Despite a media campaign trying to offload neoconservative Elliott Abrams onto the Trump administration, and considerable pressure from within the cabinet to appoint him Deputy Secretary of State, President Trump has decided against including the controversial interventionist and Iraq war supporter in his administration.
Like virtually all of his fellow neoconservatives, Abrams disdained Trump’s unwillingness to kowtow to our alleged "allies" and sneered at him for his supposed "ignorance."
Media accounts – see here and here – attribute this to Trump being "thin-skinned" – Abrams was highly critical of Trump during the presidential campaign, as I pointed out on Twitter. But this is a remarkably superficial analysis of what really went on, for Abrams’ critique of Trump was that of a globalist who is unalterably opposed to Trump’s "America First" foreign policy views.
As our regular readers know, we here at Antiwar.com have been conducting a campaign against Abrams, urging the President not to appoint him and telling our readers to call both the White House and their congressional representatives.
Sen. Rand Paul also signaled that he would oppose Abrams, who would have been subject to Senate confirmation.
Awesomeness. Hopefully the neocons are reduced to clipping coupons… any day now!
Right. Now, if we could just somehow get them off NPR!
Get rid of NPR by de-funding it. Ditto PBS.
Or let their fans support them with 100% their own money.
They’ve already been de-funded, which is why they turned to corporations for money.
I listen to NPR whille I work, day in and day out.. but as far as contributing money…. I draw the line at fianancing my indoctrination & propagandization by the lackeys of the welfare-warfare protection racket we call our elected leaders….. They wear their predijuces on.their well tailored sleeves..
Used to listen twenty years ago
There is a smaller local PBS station that broadcasts DemocracyNow! I do contribute to that one, though I recognize DemocracyNow! isn’t perfect either. I never hear anything but establishment shills on Minnesota Public Radio, so I do not contribute.
NPR= Neocon Propaganda Radio..
Hopefully In some frozen gulag far removed from any internet connection
GOOD!
Make America Not Bomb The Shit Out of Foreigners To Teach Them That Their Traditions Are Wrong Again!
And once again Raimondo buys into it, while at the same time selling the antiwar farm.
Trump backed off because he can’t stand taking on another fight where he could lose. Smart, on the heels of his Muslim ban loss. Raimondo continues to clutch at the last hope of Trump coming through on foreign policy with Russia. Even as he clearly attempts to separate Trump from the US and the US from Trump. We’re not buying it Justin.
edit: And thank you Justin for allowing yourself to be exposed to open criticism by everyone here at antiwar.com. Even as you continue to censor those who disagree with you on your regular column.
Not buying what you’re saying Don. Putting out Abrams name and that of John Bolton before him was a disinformation campaign designed to put pressure on Trump to support either one of these two curs. It was the same with Mitt Romney. I sent myself any email about both Bolton and Romney saying they wouldn’t be chosen, and I was correct. Didn’t think Abrams would be either, but I send emails to the White House just in case, if that meant much. I suspect Tillerson who I believe is a highly intelligent and decent individual, would not have wanted the cur Abrams anywhere near him.
I’m not sure what you are trying to say Teresa but it does seem that you are partially making my case for me in that you are far from the only one objecting to Abrams.
It seems pretty clear to me that Trump and his advisors read into the amount of pressure that would come out of his attempts to put in Abrams that they saw the possibility of another loss similar to the Muslim ban. The chances of that would have been near catastrophic for Trump obviously!
It can’t be politically spun as Trump seeing the prowar side of Abrams as opposed to my theory. I think Raimondo understands that too but he stubbornly clings to his hope in Trump.
And furthermore, I say that the proof in the pudding is in the ‘curs’ with which Trump has already surrounded himself. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/iran-hawks-take-the-white-house/
You completely misunderstand — I don’t believe for a moment that Trump or his advisors were considering Abrams at all. That was the disinformation which was put out by Trump’s enemies, and Abrams supporters in the news media. It’s is similar to stories of John Bolton being considered for Secretary of State. My first reaction to that news was “tell me it ain’t so” and guess what — “it wasn’t so.” As to your parroting of my word ‘cur’ to refer to Trump’s cabinet – – if you are talking about General Mattis, well, I have a family member, a fine young man and Major in the Marine Corps, who tells me how respected is Mattis. And as this comes from someone I know personally, his character, his values, and respect, I trust his judgement, and give scant regard to the opinions of those I don’t know. I’ve also watched several talks given by Tillerson that are available on youtube and what I saw is a thoughtful, highly intelligent man, who I think will make an excellent Secretary of State.
quote Thomas: “Trump himself was talking up Bolton as his top “go-to foreign policy guy” at least as early as August of 2015.”
