"The Deep State" aka the American Intelligence Community

[youthathletics]

or maybe -

Amanpour presses Mattis: Why didn't you resign when Trump said this?

That just validates what I posted.
The interviewer premised her question that he resigned over Syria.
Mattis did not dispute that.
No mention of Russia.

Points, but not my point. His came and stayed because of his "sense of duty" to the constitution, the "institution", his troops and the elected CiC asked. He didn't say at all why he didn't resign for the myriad of things he that would be justified - he did imply that the he could no longer do those things due to the current political corrosiveness.

James Mattis’s Blistering Criticism of Obama

Mattis was informed he would be relieved of command in December 2012. He writes:

I was leaving a region aflame and in disarray. The lack of an integrated regional strategy had left us adrift, and our friends confused. We were offering no leadership or direction. I left my post deeply disturbed that we had shaken our friends’ confidence and created vacuums that our adversaries would exploit.

The following year, Barack Obama failed to enforce his “red line” against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilians. “This was a shot not heard around the world,” Mattis writes. He continues:

Old friends in NATO and in the Pacific registered dismay and incredulity that America’s reputation had been seriously weakened as a credible security partner. Within thirty-six hours, I received a phone call from a friendly Pacific-nation diplomat. “Well, Jim,” he said, “I guess we’re on our own with China.”

[dislaxxic]

WHAT A PROPERLY SCOPED FISA ABUSE INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT WOULD LOOK LIKE

"The point being, the eventual report on “FISA abuse” will not be about FISA abuse. It will, once again, be about the President’s grievances. It will, at least according to public reporting, not treat far more significant problems, including cases where the injury against the targets was far greater than it was for Carter Page."

..

[MDlaxfan76]

I saw that too. I think Mattis makes a convincing case that it's possible to serve Trump, defend Trump, & sometimes give Trump the benefit of the doubt, while continuing to serve the country, without agreeing with everything Trump says or does.

That's a pretty strained spin on Mattis' comments. Mattis hasn't once defended Trump, and basically says that he agreed with almost nothing that Trump said or did. He does say he was trying to do his non-partisan job for the country as best he could under the circumstances.

When he interviewed for SecDef with Trump, Mattis says he disagreed with Trump on the three primary issues they discussed. And so was very surprised when he got Trump's nomination. Mattis said he could not have "spoken more loudly" against Trump's administration than what he put in his resignation letter and then quit an unfinished job. As with Robert Mueller, Mattis is asking people to actually read what he wrote -- it's all there in plain view.

While Mattis won't frag Trump (at least for now) he is taking pains to point out that his book reproduces his resignation letter in full. And his leadership book seemingly takes several hundred pages to say basically this -- do the exact opposite of what Trump does.

Mattis thinks it is correct and helpful for him to hold his fire at this point regarding his opinion of Trump -- country over party/politics. But it is loud and clear how low his opinion is of Trump. As has been reported: "of limited cognitive ability, and of generally dubious character." Or as Mattis' ally Tillerson put it more pithily -- "a forking moron."

Put it all together, it is an absolutely devastating critique of Trump but delivered (like Mueller) in such a reserved manner that requires some attention to see what is really being said.

Agree. Listen carefully. In his interviews, has Mattis mentioned Russia or Putin as a threat ? ...their election interference ? ...any suggestion of anything untoward re Trump vis a vis the Russians ? He could convey a lot with just a tangential Russia/Putin reference.

Did anyone say Mattis resigned over Russian kompromat? I didn't.
Doesn't mean it wasn't a factor, but no one I've read has suggested that was the precipitating factor for his quite obvious disgust. Could it be part of a whole array of reasons for him to no longer believe he could serve his country effectively? Maybe. But it's not what anyone on here has argued in specific.

But your statement 'serve Trump' is particularly appalling. If so, I'd have zero respect for him.

Serve his country, serve the Constitution, serve his subordinates...yes.
Serve the man at the top, nope. The office, yes, but not the man.

