Still around, still talking ****.

Oh. There she is.

Exactly the word I use to describe whatever comes out of her mouth.

My chips are also still on Kelly, if only for not having come up with a better choice.
I had earlier believed that Kelly would soon resign on some principle, seeing that he can't effect change for the better sustainedly.
By now, my hunch is rather that he must be battling with Trump daily over little things and remind Trump to think, and this must piss The Donald off sooner rather than later.

I think Kelly is there trying to keep the wheels on government until Trump leaves or is impeached. I doubt he's there out of any loyalty or respect for The Hair. Same goes for Mattis.

Mattis is there because he won't stage a coup.

I don't mean to be hyper-critical but this feels like a rehash of the "noble warrior" defence. The senior ex-military guys are part of the Trump Administration because they are honourable warriors who are seeking to protect the United States.

I think that these days in the US the military are respected to the point of it becoming almost fetishistic. By default they are assumed to be acting for only the best motives. At this point I think that ship has sailed and I have to assume that the generals are active participants in his right-wing agenda.

I don't think it's exclusive to the military. It's just that it's retired military types are the only ones left in senior levels of the administration motivated by a desire to protect the nation. Mattis and Kelly were the only two at the cabinet round table who managed to escape with their dignity intact. The rest of them are just trying to push private agendas.

There are probably plenty left in the departments and agencies who are doing the same thing, staying to keep the essential functions of government working.

IMO the highlighted assumes facts not in evidence, but is consistent with the popular "noble warrior" stereotype. IMO Mattis and Kelly are behaving exactly as you'd expect rabid right wingers to behave to further their agenda

White House Survivor
 

I would've expected stronger efforts to oust LGBT from military service from truly hardcore conservatives. Maybe women, too. Presumably you didn’t grow up around the same sort of rabid right-wingers I did, south of Kansas.

Anybody have William C Bradford? You win!

Mattie has knocked the legs out from the transgender ban, sending to it to slow death by commission. He overruled Trump on torture in interrogations and on NATO. Kelly cleaned out the deep stat CT nut cases from the White House.

I don't think all the military people are on the right side. They brought in some real whack jobs to the NSC and that former SEAL SECINT has Trump's balls on his chin.

This has got to be driving The PDJT even more crazier.

Read first two words of thread title.
Think.

Keith who?
Ah!
Ok, that's close to skin.

Heh, yeah.

Yep.

All that makes you is blind and ignorant. While I agree with you about some of the rhetoric about the military going over the top these days, you really have no idea what kind of men these people are and you resort to a comic book depiction.

I know a number of people who've worked for Mattis. All reports are that he's a solid player, in contrast to the people I know who worked on Wesley Clark's staff; to a man they admired his intelligence and wouldn't vote for Clark for dog catcher. (I got to meet General Clark once when he was a 3 star, but I did not work for him).

There are some other former military folks in the mix whom I know a bit.

Vice Admiral Robert Harward declined Trump NSA Director offer. I actually know that man (he was a year ahead of me at the Academy and lived two flights of stairs down from where I did). I mostly know McMaster by reputation and through a variety of professional articles he published, as well as his good book (non fiction) Dereliction of Duty. McMaster accepted the NSC appointment despite Bannon trying to stack his staff, which I understand is part of why Harward didn't accept the job. (The old salts' network has as much misinformation as good news in it).

It appears that McMaster has cleaned out some of the hacks in NSC who came along when Bannon showed up. (And it also appears that some of the neocons who had been hanging around there were also cleaned out).

We'll see how things work out over the next year or so, but I find your paranoia about career military officers both unfounded and so far wide of the mark as to be risible.

There's been a long running question regarding "should former generals be secretary's of defense?" and I think it's a good question. (Two of the best I recall were Dr William Perry and (don't laugh) Casper Weinberger. (Dick Cheney wasn't bad either, as a Sec Def for Bush 41). Some people are of the opinion that a career military man might be "too close to the problem" as compared to a political appointee from a different background.

An argument that former a general isn't needed was well answered by the superb job Bill Gates did for two presidents as Sec Def. Here's the catch: who wants to work for D Trump? Before he got elected, I made frequent observations that my problem with Trump as President is that (1) he doesn't listen well and (2) who would want to work for him? Kelly and Mattis have done hard jobs before for demanding bosses. Maybe they are among the few who can handle the chaos of Trumplandia.

As I noted above, I think the last man standing in Trump's cabinet will be Mattis. He's a very unusual man.

Quite possibly. Not knowing them personally the way you do, I can only go on their actions and it seems that they are doing everything in their power to support President Trump and keep his Presidency and agenda on track.

It's been repeatedly said that Mattis is fighting the good fight to frustrate President Trump's moves to kick transgender individuals out of the military but it's still in train. As I understand it, transgender individuals are no longer allowed to join and that the military will not cover gender reassignment procedures so that's 2/3 of President Trump's plan implemented.

Yes, the situation regarding serving personnel will be studied but this means that transgender individuals already serving will be at best subjected to months of uncertainty, and at worst will be dismissed from the service at the end of the study. I don't call that a victory for diversity and inclusiveness.

