U.S. Politics: Moscow on the Potomac

[Free Northman Reborn]

10 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

If allies such as Israel start withholding valuable intelligence from us because they're afraid President Trump will expose their sources, Americans will die as a result.  That deserves some forceful criticism, don't you think?  Or perhaps I'm just overreacting and coming across as silly. 

This is a decision by the President, no different to any other. What were the consequences of Obama's decision not to enforce the "Red line?"

What were the consquences of Obama's decision to depose Ghaddafi? How many allies in Europe have suffered terrorist attacks or massive refugee problems as an indirect consequence of the destabilization of Libya?

How many US lives were lost as a consequence of George Bush's decision to invade iraq?

I'm sure there are hundreds, no thousands, of similar decisions with grave consquences for Americans and allies alike. Yet these are decisions within a President's authority to make nevertheless.

How is the decision to share a small piece of information with Sergei Lavrov of any more significance than that? Or even in the same league, to be frank?

So a storm in a teacup indeed if viewed in isolation. Of course, it is NOT viewed in isolation, but instead viewed through the lens of hysteria, (Russian tapes!), paranoia, (Putin's Kompromat!), and irrational hatred, (Trump is the liberal's version of the Antichrist!), that informs every assessment of any decision or action he takes these days.

 

 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

This is a decision by the President, no different to any other. What were the consequences of Obama's decision not to enforce the "Red line?"

They were bad, and likely impeachable if congress hadn't voted to also do nothing. (it's hard for them to say that he was violating his duty when they themselves voted to not authorize force). 

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

What were the consquences of Obama's decision to depose Ghaddafi? How many allies in Europe have suffered terrorist attacks or massive refugee problems as an indirect consequence of the destabilization of Libya?

They were bad, and people were calling for his impeachment. 

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

How many US lives were lost as a consequence of George Bushs's decision to invade iraq?

Quite a few, though it's not just about the actual results. That's certainly part of it.

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

I'm sure there are hundreds, no thousands, of similar decisions with grave consquences for Americans and allies alike. Yet these are decisions within a President's authority to make, nevertheless.

No one is saying that it isn't within the POTUS authority to do it. That's a strawman of your making. As I said, POTUS has the authority to release every single CIA operative's name and location right this instant if he so chooses. No one denies this is his authority. 

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

How is the decision to share a small piece of information with Sergei Lavrov of any more significance than that? Or even in the same league, to be frank?

If it results in a terrorist attack against the US not being stopped, it's kind of a big deal. 

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

So a storm in a teacup indeed if viewed in isolation. Of course, it is NOT viewed in isolation, but instead viewed through the lens of hysteria, (Russian tapes!), paranoia, 9Putin's Kompromat!), and irrational hatred, (Trump is the liberal's version of the Antichrist!), that informs every assessment of any decision or action he takes these days.

Israel is reportedly pissed, some European states are considering cancelling their intel agreements with the US, and it was done...for no discernible gain and was lied about. Oh, and the actual source of the intel is either likely dead or in hiding, and that intel source is gone. 

To be really clear here: every single president that has had articles of impeachment written up on them had at least one charge that had nothing to do with legality, and was specifically written that they had violated their oath of office. Every single one. Some ALSO had legal charges, but that is immaterial. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

This is a decision by the President, no different to any other. What were the consequences of Obama's decision not to enforce the "Red line?"

What were the consquences of Obama's decision to depose Ghaddafi? How many allies in Europe have suffered terrorist attacks or massive refugee problems as an indirect consequence of the destabilization of Libya?

How many US lives were lost as a consequence of George Bush's decision to invade iraq?

I'm sure there are hundreds, no thousands, of similar decisions with grave consquences for Americans and allies alike. Yet these are decisions within a President's authority to make nevertheless.

How is the decision to share a small piece of information with Sergei Lavrov of any more significance than that? Or even in the same league, to be frank?

So a storm in a teacup indeed if viewed in isolation. Of course, it is NOT viewed in isolation, but instead viewed through the lens of hysteria, (Russian tapes!), paranoia, (Putin's Kompromat!), and irrational hatred, (Trump is the liberal's version of the Antichrist!), that informs every assessment of any decision or action he takes these days.

http://i.imgur.com/c4jt321.png

 

/Obligatory

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

This is a decision by the President, no different to any other. What were the consequences of Obama's decision not to enforce the "Red line?"

