Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[crashcourse]

read book one

haven't read the rest but plan on it.

2 books left supposedly

[Kapture1]

good lord jury duty sucks, finally finished up

[Dr. Strangelove]

Jeff, you're going to have to go back and revisit John Bolton's time as Undersecretary of State from 2001 to 2005. He was not above undermining Colin Powell back then and pushing lies and I tend to doubt he's changed much.

If you seriously think John Bolton wouldn't lie, exaggerate, fear-monger, etc. in the pursuit of a war he felt was necessary, I don't know what to tell you. He did it to push for the Iraq War. He'd do it again in a heartbeat, IMO.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Flynn cooperated more broadly with Mueller than previously known (bye-bye pardon!) per freshly unsealed documents. The stuff about the voicemail isn't new but the judge in this case just ordered a transcript of it be made PUBLIC by May 31. (It's in the Mueller Report -- one of Trump's lawyers, maybe Sekulow, called Flynn's attorney to vent his displeasure that Flynn chose to cooperate).

Also, someone IN Congress or connected to Congress called up Flynn and tried to convince him not to cooperate. Would be interested in knowing who that was.

EDIT: Basically, it sounds like any time someone at the White House, in Congress, or connected to either, tried to talk Flynn out of cooperating, Flynn told Mueller about it. That also means approaching Flynn's lawyers and not him directly.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/jus...probe-n1006666

[Kapture1]

kmtgs2qt7my21.jpg

[Jeff Buchanan]

Jeff, you're going to have to go back and revisit John Bolton's time as Undersecretary of State from 2001 to 2005. He was not above undermining Colin Powell back then and pushing lies and I tend to doubt he's changed much.

If you seriously think John Bolton wouldn't lie, exaggerate, fear-monger, etc. in the pursuit of a war he felt was necessary, I don't know what to tell you. He did it to push for the Iraq War. He'd do it again in a heartbeat, IMO.

I don't doubt Bolton's gloves off style nor his capacity to try to shape national and international perceptions to his liking. But to compare current events in the limited context of alleged similarities to the outright lying that was taking place in the build-up to Bush II's Iraq invasion, is a stretch ...... good theater created by the media as I called it.

I question assertions from second-hand and/or unnamed sources that, as is suggested in the WAPO article, there is disarray within the WH in fashioning ME policy vis-a-vis Iran. I say that understanding and taking into account the 2018 National Defense Strategy. What is clear to me is that the steps being taken now by the Trump administration, to include increasing economic pressure on Iran coupled with deployment of USN, 5th Fleet assets to the Gulf to deter potential Iranian military activity directed against US forces in the ME is consistent with that Strategy.

What goes on in the WH briefings that form the basis of US actions is unknown to us and speculating about how those present in these briefings interact and behave, as the WAPO article does, is fatuous at best and potentially harmful to US interests at worst. Gladys Kravitz generally doesn't deserve our serious consideration and the WAPO article exemplifies nothing more than that kind of titillating gossip.

[froot loops]

Jeff, you're going to have to go back and revisit John Bolton's time as Undersecretary of State from 2001 to 2005. He was not above undermining Colin Powell back then and pushing lies and I tend to doubt he's changed much.

If you seriously think John Bolton wouldn't lie, exaggerate, fear-monger, etc. in the pursuit of a war he felt was necessary, I don't know what to tell you. He did it to push for the Iraq War. He'd do it again in a heartbeat, IMO.

Agreed. How a clown like Bolton is getting another crack at the apple is beyond me. Anybody involved with that ridiculous Iraq War decision should have been banned. We need Time magazine to get this clown a cover with a title like "Trump's Foreign Policy Mastermind".

[drok]

For those who are watching GOT, how many have read the books too?

Book reader here

[Jeff Buchanan]

I think this article does a good job of describing the circumstances surrounding the Trump administration's policy regarding Iran. It describes two narratives. One of them is Bolton's - or at least ascribed to him with the ultimate goal of destabilizing the Iranian regime to the extent that it collapses. The other narrative describes a group of advisers in the WH as well as the EU leadership who are fighting what they call a march toward regime change in Iran.

I'm not prepared to name Bolton as THE GUY formulating that kind of US policy towards Iran. ??Froot and DSL might think he is THE GUY and I don't discount their arguments that he is. My position is that it is far more likely that, as Trump declares, "I get input from a lot of people but I decide," than it is that Bolton is making the call.

History, as DSL points out, would suggest Bolton just may be the hard-ball player he is thought to be and overwhelms others in the room advising Trump who might hold more doveish positions than Bolton is known to hold. But we don't know that and I hold to the position that articles like the WAPO one that is rife with such speculation are both wrong headed and potentially dangerous.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48298517

There's a second link below that describes the potential costs of a shooting war with Iran. While this is a decent article, make no mistake that US military planners have an algorithmic kind of plan that starts from increasing political tensions and signaling of Iranian intentions to attack US forces in the ME and beyond, to an all-out naval confrontation in the Persian Gulf. I'm out of the loop for a long time regarding the capabilities of a carrier battle group but I can tell you that they were considerable in my time, then just scratching the surface of collating intel from multiple sources, coordinating defensive measures, surface, sub-surface and air combined arms, and are probably fairly awesome today.