You’re fighting a losing battle Teresa. Trump has said too much and done to much for you to gloss over.
I have no doubt that your ‘fine young man’ would stand up for Mad Dog Mattis.
In any case, my issue is with Raimondo and his persistent support of Trump. On that I’m certain that Raimondo’s day of reckoning when he eats crow is fast approaching.
Could be, but not ready to throw in the towel while the fight’s still on.
In any case, it’s too late to throw in the towel. My comments here are not intended to change anything for the better. But as you’ll see in my comments above, to ask the question on what ‘is’ Trump’s agenda?
For instance, even the abortion issue, which appears to be one of the prime motivators of Trump’s supporters, is fatally flawed with Trump. He’s been pro-choice.
So what then?
“In any case, my issue is with Raimondo and his persistent support of Trump.”
Who else was there to support? Trump was the best of the lot.
Mary, you don’t get it because you haven’t followe Raimondo closely enough. I maintained all along that Raimondo was a Trump supporter by Raimondo let on that he wasn’t. He’s a libertarian and he claimed to be supporting Johnson or the lady doctor. Few believed Raimondo and especially me. But it got me banned from commenting on his regular column.
So no, Trump wasn’t the best of the lot. And now we are learning that he wasn’t even the best of the two choices that stood a chance of winning.
Where is your evidence for his talking up Bolton. Evidence.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/08/donald-trump-john-bolton-iraq-war
Thanks Thomas. It was directed at you anyway. I didn’t have the answer but the link you supplied did, and it did quite a bit more.
Especially that it points out the serious discrepancies between Trump’s campaign message on cooperation with Russia and the likes of Bolton.
That tells me once again that Trump has no agenda either way, at least at that point in time. Most of it was for the purpose of being elected. Nothing new to you I’m sure! Maybe all of it unless somebody can suggest something that ‘is’ speaking to an agenda?
But that’s the kind of thing that has to be sticking in Raimondo’s craw, considering that he’s no fool.
I am not following you. Are you saying that Trump would have faced another defeat if he tried to bring Abrams on board?
. He is a disgrace to humanity but that is not a handicap in DC
Yes, Trump would have likely faced another defeat with Abrams. Or in the least political kickback from both sides.
“Putting out Abrams name and that of John Bolton before him was a disinformation campaign designed to put pressure on Trump”
Trump himself was talking up Bolton as his top “go-to foreign policy guy” at least as early as August of 2015.
That is very true. The problem is, neoconservative crowd really ignores his core message, and thinks that it does not matter. Yet, in the end, it always does. Trump tends to create illusions, and keeps his enemies close. Done already a number of times. While Romney and Bolton I could not take seriously, I did worry that Abrams was pushed on him by his Never Trump friends. Abrams, notwithstanding his any qualities or lack thereof, simply would be a poor fit, especially in the role of restructuring State Department to be better aligned with the mission. Abrams knows what HE wants, not Trump’s agenda.
The trouble I have with your analysis is that Trump has consistently chosen the extremists. For what reason, would be a good question to answer. Considering that Trump has no experience that would drive him to that, as well as no motivation that could be considered to be common on all his extremist choices, then what could it be?
I can only think of him being motivated by spite. And now it’s getting him into trouble with Flynn especially. And to a lesser degree with Sessions, De Vos, Conway, Spicer, and next???
Bannon? Why?
I can only see it as him wanting to cause trouble, as opposed to choosing people who would carry out his agenda without inviting a fight. Why?
Begin with, what is Sessions all about? If you can?
My suggestion would be that it’s intended to motivate the racist part of his base. I would invite an alternative explanation?
And he didn’t appoint him to anything.
Raimondo has at least hooked in to defending himself here and that’s a good start!
And fwiw, any rebuttal on Raimondo’s claim that it’s the moderator that is preventing me from posting on his regular column? If not then i can accept why.
I agree.
Bingo! Teresa, you are one smart cookie. When the “Abrams maybe for #2 at State” rumor came up, I was at first shocked/stunned, but when my head cleared, I thought, “Rumored?” what exactly does “rumored” mean? “Rumored” by whom, and for what purpose? Who is behind this? What’s ***REALLY*** going on? (Which, by the way, is a story the details of which I’m really really looking forward to. Coming soon to a website near you.)