What were the consquences of Obama's decision to depose Ghaddafi? How many allies in Europe have suffered terrorist attacks or massive refugee problems as an indirect consequence of the destabilization of Libya?

How many US lives were lost as a consequence of George Bush's decision to invade iraq?

I'm sure there are hundreds, no thousands, of similar decisions with grave consquences for Americans and allies alike. Yet these are decisions within a President's authority to make nevertheless.

How is the decision to share a small piece of information with Sergei Lavrov of any more significance than that? Or even in the same league, to be frank?

So a storm in a teacup indeed if viewed in isolation. Of course, it is NOT viewed in isolation, but instead viewed through the lens of hysteria, (Russian tapes!), paranoia, (Putin's Kompromat!), and irrational hatred, (Trump is the liberal's version of the Antichrist!), that informs every assessment of any decision or action he takes these days.

The sharing of this piece of information is not a small matter.  Potentially endangering our intelligence sharing relationship with allies is a big deal, I'm sorry if you don't see that. 

Surely you can agree that "Trump has the right to do it" isn't much of a justification?  Trump has the right to bomb Toronto so he has something interesting to watch on the news.  The details of this particular case matter, and they all look really bad. 

[mormont]

 

58 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Trump need not even defend it. He should just say, I did it because I decided to do it. End of story.

This is literally what he did do.

[Free Northman Reborn]

10 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The sharing of this piece of information is not a small matter.  Potentially endangering our intelligence sharing relationship with allies is a big deal, I'm sorry if you don't see that. 

Surely you can agree that "Trump has the right to do it" isn't much of a justification?  Trump has the right to bomb Toronto so he has something interesting to watch on the news.  The details of this particular case matter, and they all look really bad. 

To be clear, I'm not even saying what Trump did was correct, or justified. Maybe I got onto this late, as I only read about it a little while ago, when it was already all over the news. My first thought was, holy crap, what has Trump done NOW, and did he break some major security law in doing so?

Then I got up to date with the story, and realized it was just his judgment being criticized again, and nothing he actually did that was illegal. Much like the criticism when he announced the seperation from his decision making role in his companies, and the criticism was essentially that while he was doing nothing illegal, people just felt what he was doing was wrong.

He may well have no proper justification for sharing this bit of info with Sergei. But I would like to think that Bush, when he stared into Putin's eyes and "saw into his soul" would have been equally entitled to lean forward and share a little bit of intel with him to build camraderie, without needing the Joint Chiefs of Staff to approve his decision.

He is the Commander in Chief, after all.

[Kalbear]

You think it's acceptable for him to break the trust of an ally to gain camaraderie with another nation? A nation that the United States is having a massive cyberwar currently with? 

Because again, these were not his secrets to give. 

Quote

My first thought was, holy crap, what has Trump done NOW, and did he break some major security law in doing so?

Colluding with an adversary is potentially a crime, yes

[Zorral]

The reporting now (All Things Considered, at the top of the second hour) includes that what he told the Russians was so sensitive that someone who witnessed it felt the need to heads up the NSA so they could take steps.  Which presumably is how it got leaked to the WaPo?

This is so bad.  They have to take him out.

Also, you who think this is no thing, how much do you enjoy having everyone in the world, starting with Putin and his cronies, falling all over themselves laughing at our nation? 

Being laughed at is nothing, of course, when compared to being an easy open target for ISIS terrorist acts. But maybe you who think this is no thing think you live somewhere where you are immune to terrorism and any concentric effects of such acts.

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The reporting now (All Things Considered, at the top of the second hour) includes that what he told the Russians was so sensitive that someone who witnessed it felt the need to heads up the NSA so they could take steps.  Which presumably is how it got leaked to the WaPo?

This is so bad.  They have to take him out.

Also, you who think this is no thing, how much do you enjoy having everyone in the world, starting with Putin and his cronies, falling all over themselves laughing at our nation? 

Being laughed at is nothing, of course, when compared to being an easy open target for ISIS terrorist acts. But maybe you who think this is no thing think you live somewhere where you are immune to terrorism and any concentric effects of such acts.

