
old salt wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:49 pm
seacoaster wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 6:40 am
old salt wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:01 pm
How 'bout telling us the subject, author & why it's worth using a free read.
Cheapskate. The first is a letter from the law firm representing the head of the review team, rebuffing the notion that Bolton’s book contained secret intelligence, and suggesting that Trump functionaries attempted to impede publication of the book.

The second is the Times article about the pending court case.
Politics, not National Security. I save my free reads for when I might learn substantive details from reporting on national security issues.
Not a moderator anymore. I think reviewing and clearing books from secret intelligence is “the politics of national security.” You’re welcome for the opportunity to read it. You’re just a dog walker now.
:lol: the difficulty experienced by a disgruntled National Security Advisor getting his gotcha book published before the election is not my idea of a national security issue. If Bolton had something important to say, he should not have passed up the impeachment hearings.

I'm looking forward to McMasters' book to read something substantive on national security. It's #1 on my dog park reading list.
It's amusing watching HR fend off the gotcha questions from "objective journalists", while crafting an answer that addresses real issues, ...while respectfully chiding retired flag officers who become political flacks.
seacoaster
Posts: 8866
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by seacoaster »

old salt wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:17 pm
seacoaster wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:05 pm
old salt wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:49 pm
seacoaster wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 6:40 am
old salt wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:01 pm
How 'bout telling us the subject, author & why it's worth using a free read.
Cheapskate. The first is a letter from the law firm representing the head of the review team, rebuffing the notion that Bolton’s book contained secret intelligence, and suggesting that Trump functionaries attempted to impede publication of the book.

The second is the Times article about the pending court case.
Politics, not National Security. I save my free reads for when I might learn substantive details from reporting on national security issues.
Not a moderator anymore. I think reviewing and clearing books from secret intelligence is “the politics of national security.” You’re welcome for the opportunity to read it. You’re just a dog walker now.
:lol: the difficulty experienced by a disgruntled National Security Advisor getting his gotcha book published before the election is not my idea of a national security issue. If Bolton had something important to say, he should not have passed up the impeachment hearings.

I'm looking forward to McMasters' book to read something substantive on national security. It's #1 on my dog park reading list.
It's amusing watching HR fend off the gotcha questions from "objective journalists", while crafting an answer that addresses real issues, ...while respectfully chiding retired flag officers who become political flacks.
Heard the NPR interview with McMaster. It wasn’t a gotcha question; the interviewer rightly wanted to know the NSA’s view of the competency and comportment of the Commander in Chief. He did nor ante up. That’s his call, and I, anyway, am content with that. But it is not prurient journalism or gotcha journalism to want to know if the President has the brainpower and attention to detail to keep us safe. Particularly as all evidence seems to be to the contrary.
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17508
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

seacoaster wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:25 pm
old salt wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:17 pm
seacoaster wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:05 pm
old salt wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:49 pm
seacoaster wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 6:40 am
old salt wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:01 pm
How 'bout telling us the subject, author & why it's worth using a free read.
Cheapskate. The first is a letter from the law firm representing the head of the review team, rebuffing the notion that Bolton’s book contained secret intelligence, and suggesting that Trump functionaries attempted to impede publication of the book.

The second is the Times article about the pending court case.
Politics, not National Security. I save my free reads for when I might learn substantive details from reporting on national security issues.
Not a moderator anymore. I think reviewing and clearing books from secret intelligence is “the politics of national security.” You’re welcome for the opportunity to read it. You’re just a dog walker now.
:lol: the difficulty experienced by a disgruntled National Security Advisor getting his gotcha book published before the election is not my idea of a national security issue. If Bolton had something important to say, he should not have passed up the impeachment hearings.

I'm looking forward to McMasters' book to read something substantive on national security. It's #1 on my dog park reading list.
It's amusing watching HR fend off the gotcha questions from "objective journalists", while crafting an answer that addresses real issues, ...while respectfully chiding retired flag officers who become political flacks.
Heard the NPR interview with McMaster. It wasn’t a gotcha question; the interviewer rightly wanted to know the NSA’s view of the competency and comportment of the Commander in Chief. He did nor ante up. That’s his call, and I, anyway, am content with that. But it is not prurient journalism or gotcha journalism to want to know if the President has the brainpower and attention to detail to keep us safe. Particularly as all evidence seems to be to the contrary.
This is a classic : https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/h-r-m ... -and-china
In an indepth 9 min PBS interview, how many non-political, non-gotcha, substantive national security questions does iconic objective journalist Judy Woodruff ask ?