Going in he knew he disagreed with Trump on 3 major areas, so was surprised to be nominated. My read of that and his comments now is that he rose to the challenge under the impression that the fact that he'd be asked to serve, despite having bluntly disagreed with Trump, provided some hope that his future counsel would indeed be listened to. That he wouldn't be expected to hold back in his counsel. He bristled at the notion that he would have in any way not expected to continue to provide blunt counsel and would instead work quietly to subvert Trump's intentions or simply be the 'adult in the room'.

But this then implies that at some later point shortly before resigning he'd finally lost confidence that his counsel would be followed, and that instead his actions in following Trump's commands would violatee core principles, overriding simply tactical or policy differences, much less the partisan nature of politics.

Core principles.

It's going to be an interesting read.

[MDlaxfan76]

or maybe -

Amanpour presses Mattis: Why didn't you resign when Trump said this?

That just validates what I posted.
The interviewer premised her question that he resigned over Syria.
Mattis did not dispute that.
No mention of Russia.

Points, but not my point. His came and stayed because of his "sense of duty" to the constitution, the "institution", his troops and the elected CiC asked. He didn't say at all why he didn't resign for the myriad of things he that would be justified - he did imply that the he could no longer do those things due to the current political corrosiveness.

James Mattis’s Blistering Criticism of Obama

Mattis was informed he would be relieved of command in December 2012. He writes:

I was leaving a region aflame and in disarray. The lack of an integrated regional strategy had left us adrift, and our friends confused. We were offering no leadership or direction. I left my post deeply disturbed that we had shaken our friends’ confidence and created vacuums that our adversaries would exploit.

The following year, Barack Obama failed to enforce his “red line” against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilians. “This was a shot not heard around the world,” Mattis writes. He continues:

Old friends in NATO and in the Pacific registered dismay and incredulity that America’s reputation had been seriously weakened as a credible security partner. Within thirty-six hours, I received a phone call from a friendly Pacific-nation diplomat. “Well, Jim,” he said, “I guess we’re on our own with China.”

IMO, a fair critique of those policies. 7 years ago. We'll eventually learn in more detail how Mattis views the now sitting President and his policies. For now we have his resignation letter and the portrait of leadership principles he paints in the book, standing so starkly in contrast with Trump himself.

But read the resignation letter. It's short.
You'll see some common themes from the critique of the former CinC no longer in office.
BTW, Salty, he doesn't cite Russian election interference and kompromat per se, but "malign actors and strategic competitors" follows his description of China and Russia and "their authoritarian model"...

And he makes darn clear who he's been proud to serve.

Dear Mr. President:
I have been privileged to serve as our country's 26th Secretary of Defense which has allowed me to serve alongside our men and women of the Department in defense of our citizens and our ideals.

I am proud of the progress that has been made over the past two years on some of the key goals articulated in our National Defense Strategy: putting the Department on a more sound budgetary footing, improving readiness and lethality in our forces, and reforming the Department's business practices for greater performance. Our troops continue to provide the capabilities needed to prevail in conflict and sustain strong U.S. global influence.

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. We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances.

Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position. The end date for my tenure is February 28, 2019, a date that should allow sufficient time for a successor to be nominated and confirmed as well as to make sure the Department's interests are properly articulated and protected at upcoming events to include Congressional posture hearings and the NATO Defense Ministerial meeting in February. Further, that a full transition to a new Secretary of Defense occurs well in advance of the transition of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September in order to ensure stability Within the Department.

I pledge my full effort to a smooth transition that ensures the needs and interests of the 2.15 million Service Members and 732,079 DoD civilians receive undistracted attention of the Department at all times so that they can fulfill their critical, round-the-clock mission to protect the American people.

I very much appreciate this opportunity to serve the nation and our men and women in uniform.
- James Mattis

[ggait]

Mattis and Mueller are both cut from the same cloth. Neither is going to run their mouth out of school. But they could not be clearer in their writings (if only people would actually read them).