[Justin writes,”…considerable pressure from within the cabinet to appoint him…” again, there’s a tidbit that begs for elaboration. I want more!]
Sometimes I wonder if maybe it’s the Trumpinator behind it, teasing his “audience” with provocative “rumors” designed to keep everyone excited and the media churning away at full-enjoyment. He sets Elliot Abrams up — the crowd roars in deafening outrage — whereupon Elliot is fed to the lions to the orgasmic delight of the crowd. My God what a spectacle!
Whether by design or by accident, this is a style of governance like nothing we’ve ever seen before, governance for the new social media digital age. I’m lovin’ it.
The wicked witch is dead! Bring on the next wicked witch!
[And as for “Dipstick Don”, gotta love those minor players. Some kind of backstory there. “Strange visitor from an alternate reality, who came to Earth with powers and abilities far below those of mortal man.” I used to block him, but now he’s unblocked. Dramatic tension needs comic relief.]
Rock on, Donald! (You too, Don.)
I hear ya jeff! It’s just that I’ve got good company as the rest of the world looks on in utter amazement at what Trump and his country are doing. So rather than me having powers far below mortal man, how about this: I have powers far below the powers possessed by Americans. Works for me jeff! It’s also a confirmation of the notion that America and Americans are exceptional.
Earth to lunatic, aka “Don”: Trump didn’t “back off” – he never favored Abrams to begin with. That was Tillorsen and the media.
I don’t “censor” anyone in the comments section of my column: I have no power to do that. Your quarrel is with the moderator, and that isn’t me.
It’s between you and the moderator on who is hiding behind the other’s back.
Um, no. Mr. Raimondo and I do not coordinate with each other. In point of fact, we do not under any circumstances communicate with each other.
You claim Raimondo responsible for my issue, he claims you responsible. I have no interest in pursuing it further with either of you.
I don’t know what you mean by your “issue,” but I’ve never claimed Raimondo is responsible for anything regarding you.
If you’re referring to your old ban, that was over your anti-trans hate speech. I didn’t think it quite rose to that level, but I was overruled. Raimondo had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
I’m referring to my ban on Raimondo’s regular blurb. So there’s a third party hiding in the weeds? Forget it, it’s not important.
If it’s not important, quit making shit up about it.
Bad luck Raimondo! You close this piece with a comment on Rand Paul opposing Abrams.
then
What goes and pops up as your last article on this open forum just happens to be your piece on Rand Paul opposing the Iran deal!
Whattttaaaaaa………..
“We of the snowflake legion are not buying it Justin.”
There, fixed that for you, Don.
I guess my letter to Trump opposing Abrams worked!
Yes, Mary, I believe your letter opposing Abrsms’ appointment really did work. Congratulations!
Good for you with that tongue in cheek remark Eileen! What has obviously happened is that Trump was convinced by his handlers that his continued support of Abrams was very, very risky.
I would suggest that if Trump went ahead with his insistence on Abrams and he was defeated by the US congress, then it would have been another defeat he couldn’t endure. So soon after the defeat that appears to be looming on his Muslim ban.
Absolutely. We all know that politicians not only never pay the slightest attention, but positively scorn the views of their constituents; & that Trump’s entire campaign was focused on upholding that fundamental oligarchic position since it is at the heart of what makes l’Usa great.
*
Unless: well done Mary, antiwar.com, & all who intervened to elect Trump & reverse the above proposition, not least by winning repudiation of the criminal/traitor Abrams.
*
Next up: as w/Russia, engage Iran seriously, stop support for SArabia’s genocide in Yemen, bring the troops home, & make America – & her people – first, & thus great again.
It took some time to develop, but it was worth it. 🙂
..
Congratulations and THANKS.
Yours and many others.
U Betcha…!!!!!!
Put me on the list.
It’s very clear that Trump despises the Neocons (despite his alleged closeness to the Jewish community) for dragging us into Iraq. He certainly roasted Jeb Bush during the debates about the WMD lies. I’m surprised that Elliott Abrams even came up as a possibility.
Yeah Eric, he surely did, even though Trump must have bought into the WMD’s lies himself. Can you think of any other reason why Trump supported the Iraq war?
There will always be as-holes like you shooting their feet off Eric.
You continue to spread the false information about Trump and Iraq war. He was against going into Iraq when George Bush decided to go. But he was for going back in — when the things went out of control. He said — so many times — that the way US left Iraq caused the mayhem in the wake of our withdrawal. The spinners keep on spinning, and conflating the two. You too — do you think that there is nobody who actually knows the details?