Gotta go. This is fun, but I'm wasting primo dog park time.
Last edited by old salt on Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jhu72
Posts: 13876
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by jhu72 »

So the world (and UN) certainly aren't falling into line on Trump's "order" to enforce the Iran sanctions.

Iraq continues to buy oil from Iran and US gave them more time to fall in line, with zero evidence they ever will.

TR said walk softly and carry a big stick.

Orange Duce walks loudly, bullying one and all and carries a Nerf bat. :lol:
Image STAND AGAINST FASCISM
jhu72
Posts: 13876
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by jhu72 »

seacoaster wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:25 pm
old salt wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:17 pm
seacoaster wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:05 pm
old salt wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:49 pm
seacoaster wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 6:40 am
old salt wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:01 pm
How 'bout telling us the subject, author & why it's worth using a free read.
Cheapskate. The first is a letter from the law firm representing the head of the review team, rebuffing the notion that Bolton’s book contained secret intelligence, and suggesting that Trump functionaries attempted to impede publication of the book.

The second is the Times article about the pending court case.
Politics, not National Security. I save my free reads for when I might learn substantive details from reporting on national security issues.
Not a moderator anymore. I think reviewing and clearing books from secret intelligence is “the politics of national security.” You’re welcome for the opportunity to read it. You’re just a dog walker now.
:lol: the difficulty experienced by a disgruntled National Security Advisor getting his gotcha book published before the election is not my idea of a national security issue. If Bolton had something important to say, he should not have passed up the impeachment hearings.

I'm looking forward to McMasters' book to read something substantive on national security. It's #1 on my dog park reading list.
It's amusing watching HR fend off the gotcha questions from "objective journalists", while crafting an answer that addresses real issues, ...while respectfully chiding retired flag officers who become political flacks.
Heard the NPR interview with McMaster. It wasn’t a gotcha question; the interviewer rightly wanted to know the NSA’s view of the competency and comportment of the Commander in Chief. He did nor ante up. That’s his call, and I, anyway, am content with that. But it is not prurient journalism or gotcha journalism to want to know if the President has the brainpower and attention to detail to keep us safe. Particularly as all evidence seems to be to the contrary.

We already know the answer to the question. :lol:
Image STAND AGAINST FASCISM
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17508
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

jhu72 wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 7:55 pm
seacoaster wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:05 pm
old salt wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:49 pm:lol: the difficulty experienced by a disgruntled National Security Advisor getting his gotcha book published before the election is not my idea of a national security issue. If Bolton had something important to say, he should not have passed up the impeachment hearings.

I'm looking forward to McMasters' book to read something substantive on national security. It's #1 on my dog park reading list.
It's amusing watching HR fend off the gotcha questions from "objective journalists", while crafting an answer that addresses real issues, ...while respectfully chiding retired flag officers who become political flacks.
Heard the NPR interview with McMaster. It wasn’t a gotcha question; the interviewer rightly wanted to know the NSA’s view of the competency and comportment of the Commander in Chief. He did nor ante up. That’s his call, and I, anyway, am content with that. But it is not prurient journalism or gotcha journalism to want to know if the President has the brainpower and attention to detail to keep us safe. Particularly as all evidence seems to be to the contrary.

We already know the answer to the question. :lol:
Dead horse beating. Everyone's already formed their opinion on that & it's not changing.
I'm interested in HR's take on national security issues since he left office.
He is surprisingly positive on the developing ME alliance.
He says Trump has strengthened NATO & been tougher on Russia than his predecessor, & tells how & why.
https://omny.fm/shows/the-untold-story- ... r-finished
McMaster is Galahad. It was his misfortune of timing to serve Uther rather than Arthur.
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 25748
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

old salt wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:08 pm
jhu72 wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 7:55 pm
seacoaster wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:05 pm
old salt wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:49 pm:lol: the difficulty experienced by a disgruntled National Security Advisor getting his gotcha book published before the election is not my idea of a national security issue. If Bolton had something important to say, he should not have passed up the impeachment hearings.