 

Because the US is safest against terrorism when working TOGETHER with Russia to combat it, rather than against them. The anti-Russia camp is mostly against Russia not to limit US exposure to terrorist threats, but because of a variety of ideological differences they have with Russia. If safety from terrorism was the top priority, then a  US-Russia alliance against terrorism would make both countries safer, rather than more vulnerable.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Because the US is safest against terrorism when working TOGETHER with Russia to combat it, rather than against them. The anti-Russia camp is mostly against Russia not to limit US exposure to terrorist threats, but because of a variety of ideological differences they have with Russia. If safety from terrorism was the top priority, then a  US-Russia alliance against terrorism would make both countries safer, rather than more vulnerable.

Yup. Let's all turn back the clock, peeple. It's the only way we'll be safe.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Because the US is safest against terrorism when working TOGETHER with Russia to combat it, rather than against them. The anti-Russia camp is mostly against Russia not to limit US exposure to terrorist threats, but because of a variety of ideological differences they have with Russia.

Yeah, it's kind of annoying how Russia keeps killing gay people, encourages their allies to use chemical weapons and openly performed cyberwar on the US for like 3 years. 

Oh right, Russia also armed Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan for the purpose of killing US troops last year. 

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

If safety from terrorism was the top priority, then a  US-Russia alliance against terrorism would make both countries safer, rather than more vulnerable.

Depends a lot on what we lost in the process. 

[Zorral]

4 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Because the US is safest against terrorism when working TOGETHER with Russia to combat it, rather than against them. The anti-Russia camp is mostly against Russia not to limit US exposure to terrorist threats, but because of a variety of ideological differences they have with Russia. If safety from terrorism was the top priority, then a  US-Russia alliance against terrorism would make both countries safer, rather than more vulnerable.

 

If you think Russia has any friendly thoughts for this nation in the middle east or here in North America, they are laughing at you too.

This is beyond shameful.  If he were Japanese he'd have to commit suicide it is so shamefully dishonorable, what he's done.  And he can't stop himself because he is a baby without any control of any kind.  He is UNFIT in EVERY way to hold any office of any kind, much less that as as president.  Those who defend his actions are equally guilty.

 

[Rippounet]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You think it's acceptable for him to break the trust of an ally to gain camaraderie with another nation?

Why not? Technically the US president is entitled to do so, and it has no doubt happened on a regular basis throughout history anyway (I could probably find a few examples in the Reagan administration alone).
I think the problem here is that this appears to be terrible judgment because Trump is already being accused of collusion with the Russians so he appears completely oblivious of the consequences of cosying up to Putin & co..
Also, as @Altherion said, such information should not be public. US presidents make mistakes all the time ; hiding at least some of those mistakes helps preserve the US's "soft power." That someone decided to leak this piece of information should be as worrying as the information itself.
I despise Trump, but at times it does appear like some very important people are after his head.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Rippounet said:

Why not? Technically the US president is entitled to do so, and it has no doubt happened on a regular basis throughout history anyway (I could probably find a few examples in the Reagan administration alone).

For starters, it ruins one of the more important values that the US has - that our word is bond. Burning an ally to cozy up with a country that is still performing ongoing attacks against the US infrastructure and is still arming enemies of the US is not a great thing, but really - burning an ally for any reason indicates that countries should not bother allying with us unless there is immediate benefit. 

Just now, Rippounet said:

I think the problem here is that this appears to be terrible judgment because Trump is already being accused of collusion with the Russians so he appears completely oblivious of the consequences of cosying up to Putin & co..

I kind of have a problem burning intel sources, especially those that are embedded in ISIS. Those are pretty hard to get. That we're potentially doing so in order to brag and make friends with an openly hostile country is bad - but let's not bury the lede here. If we did this with China or Pakistan or India, it'd be bad too. It makes it WORSE because Russia is likely interested in burning Israeli assets in order to help their other ally, Iran.

Just now, Rippounet said:

Also, as @Altherion said, such information should not be public. US presidents make mistakes all the time ; hiding at least some of those mistakes helps preserve the US's "soft power." That someone decided to leak this piece of information should be as worrying as the information itself.

That's a reasonable thing, though I think the issue here is that Trump was not willing to admit he made a mistake nor was he willing to understand the ramifications of his actions. If it wasn't made public, all he would have done is destroyed an intel source that provided good intel on supposedly the US's biggest enemy, and gained nothing in return - and believed he had done absolutely nothing wrong. 