I do not think that Eric said anything that is not true. And for you to resort to profanity — when your spins fail, is not a valid argument.
I don’t spread any untruths. I heard Trump say what he said. He stumbled on answering and that was mainly because he wasn’t experienced on how a politician needs to answer important questions. But eventually he did say it. You can’t counterspin that and you can’t accuse me of saying something I didn’t say.
You can say that Trump supported the Iraq war, with qualifications, if it suits your agenda? I’ll let you have that even though it doesn’t help Eric on avoiding the smackdown he deserved.
Eric, the two are not mutually exclusive. Why do you think that Trump, who cannot be more open about his desire to help Israel, is in US taken to pieces by the very people who are the heart and soul of Israeli lobby?
It is because Trump wants to help Israel — not them. The help can come in many ways, but I think one way that Trump may go for, would indeed split the interests of Israel from the interests of the lobby. A dirty secret is, there is NO chance for two state solution. And all the establishment, the neocons, Obama, Hillary, the lobby — all are in favor of two state solution. All of them are LYING. Why? They know that the West Bank is already covered by settlements, with more to come, so there is no way one can create two states. If we exclude Gaza, which is already separated by border from Israel, West Bank can only become part of Israel, and the only thing to talk about is — status of Palestinians within one Israel. You cannot create a state from a bunch of separated and isolated bantustans to make a remotely viable Palestinian state. So, why the games? THE LOBBY, AND ALL THE ESTABLISHMENT ARE USING THIS FALSE NARRATIVE IN ORDER TO CONTINUE DISMANTLING MIDDLE EAST, AND THEN OUT OF THE BROKEN PIECES, START TAKING THEM ONE AT A TIME IN THE NAME OF FIGHTING AGAINST THE ISLAMIC CULTS. And then, nobody will actually blame Israel — as the world would at that point forget that there once was a country called Syria, or who knows what else could be Balkanized. Lebanon was once or twice target, until Hezbollah put a rather ungainly end to the last expedition.
But two things happened. One, Russia has put an end to the disintegration of Syria. Post coup Turkey moved in with its ground forces to stabilize Syrian border against both ISIS, and the territorial ambitions of Kurds. Turkey also sucked in former Free Syria Army, to fight ISIS under its command. Russia, Turkey and Iran are guaranteeing the cease fire, each having sizeable control over certain segments of population. Two, Trump wants to put an end to ISIS, that is, prevent disintegration of Syria. What does it mean to the lobby? Without continuation of the dismantling of secular states, and without creating a bunch of caliphates — there will be no more opportunity for expanding Israel. If we assume that Jordan is off limits. Trump spoke on more then one occasion on getting rid of ISIS, and putting an end to chaos.
What does it mean to Israel? If Israel concludes that US will not work against Russia, Turkey, Iran and Iraq — and will allow stabilization of the Middle East in due course, the opportunities for the “birth pangs of the new Middle East” and the growth of Israel’s territory, looks unrealistic. I am assuming that what Trump has to offer is — recognize reality. The reality is, Israel has absorbed West Bank, and the reality is to recognize it as Israel — with the negotiations between Israel and Palestinians on issues of status and political arrangements. Trump did say in his speech to IPAC that he favors IMPOSING A FRAMEWORK of peace negotiations, in which each side will have to give up something of value, to achieve peace. Will he do it, or not — it remains to be seen. But this is the ONLY explanation why the pro-Israel people are freaking out in US, and the lobby has gone ballistic.
Let us say that this comes to pass. Not a small feat, as even before that, US has to take Iran as an issue — to clear the decks. For as long as lobby has Iran on its agenda, they can continue to meddle in Middle East politics. But Iran will become US issue, not Israeli or Saudi issue. Then, the process of examining what ISRAEL wants, not what LOBBY wants, can start. If Israel can see a prospect of getting recognition for the reality (possession is 9/10 of the law), and Palestinians can decide what it means for them, and how to settle the problem, why would not those two parties be able to settle this, without US lobby having a say in this? For the ONLY thing US lobby cares about is to continue the policy of interventions in the Middle East, and other imperial projects. What if they no longer have the horse in this race, and the assorted military projects can be wrapped up — without them? The prospect of losing influence, and the great deal of war profiteering that comes along, may be very unsettling to many that today make a common cause with neoconservatives. This will hurt many Republican purses as well. But without settling the issue of Israel, being a normal state within recognized borders and with neighbors recognizing those borders, the “birth pangs of the new Middle East” would continue. And with it, the hopes of American energy majors to establish business projects in this part of the world, non-existent. These are the competing interests, and Trump needs to weigh in on the solutions that will smother the chaos, and return the region to peaceful economy. He did say what he wanted. That is not the problem. But understanding WHY the neocons and the lobby hate him so much — Is by far more interesting subject. And knowing that if
A/ Trump wants to put end to chaos for the sake of profits in energy,
and
B/ End to chaos means the end to expansion potential to Israel,
and
C/ End of potential expansion translates into solidifying gains
and
D/ Israel accepts gains, negotiates peace, and gets regional acceptance
and
E/ lobby loses its core cause; it can help Israel all it wishes, but not have a cause that made foreign policy their domain, and hostage to their concerns.