Mueller: "My report is my testimony."

Mattis: ""I don't know how I could have spoken more loudly to where I stand [than] when I put in my letter of resignation."

[old salt]

I'm citing what Mattis is saying, not as a general defense or endorsement of Trump.
Rather, to gauge his assessment of whether or not Trump is compromised, with regard to Russia,
or to gauge if he markedly departs from Trump's (& Flynn's) goal of establishing a pragmatic modus vivendi with Russia.

Mattis did a masterful job of orchestrating our (& NATO's) military deployments to counter Russia's military adventurism,
but I'm sure he would like to be able to deploy those assets elsewhere & renew arms control measusres, both nuclear & conventional.

Based on the content of his interviews, I sense that Mattis considers "the maniacs" who attacked us on 9-11, Iran, N Korea & China, all more proximate threats than Russia.

[old salt]

WHAT A PROPERLY SCOPED FISA ABUSE INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT WOULD LOOK LIKE

"The point being, the eventual report on “FISA abuse” will not be about FISA abuse. It will, once again, be about the President’s grievances. It will, at least according to public reporting, not treat far more significant problems, including cases where the injury against the targets was far greater than it was for Carter Page."

Desperate flailing by PMM. Carter Page's life has been ruined. He incurred million$ in legal bills, did nothing wrong & was a FBI informant.
Meanwhile, the 2 "victims" PMM cites are serving time for child porn & a car bomb. ..

[old salt]

Preview of coming attractions -- investigation by State Dept (not DoJ) IG into potential Hatch Act violation by State Dept official meeting with Christopher Steele in Oct 2016, facilitated by former HRC aide.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/10/jona ... -business/

Winer has previously acknowledged his role in passing information from Steele to his State Department colleagues.

But the newly released emails suggest he played another role — that of facilitator for Steele’s business interests.

Winer was Steele’s main point of contact to the State Department, and the official who disseminated the dossier to others at Foggy Bottom. Winer, whose official title was special envoy to Libya, also set up a meeting on Oct. 11, 2016 for Steele with Kathleen Kavalec, the deputy secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.

[MDlaxfan76]

I'm citing what Mattis is saying, not as a general defense or endorsement of Trump.
Rather, to gauge his assessment of whether or not Trump is compromised, with regard to Russia,
or to gauge if he markedly departs from Trump's (& Flynn's) goal of establishing a pragmatic modus vivendi with Russia.

Mattis did a masterful job of orchestrating our (& NATO's) military deployments to counter Russia's military adventurism,
but I'm sure he would like to be able to deploy those assets elsewhere & renew arms control measusres, both nuclear & conventional.

Based on the content of his interviews, I sense that Mattis considers "the maniacs" who attacked us on 9-11, Iran, N Korea & China, all more proximate threats than Russia.

All very interesting...but not on point.

Mattis was scathing in his resignation letter.
Way, way unlike most resignation letters.

If you don't want to acknowledge that, ok.

[old salt]

I'm citing what Mattis is saying, not as a general defense or endorsement of Trump.
Rather, to gauge his assessment of whether or not Trump is compromised, with regard to Russia,
or to gauge if he markedly departs from Trump's (& Flynn's) goal of establishing a pragmatic modus vivendi with Russia.

Mattis did a masterful job of orchestrating our (& NATO's) military deployments to counter Russia's military adventurism,
but I'm sure he would like to be able to deploy those assets elsewhere & renew arms control measusres, both nuclear & conventional.

Based on the content of his interviews, I sense that Mattis considers "the maniacs" who attacked us on 9-11, Iran, N Korea & China, all more proximate threats than Russia.

All very interesting...but not on point.

Mattis was scathing in his resignation letter.
Way, way unlike most resignation letters.

If you don't want to acknowledge that, ok.

That's not what we were talking about.