This is IMO typical. Provide a figleaf of respectability to cover The President's more extreme action and meanwhile the programme grinds on regardless.

I also find it interesting that you think I have paranoia about career military officers. My view is that they are no better or worse than anyone else in the Trump Administration. What I'm railing against is the assumption that because they are career military officers, they are automatically in possession of all virtues and are working always in the country's best interests.

How about Omarosa to be next to get the boot? Kelly's no fan of her and Trump could pass it off as moving her to one of his lesser money-making schemes.


aside - Damn Darth Rotor... I like your posts so i am gonna make a note to self about how to get you to write a nice chunky response even if that response kills me.

As that is not my position, I won't waste time on it. (The recently departed Flynn seems to argue against any kind of halo effect in operation, to me). The issue of transgender is, in the context of what matters to national security, a red herring; why you added it to the discussion is unclear. That personnel matter is going to take the same kind of process as did the long slog that "don't ask don't tell" did when President Clinton started that. (I suspect it won't take as long, given the momentum of that previous effort). It is utterly irrelevant to national security and policy making, particularly in the near term, regarding do we or don't end up in wars that we don't need to be in.

On the personnel side, in time, things will move forward for a simple reason: it's Congress who makes the rules for the administration of the Armed Forces, not the President.

On the national security policy side, Kelly's too busy putting out helmet fires that Trump starts. Quite frankly, that's his job. In time, if he whispers in Trump's ear a bit much on that topic I'd expect to see Mattis and Tillerson both push back: it's their lane. Likewise McMaster, on the NSC side. If you think "they all think alike," you are a bigger bigot that you realize.

Policy formation: Mattis has some input, Tillerson the other major side of it.

Both McMaster and Mattis had to polish the policy turd in Iraq that the Bush Administration laid for them. That will make them less hawkish, not more.

As to your paranoia regarding "right wing agenda" you are tilting at windmills. Trump continues to alienate the GOP, which is no surprise to me at all. A major voice in Trump's ear regarding said agenda is now gone: Bannon. Good riddance. Maybe the president can get down to business. (It would be nice ...)

I hope the Trump never gets down to business. His ideas are awful and would hurt the nation and the world.

I didn't. Craig4 added it to the conversation as an example of Mattis' good works in restraining The President.

Kelly was hailed as a restraining influence on The President and was supposed to curtail his tweeting and put the White House back in order. I have yet to see any evidence of this - indeed, the thing which has so far caused the most damage to the Trump Presidency, The President's comments regarding Charlottesville happened on Kelly's watch.

If they're less hawkish, I'd hate to see what more hawkish looks like :confused:

Obama's ISIS policy seems to have been continued (which may be no bad thing - who knows) and if anything escalated.

The US is upping the ante in Afghanistan.

The US' position on North Korea has changed from one of diplomacy to one based on sabre-rattling.

The GOP has been quietly getting on with business as usual whilst President Trump has been providing a distraction. On both a federal and state level, environmental regulations have been gutted, programmes have been defunded, financial regulations binned and Obama's legacy (modest as it is) has been eroded. The anti-immigrant legislation is rapidly being put in place and even if the "Muslim Ban" is only partially implemented, the other key platforms have carried on as before.

Sure healthcare repeal has been an omnishambles but that IMO has nothing to do with President Trump and everything to do with the GOP not having a viable plan B.

If the GOP can get "tax reform" (aka huge tax cuts for the wealthy) through then they'll have got most of their "to do" list sorted. It doesn't matter whether The President and congress are at war with each other, each seems unwilling to countermand the other when push comes to shove.

But are they? That is a self serving narrative to promote. It is only because of their military background that this gets suggested, yet the very first firing in this administration was a general.

Those who worked with Kelly say much the same thing.

AND MANY LULZ WERE HAD BY ALL :D:D:D

What are you afraid he is going to do that he isn't already trying to do?

@ponderingturtle
Are you referring to the comparison to Clark or Mattis?
Clark once tried to run for president. That didn't go too well.

@ theDon
How short memories are these days. Do you not recall the chickenhawks of Bush 43's administration?
My worry about Trump is that he so easily trolled. (My worry about Kelly is that his liver won't be able to handle the amount he'll need to drink to deal with Trump, but he's the one who signed up for that job).

Next up ... Tom Price ?

What did I miss?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/27/politi...vel/index.html

Trump on firing Price for taxpayer-funded private jet use: 'We'll see'

Oh, that.

In normal times this would be a career-ending move but I don't really see Trump cracking down on overindulgence in taxpayer-funded perks, or corruption more generally.

In normal times it would seem hypocritical, but that isn't something that has ever bothered Trump.

Who told him he should back Strange over Moore? That guy's a goner.

McConnell? Could happen.

I don't think he works in the WH

Too busy draining the swamp.

Just another example of good Republican fiscal responsibility.

Does Trump know that?

Even if backing Luther was entirely Donald's idea, he'll find a fall guy for it, since he's never made a mistake in his entire life.

My bets are on Spicer.

Then Flynn.

Of course he hasn't.

He has people for that.

Sally Yates' days are numbered.

Will Jared's days ever be numbered?