F/ a bitter pill to swallow for the Middle East, but a small price to pay for the end to arms race, and continuous turmoil and refugee crisis.
G/ Trump has all the right people for the job, but — just like Iran, Israel is testing Trump’s resolve, putting new settlements to be as inflammatory as they wish. Not that it actually matters — they already own the place, but it demonstrates lack of good will, and a nod to the Lobby.
.
.
.
.
X/ Lobby will do anything to make sure none of the above happens. So, Trump must ignore his advisors — and just like in the campaign. rely on his instincts. Then he will win, regardless what all the pundits say.
What an outstanding assessment Bianca. And you are absolutely right in that the two state myth is dead. Has been actually.
Out of all that, you are making one point unmistakably clear, even though you don’t intend to do that.
That is, the issue is not the US protecting Israel. It’s the fact that the US is using Israel to lend the US legitimacy for the US agenda in the ME that you so capably laid bare.
At least, I don’t perceive you are deliberately trying to do that. It’s the big lie that has captured the hearts and souls of the American people. But if that facade is ever broken through and exposed, the beginning of the end for the apartheid would be near.
Note I don’t say the end of the regime, just the end of the criminality that is the regime.
U.S. Is not using Israel. It is Israel using America France Britain Germany
I know that’s the accepted narrative but it’s not the truth. Those countries, led by the US agenda, are using Israel as the legitimacy needed for continuing interference in the ME.
Oil is the reason which can never be admitted to and Israel is the legitimiser.
Iraq, Syria, Iran, and other US led wars in the ME are illegitimate without a purpose? What is the purpose?
Antigon, I have difficulty understanding your post but have read it 3 times in an attempt to understand. So here goes:
No, frankly I know now that Trump doesn’t have an agenda and never did. Read my new post today for my explanation, which I invite you to challenge.
Let’s put Abrams aside as no longer important.
I suggested Johnson because it was stated adamantly by Thomas that Raimondo didn’t and wasn’t supporting Trump. No longer important.
My evidence is not that Trump will succumb as such, but rather that Trump’s real agenda will become evident as it is dictated to him as to what his appropriate agenda must be. My interest here with you goes nowhere but foreign policy. Trump’s agenda will be consistent with US foreign policy. On that I am 100% certain! NO CHANGE ON RUSSIA!
If you feel I haven’t addressed all your concerns then please restate them.
And finally, yes they (whoever ‘they’ is) intend to destroy Trump.
1. In part possibly in revenge for what the R’s did to Obama. (in ‘their’ opinions)
2. On foreign policy, because neither side has any wishes for improving relations with Russia. Trump is trapped in that promise and desperately wants out. That tells you the depth of the man.
Mr. D:
*
Me last observations this round, which include that, your having made 40+ comments on this thread (so far), you might want to let the thing rest for the nonce; lest folks suspect you suffer the well known syndrome dear Donald provokes among all our outraged oligarchies & their minions (aka ‘they’), & even some outside that range.
*
Will also propose that while your unease seems justified, your many assertions sans evidence, especially as regards Russia, are not.
Oh yeah! same oil argument! Promoted by Neocons and never asked by the oilman not by business community not by even wall Street . So who is tightening or has been tightening the srew on Iran ? Oilman?
Well if it’s not for the oil then it’s got to be for Iraq’s spring cabbage crop.
You don’t understand it and are probably not interested in doing so.
Why do not you just replace word “US” with neocons, the overarching term that includes Israel lobby, Republican warmongers, assorted neo-Trotskyite ideologues, and war profiteers and their intellectual wing, think -tanks.
Once you do that, you are mistaken, I make my points very intentional.