[MDlaxfan76]

I'm citing what Mattis is saying, not as a general defense or endorsement of Trump.
Rather, to gauge his assessment of whether or not Trump is compromised, with regard to Russia,
or to gauge if he markedly departs from Trump's (& Flynn's) goal of establishing a pragmatic modus vivendi with Russia.

Mattis did a masterful job of orchestrating our (& NATO's) military deployments to counter Russia's military adventurism,
but I'm sure he would like to be able to deploy those assets elsewhere & renew arms control measusres, both nuclear & conventional.

Based on the content of his interviews, I sense that Mattis considers "the maniacs" who attacked us on 9-11, Iran, N Korea & China, all more proximate threats than Russia.

All very interesting...but not on point.

Mattis was scathing in his resignation letter.
Way, way unlike most resignation letters.

If you don't want to acknowledge that, ok.

That's not what we were talking about.

really?...I guess you ignored my and ggait's posts.
Gee, that's who was going back and forth...guess you were having a conversation with yourself?

[old salt]

I'm citing what Mattis is saying, not as a general defense or endorsement of Trump.
Rather, to gauge his assessment of whether or not Trump is compromised, with regard to Russia,
or to gauge if he markedly departs from Trump's (& Flynn's) goal of establishing a pragmatic modus vivendi with Russia.

Mattis did a masterful job of orchestrating our (& NATO's) military deployments to counter Russia's military adventurism,
but I'm sure he would like to be able to deploy those assets elsewhere & renew arms control measusres, both nuclear & conventional.

Based on the content of his interviews, I sense that Mattis considers "the maniacs" who attacked us on 9-11, Iran, N Korea & China, all more proximate threats than Russia.

All very interesting...but not on point.

Mattis was scathing in his resignation letter.
Way, way unlike most resignation letters.

If you don't want to acknowledge that, ok.

That's not what we were talking about.

really?...I guess you ignored my and ggait's posts.
Gee, that's who was going back and forth...guess you were having a conversation with yourself?

Really ...I guess you ignored my post.
I reiterate -- I doubt that Mattis would have worked for Trump for 2 years if he had any suspicion that Trump was compromised by the Russians,
& that we would not give some indication if that now, if he had any doubts.
afan & I were having a discussion about Russiagate & you chose to but in & insert Mattis into the discussion.
I pointed out that Mattis made no mention of Rissiagate in the intereview you cited nor in other interviews I've seen.

I'm citing what Mattis is saying, not as a general defense or endorsement of Trump.
Rather, to gauge his assessment of whether or not Trump is compromised, with regard to Russia,
or to gauge if he markedly departs from Trump's (& Flynn's) goal of establishing a pragmatic modus vivendi with Russia.

Mattis did a masterful job of orchestrating our (& NATO's) military deployments to counter Russia's military adventurism,
but I'm sure he would like to be able to deploy those assets elsewhere & renew arms control measusres, both nuclear & conventional.

Based on the content of his interviews, I sense that Mattis considers "the maniacs" who attacked us on 9-11, Iran, N Korea & China, all more proximate threats than Russia.

[MDlaxfan76]

Actually, Salty, I brought up Mattis...

And both a fan and I made the point that he was very tough in his resignation letter. As did ggait. Maybe you don't want to admit that's the case, as all you seem to want to do is somehow provide shade to Trump...

I agree that Mattis would have had to have been really struggling to continue with Trump for as long as he did (sure appears that was the case)...and that had he felt that there was incontrovertible evidence that Trump was directly in cahoots with Putin (as opposed to simply being a forking moron, a "useful idiot" in the parlance) he'd have likely resigned sooner...and that he'd be duty bound to step up and say so.

But that doesn't mean that Trump isn't a useful idiot and compromised.

Yeah, keep flogging that Russia-gate dead horse. It's a real winner.
It has been so discredited, the desperate (D)'s are switching to bimbo payoffs. ..
How's Avenatti's Presidential campaign going ?