That is not to say that the US would not suffer losses in an all out naval engagement involving the Iranians nor would something like that be terribly disruptive to global economics and stability but the US would prevail. The larger question: could the conflict be contained? The risk assessment has to be that there is a very high probability that it could not be. All of the US agencies that might be involved in deciding if the US is going to war with Iran know this ...... and that, IMO, is why the notion that Bolton alone is driving the boat toward regime change at the head of a US spear is pretty remote. Talking about it though does make for good theater which, I think, is exactly what's going on.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/the-many-downsides-of-war-with-iran/

[froot loops]

If Bolton thinks maximum pressure will destabilize the government so it collapses upon itself, it would be just another dumb idea in a long line of magical thinking from these clowns.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Froot....... I'm going to go back to my original post critiquing a WAPO article that DSL linked to suggesting Trump was frustrated with advisers and upset with Bolton taking a hawkish stand on Iran. It went on to describe ME FP disarray within the WH. DSL offered he'd applaud Trump if he fired Bolton:

I've offered a .pdf summary of the 2018 National Defense Posture that puts the current circumstances between Iran and the US into context. Economic pressure and preparedness for any Iranian military action - symmetric or asymmetric - is entirely within the scope of actions in that document. I seriously doubt that Bolton and Pompeo are rogue actors or that there are these kinds of disagreements between Trump, Bolton and Pompeo that are suggested in the WAPO article. Note that all of the speculation of such disagreements are entirely from second and third hand sources.

The two points I wished to make with my post was that describing the WH in disarray over US ME policy as the WAPO article did was good theater based on nothing more than speculation from second hand sources. As support for that position, I offered my view that the steps being taken by the US vis-a-vis Iran were completely consistent with the 2018 US National Defense Strategy. No inconsistency or disarray was apparent in my reading of it. As well, I posted that I thought drawing similarities between exaggerated claims of a threat during the build up to GWB's Gulf War II and the current Iranian circumstance were "a stretch." I'd call them titillating but nonetheless false equivalencies.

I also offered that criticism of the Trump administration's actions re Iran were motivated by two views: One, the general delight taken by liberals in dumping on PDJT and two, when it came to International criticism from various quarters, esp. the EU, it derives from the vested interests of these parties in sustaining the Iran Nuke Deal the Obama administration helped fashion.

So, I was more interested in debunking the WAPO depiction of the WH in disarray (a favorite them of the left) and Trump's frustration with Bolton (another favorite theme involving assertions that Trump's inner circle are constantly squabbling) than I was in defending Trump's actions in the ME or the accuracy of the intel such actions were based on.

On that subject, I know that US intelligence gathering has unparalleled capabilities on a technical level. If officials indicate they have intelligence X that supports Y conclusions, who am I to doubt that? I can be properly skeptical, and we all should be but in the absence of proof that Iran is a benign peace loving state that wants to live side by side with it's neighbors, I'll go with the US probably has it's intel right.

More importantly, the pronouncement by US officials that we have intelligence X, whether they actually have it or not, and that we are acting on it in this manner serves the purpose of advancing a national strategy known in the public domain that involves pressuring Iran economically and militarily so as to curtail the well understood threat to regional stability they represent. Some may disagree with that policy. If you're among them, what should the US policy in the ME with regard to Iran be.

I've already said, I don't give a fuck if the EU or anyone else doesn't like it. It's a policy I can get behind because four decades of trying to assuage them and cajole them into not threatening the destruction of Israel, asking nicely not to cheat in an otherwise unverifiable Nuke deal that Trump has withdrawn from, to stop supporting Hamas and any number of militias that are intended to foment instability in the region to Iran's strategic advantage and the US's along with it's regional allies disadvantage hasn't worked. Do we continue to kick the Iranian threat can down the road with more trusting, negotiating and cajoling or do we confront it like the Trump administration is doing? Getting an answer to that fundamental question trumps any of the crap stories from the media about disarray in the WH and gossip that suggests feuds between Trump, Bolton and Pompeo.

[froot loops]

A lot of people didn't like what the EU or anybody else thought about the ridiculous Iraq invasion, they turned out to be right. Guys like Pompeo and Bolton are not to be trusted one effing iota. If it is trusting them or kicking the can down the road, kicking the can down the road is infinitely more desirable. There's no ultimate solution for crap in the middle east, Pax Americana is not happening.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Fair enough. I think a case can be made for the status quo in the ME but "peace is at hand" ...... and all that.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Holy cow, Herman Wouk died. I had no idea he was still alive. Was 103. The Caine Mutiny has become a favorite on this board in the past couple years

[Dr. Strangelove]