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 minutes ago, Zorral said:

If you think Russia has any friendly thoughts for this nation in the middle east or here in North America, they are laughing at you too.

This is beyond shameful.  If he were Japanese he'd have to commit suicide it is so shamefully dishonorable, what he's done.  And he can't stop himself because he is a baby without any control of any kind.  He is UNFIT in EVERY way to hold any office of any kind, much less that as as president.  Those who defend his actions are equally guilty.

 

Russia is not intent on destroying America. They are intent on reducing American intervention in their sphere of influence. A mutual respect between these two countries is in principle easily achievable. But as I said, ideology - mostly on the part of some sectors of American society - seems to make that impossible.

Just note the immense difficulty Trump has experienced in attempting to warm relations with Russia. I'm convinced that is a fundamental reason for the massive behind the scenes campaign to undermine him. There are a lot of interests that don't want warmer relations with Russia. And are applying  tremendous pressure to tie Trump's hands in any attempts to do so.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Russia is not intent on destroying America.

They seem to be rather intent on fucking about with Western Democratic Elections though, no? They want friendship? Stop fucking with our democratic processes. Until then, fuck off Ivan.

[Rippounet]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

For starters, it ruins one of the more important values that the US has - that our word is bond. Burning an ally to cozy up with a country that is still performing ongoing attacks against the US infrastructure and is still arming enemies of the US is not a great thing, but really - burning an ally for any reason indicates that countries should not bother allying with us unless there is immediate benefit.

Well it shouldn't be done without good reason, it definitely shouldn't be done often, and if it is done, it should remain a secret for as long as possible. So yeah, it no doubt shows just how bad Trump's judgment is.
I'm sure Israel can take one for the team though, it's not like they've always been honest and fair with the US as far as intelligence goes... Not to mention the fact that Israel no doubt selects the intel it gives the US very carefully in the first place.
In fact, of all allies to burn, Israel may be the best by far, as they need the US in the Middle-East anyway. Which, as has been said, might suggest it really wasn't actually Israel.

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That's a reasonable thing, though I think the issue here is that Trump was not willing to admit he made a mistake nor was he willing to understand the ramifications of his actions. If it wasn't made public, all he would have done is destroyed an intel source that provided good intel on supposedly the US's biggest enemy, and gained nothing in return - and believed he had done absolutely nothing wrong.

Yeah, the leak no doubt happened because Trump wouldn't admit that giving such intel to the Russians was crazy.
The problem is, constantly reminding the world just how terrible a president Trump is won't help the US on the international stage.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

They seem to be rather intent on fucking about with Western Democratic Elections though, no? They want friendship? Stop fucking with our democratic processes. Until then, fuck off Ivan.

They want governments that are friendlier towards Russia to get into power. Is that really so surprising? Seems like the US wanted something similar in Ukraine, not?

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

They want governments that are friendlier towards Russia to get into power. Is that really so surprising? Seems like the US wanted something similar in Ukraine, not?

So we shouldn't push back against it? Oh, they just want a friendlier government to get into power! Why didn't you say so in the first place? Who gives a flying bowl of borscht what the fuck they want? If they truly want friendship, they can stop fucking with our process.

[Free Northman Reborn]

4 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Well it shouldn't be done without good reason, it definitely shouldn't be done often, and if it is done, it should remain a secret for as long as possible. So yeah, it no doubt shows just how bad Trump's judgment is.
I'm sure Israel can take one for the team though, it's not like they've always been honest and fair with the US as far as intelligence goes... Not to mention the fact that Israel no doubt selects the intel it gives the US very carefully in the first place.
In fact, of all allies to burn, Israel may be the best by far, as they need the US in the Middle-East anyway. Which, as has been said, might suggest it really wasn't actually Israel.

Yeah, the leak no doubt happened because Trump wouldn't admit that giving such intel to the Russians was crazy.
The problem is, constantly reminding the world just how terrible a president Trump is won't help the US on the international stage.

Just on the Israel thing. For anyone to suggest that Trump is souring relations with Israel more than Obama did is laughable. Israel will do more than take one for the team to stay in Trump's good books. He is the greatest ally they have had in the White House for decades. Which makes me seriously agree with the suspicion that it possibly was not Israel, and Trump called up Netanyahu to help him cover up his error in judgment, after realizing that the source might now be endangered.