I wish it never happened.
But then again, I wish a lot of things were different.

But no, it's not been "discredited" beyond the 40% of Americans who are hard line Trumpists.
As you've described it, "Mueller didn't deliver the 'kill shot' ". True.
But Trump's lying and corruption were exposed, and will continue to be exposed again and again and again.
A fan is correct that, as a political matter, it will be effective. And should be effective IMO.
We can blame the Dems and the MSM, but I really don't find anyone to 'blame' other than the corrupt, dishonest man himself.

Just watched Jim Mattis on Morning Joe. Long segment.
The contrast between a leader like Mattis and the jerk in the White House could not be more stark.

I respect Mattis' choice to honor the tradition of Generals not criticizing their Commander in Chief, and would hope I'd take the same position were I in his shoes, but this should not apply to those engaged in the political fray, including voters discussing issues and leadership of the country. That said, his quoting of Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural, "With Malice Toward None, With Charity For All" as inscribed at the Lincoln Memorial was a moving appeal for finding common purpose collectively as Americans was a poignant reminder of how we should treat one another.

But this requires leadership, beginning with the White House, to appeal to our common purpose, with respect for those who disagree on issues. And it needs to be met with leadership at every level of society who call for these principles, and live them in their own lives and leadership style.

Mattis makes the point that the 'problem' didn't begin with this President. That's correct. But I think we do need a President who will reorient the country's tone to one of respect for one another. One for whom integrity and honesty are core principles. One who can empathize with those who are in pain and need. He/she needn't be 'perfect'. No one is. But they need to exemplify these core principles.

Where I would agree with you, Salty, in some of your posts, has been your challenge that we need to better understand those who have different views, not demonize or dismiss them. I'm not sure I can really do so with the most virulent racists, etc, in this moment, but it's indeed an interesting aspiration. Likewise, those who dismiss the left as "socialists" or yell about "antics" or "black on black violence" or... whatever any label or accusation might want to re-think their dismissal and disrespect.

[old salt]

.. Yes, you inserted Mattis in this thread, in the midst of our discussion about Russiagate, then when asked about it, you continue dodging my question.

Do you think Mattis would work for a CinC he thought was compromised by the Russians & not say anything about it now ?

Which is it ? For over 2 years, was Mattis a corrupt bootlicker who just wanted to have access to power, or a useful idiot for Trimp's Rissian puppet masters ? Was he getting a kick back on military contract fuel sales too ?

...or are you privy to intel on Trump that he's not ?

[Typical Lax Dad]

.. Yes, you inserted Mattis in this thread, in the midst of our discussion about Russiagate, then when asked about it, you continue dodging my question.

Do you think Mattis would work for a CinC he thought was compromised by the Russians & not say anything about it now ?

Which is it ? For over 2 years, was Mattis a corrupt bootlicker who just wanted to have access to power, or a useful idiot for Trimp's Rissian puppet masters ? Was he getting a kick back on military contract fuel sales too ?

...or are you privy to intel on Trump that he's not ?

Useful idiots are not necessarily compromised. Based on the findings in the Mueller report. Trump and his campaign team were more than the classic definition of “useful idiots”.

[MDlaxfan76]

.. Yes, you inserted Mattis in this thread, in the midst of our discussion about Russiagate, then when asked about it, you continue dodging my question.

Do you think Mattis would work for a CinC he thought was compromised by the Russians & not say anything about it now ?

Which is it ? For over 2 years, was Mattis a corrupt bootlicker who just wanted to have access to power, or a useful idiot for Trimp's Rissian puppet masters ? Was he getting a kick back on military contract fuel sales too ?

...or are you privy to intel on Trump that he's not ?

What part of the word 'agree' do you not understand?

Yes, I don't think Mattis thought Trump was in cahoots with Russia, at least not at the level where he was sure.

Which certainly does not make Mattis a 'useful idiot' for the Russians as it would appear that he was a bulwark, in his role, against various Russian interests.