I'm looking forward to McMasters' book to read something substantive on national security. It's #1 on my dog park reading list.
It's amusing watching HR fend off the gotcha questions from "objective journalists", while crafting an answer that addresses real issues, ...while respectfully chiding retired flag officers who become political flacks.
Heard the NPR interview with McMaster. It wasn’t a gotcha question; the interviewer rightly wanted to know the NSA’s view of the competency and comportment of the Commander in Chief. He did nor ante up. That’s his call, and I, anyway, am content with that. But it is not prurient journalism or gotcha journalism to want to know if the President has the brainpower and attention to detail to keep us safe. Particularly as all evidence seems to be to the contrary.

We already know the answer to the question. :lol:
Dead horse beating. Everyone's already formed their opinion on that & it's not changing.
I'm interested in HR's take on national security issues since he left office.
He is surprisingly positive on the developing ME alliance.
He says Trump has strengthened NATO & been tougher on Russia than his predecessor, & tells how & why.
https://omny.fm/shows/the-untold-story- ... r-finished
McMaster is Galahad. It was his misfortune of timing to serve Uther rather than Arthur.
Actually, I don't think minds are permanently set on the question of Trump's competence.

Seems to me that minds of quite a few people have been changed about Trump as they've watched his performance on various fronts, and as we've heard more and more from those who worked with and near him in his Administration. And as we hear from more and more military and national security folks who have not been political creatures previously.

so, I think more and more serious people who felt aligned with Trump in some respects will increasingly be willing to admit that he's quite incompetent, and worse, corrupt. And dangerously so.

McMaster is trying very hard to focus on the issues he cares about beyond Trump and their specific conflicts. He wants to persuade those who have aligned with Trump as well as those who have not.

That's fine, as long as Trump loses as there are no more McMaster's left who will serve in a Trump Administration.
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17508
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

There will always be more McMasters. Not every service member or vet aspires to become a MSNBC talking head.
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17508
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

Likely preview of our future Navy :
-- more ships, smaller ships with smaller crews, some unmanned.
-- more dispersed, larger total vertical launch missile capacity
-- 9 big nuc carriers + 9 smaller conventionally powered, F-35B capable, amphib "lightning" carries (essentially our current inventory)
-- more Pacific/China centric

Modly & Esper leave a positive legacy, regardless of the nature of their turbulent tenures & departure(s).
...will it survive the fighter pliot mafia & the Congressional Marine Corps lobby ?

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/ ... ts-reveal/
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 25748
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

old salt wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 4:17 pm There will always be more McMasters. Not every service member or vet aspires to become a MSNBC talking head.
Thankfully there will indeed be more "McMasters" and "Mattis" or "Coats" or Kelly" but no more willing to serve as NSA or SecDef or DNI or CoS for Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/24/politics ... index.html
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17508
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

MDlaxfan76 wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 12:51 pm
old salt wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 4:17 pm There will always be more McMasters. Not every service member or vet aspires to become a MSNBC talking head.
Thankfully there will indeed be more "McMasters" and "Mattis" or "Coats" or Kelly" but no more willing to serve as NSA or SecDef or DNI or CoS for Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/24/politics ... index.html
Esper, O'brien, Grenell, Ratcliffe, Wolf & Meadows have been much more effective in implementing their predecessors' strategy than the predecessors themselves were. ...& they don't leak or cry on the shoulder of MSM suckups. You just resent their success.
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 25748
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

old salt wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 5:45 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 12:51 pm
old salt wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 4:17 pm There will always be more McMasters. Not every service member or vet aspires to become a MSNBC talking head.
Thankfully there will indeed be more "McMasters" and "Mattis" or "Coats" or Kelly" but no more willing to serve as NSA or SecDef or DNI or CoS for Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/24/politics ... index.html
Esper, O'brien, Grenell, Ratcliffe, Wolf & Meadows have been much more effective in implementing their predecessors' strategy than the predecessors themselves were. ...& they don't leak or cry on the shoulder of MSM suckups. You just resent their success.
yeah, toadies are better...
(Esper may be better than a toady)
Post Reply

Return to “POLITICS”