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?

You misspelled (((Jared))). But less sarcastically, no, they probably won't.

Given that Jared made the same mistakes that someone did so recently argues that he's a slow learner. Not a good trait. In the office pool, though, he's even money to stay on as Trump's big acid test is personal loyalty. :P

If you're referring to the email brouhaha, then Jared is one of six slow learners, none of whom will be sacked over this because Trump doesn't give a damn about this issue (despite how much time he spent on the horrors of Clinton's similar misstep).

That never happened, as The President's recently updated Twitter feed shows ;)

It's unlikely that he'd fire either Kushner or Ivanka since they are family. Priebus and Bannon are already gone. Cohn and Miller could be in trouble depending on how serious their breeches were and how much it embarasses Trump.

There's no way Trump is going to let them go over an email flap. He conceivably could use the email issue as an excuse when he wants to let them go for other reasons, but then he'd have an issue because Kushner and Ivanka will certainly not be let go, despite the same sin.

But how are people supposed to feel important if they have to fly commercial?

It is going to take a lot of private flights to compete with the fiscal profligacy going down at White House South.

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/891020450935058434

Few things are the same as in "normal" times :-)

Doesn't look like this price thing is going away quickly, and wow he is unlikable.

I think someone could convince 45 that firing him would be good optics.

But it won't be Trump who does it;only the members of the Senate can do that..Trump cannot fire McConnell thus McConnell does not qualify for the White House Survivor game.

This, and Trump had no close ties to Price.
And Price's job description makes him a prime scapegoat if the response to Hurricane Maria becomes a major issue.

...and another one bites the dust

Kushner or DeVos next.

Devos is safe;she paid for her charter flights out of her own pocket. I dislike her immensely,but will give her credit for that.

My money's on Mnuchin, Pruitt or Zinke all of whom are consumed in somewhat lesser versions of the same scandal.

Kudos to everyone who had him in the pool.

Personally, I'm shocked to find that anyone in that political party can still be shamed.

Trump has staffed his White House and cabinet with the best people, so their replacements are by definition sub-optimal. This media witch-hunt is undermining efforts to drain the swamp.

At some point, my question from before Trump won the nom of the GOP will come up with greater gravity:

Who wants to work for this guy? Who will work for this guy? The first six month's carnage/turnover argues for "why would I bother" as a response to feelers from someone like Kelly contacting prospects.

It's weird to see a normal political scandal play out in the normal way. I mean why didn't he just defiantly stay on? That would fit better with what the Trump era has brought us to.

It's the Red Wedding in GOT.....