There was clearly enormous friction between Trump and Mattis. Mattis disagreed, fundamentally, in Trump's approach to the world. He thinks of it as more than Russia, but rather a worldview difference.

But I would indeed be fascinated to know what Mattis actually thought and now thinks about Trump's footsie with Putin. Someday we may know.

[MDlaxfan76]

.. Yes, you inserted Mattis in this thread, in the midst of our discussion about Russiagate, then when asked about it, you continue dodging my question.

Do you think Mattis would work for a CinC he thought was compromised by the Russians & not say anything about it now ?

Which is it ? For over 2 years, was Mattis a corrupt bootlicker who just wanted to have access to power, or a useful idiot for Trimp's Rissian puppet masters ? Was he getting a kick back on military contract fuel sales too ?

...or are you privy to intel on Trump that he's not ?

Useful idiots are not necessarily compromised. Based on the findings in the Mueller report. Trump and his campaign team were more than the classic definition of “useful idiots”.

Yes, but kompromat does not require the "useful idiot" to actually be in a conspiracy with the other party or outright blackmail. The compromised party can simply be influenced by greed or fear or both to think differently and/or take actions to support or not damage the interests of the other party.

Trump was, at minimum, vulnerable to kompromat because the Russians knew that he was lying about various matters to the American people for political gain. Both during the campaign and then as President.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Absolutely. A Useful Idiot at the very least. He and his team were beyond that, according to the facts in the report.

[a fan]

Do you think Mattis would work for a CinC he thought was compromised by the Russians & not say anything about it now ??

Yes. Specifically yes. He's a patriot. But he also understands how the residents of Trumpland think.

And what is he going to tell the public, that voters.....ok, some of us...... don't already know?

That Trump is an idiot, with a shockingly limited understanding of things like how America borrows money works?

Or that he has compromised moral and ethical values as well as financial conflicts out the wazoo?

Or that he has people like Kushner who are laughably unqualified doing work in the most complicated and dangerous part of the world? Kush is America's F ing lead diplomat in Saudi Arabia, FFS. You want that guy in charge of how America handles that drone attack?

Mattis knows what the rest of us who reside out of Trumpland knows: It's pointless talking to those of you who reside in Trumpland. Total waste of time. "I like his policies" washes away all sins in Trumpland. Mattis wouldn't be heard by anyone with a little R by their name.

And Mattis is smart enough to understand that. Nothing he or anyone outside of the Republican Congress can do about Trump.

[old salt]

.. Yes, you inserted Mattis in this thread, in the midst of our discussion about Russiagate, then when asked about it, you continue dodging my question.

Do you think Mattis would work for a CinC he thought was compromised by the Russians & not say anything about it now ?

Which is it ? For over 2 years, was Mattis a corrupt bootlicker who just wanted to have access to power, or a useful idiot for Trimp's Rissian puppet masters ? Was he getting a kick back on military contract fuel sales too ?

...or are you privy to intel on Trump that he's not ?

What part of the word 'agree' do you not understand?

Yes, I don't think Mattis thought Trump was in cahoots with Russia, at least not at the level where he was sure.

Which certainly does not make Mattis a 'useful idiot' for the Russians as it would appear that he was a bulwark, in his role, against various Russian interests.

There was clearly enormous friction between Trump and Mattis. Mattis disagreed, fundamentally, in Trump's approach to the world. He thinks of it as more than Russia, but rather a worldview difference.

But I would indeed be fascinated to know what Mattis actually thought and now thinks about Trump's footsie with Putin. Someday we may know.

OK. Got it -- you don't regard Mattis as a bootlicker or useful idiot.
You're just a better judge of character than he is & you have more knowledge about the situation & have a closer proximity to Trump from which to judge him. Seems reasonable to me. ...but I wouldn't hold your breath awaiting an epilogue from Mattis after Trump leaves office.