As for the confusion that is typical — who is using whom, it is really not much of a mystery. As always, when there is a coincidence of interests, there is a symbiosis of interests and ideas that serve all parties well. So is the case between the state of Israel, and the powerful US lobby — and its impressive array of alliances with like minded interests.
Why would not the state of Israel take advantage of such a powerful ally? I cannot see any reason for them to be so foolish and not push for the maximum. And opposite, why would the powerful pro-Israeli lobby not take advantage of Israel’s unique position in the Middle East — to create an ideological framework that advances both Israel’s maximalist position, as well as the imperial ambitions of other actors in the Middle East?
Who is using whom? Certainly, it is mutual — for as long as common cause is propelling them forward.
Is the common cause propelling them forward at this point in time? As I tried to make a point above, I do not think so. For various domestic and foreign policy consideration US national interests(read, interests of other big players in US economy) and the interests of the lobby are no longer compatible. This is inevitably brining up the question of the continuation of the common cause and common interests between the two.
An entirely separate discussion is what is really possible, the relative strengths of each factor, the interdependencies, etc. All that remains to be seen, but the question of eventual Israel’s TRADE-IN, the consolidation of gains now, vs. holding out for bigger territorial gains — is very real, and very NOW.
All that meaning what? I’ll try to make sense of it:
There is no distinction amongst Americans anymore. You’re all warmongers for all intents and purposes. Save a few with otherwise good intentions?
Of course Israel takes advantage of it’s powerful ally.
I’ve never suggested that Israel isn’t using the US. I’ve said that the US is using Israel to legitimise it’s conquest of the ME.
But I’m not sure now whether or not you agree with that? If you’re interested, state you position concisely and clearly. If you can do that then I’ll respond with my thoughts. Less words are always better!
“Putting America first” is left meaningless by Trump. Purposely so as it was only an election promise to appeal to simple people who didn’t require an explanation.
But fwiw, anything specific seems to be either impossible or intangible at this point in time. Only simple and stupid people will have placed any faith in what he said.
This can only be terrific news! It was evident that an organized campaign was in progress to get this vile atrocity denier and war monger into the State Dept. Yesterday, was the most recent puff piece on abrams in the neo con bugle, WaPo.
We all know the follow on to that outrage if appointed to state, gaggles of neo cons like termites into state. Do not know what was the deciding factor but hat tip to trump for his decision.
The Republican Neocons who are not Conservatives should go back to their Democratic liberal interventionist parents from whom they were spawned.
Ha, Schmizer, mission accomplished, grazie Deo.
Is Don a troll?
Don is obviously a zionist troll.
Probably just someone who reads the Guardian, the National Post, The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, the WaPo, the NYT, and listens to and watches the CBC, and others like them. And believes them all.
Abrams is a crafty and maniacal neocon.
Trump is a train wreck.
It was vanity and narcissism that drove Trump to deny the position to Abrams. It was not any kind of remotely useful sentiment.
He did it because Abrams said things about Trump that Trump didn’t like.
Right, such as Abrams’s opposition to the entire thrust of Trump’s campaign.
Abrams’ opposition to the entire thrust of Trump’s campaign, I concede to you.
But here’s the kicker: How many others who Trump has chosen ar entirely against the thrust of Trump’s campaign.
Trump has no agenda. It just can’t be pinned down and every time somebody tries to do that, they fail.
Try yourself!
No small concession that, Don, not to say indication there was – is? – a thrust, & thus an agenda.
*
But leaving aside the long list that in fact constitutes his agenda & upon which his tenure will be judged, it is always quite legitimately safe – also Biblically mandated – not to put one’s faith in princes. So doubtless your suspicions & fears, any number of which Raimondo has clearly shared, are worthy enough.
*
Yet all the pressure on him to do the right thing – the Abrams rejection among them – comes from the people who elected him. With Gorgon Hillary, any other GOPer save Paul the elder & with many caveats maybe pandering Bernie & Rand, there would be no pressure remotely to compare to that from the oligarchy before whom all these others openly & grovelingly defer.
*
You fear & provide genuine evidence Trump will also inevitably succumb, & again, are too likely to be right.
*
Yet the best – in fact the only – hope to mitigate your fears come from those, like Raimondo, ready to back Trump even as they insist he live up to his ‘thrust;’ & for us to keep doing so until such time – a time neither at hand nor a given – as he does succumb, to what all the others would have extolled off the nonce.
*
One last minor if genuine point: have read Raimondo regularly, & at no point did he flirt w/Johnson (openly, & justly, detested him in fact) or anyone but Paul jr. & Trump. Steadily he expressed enthusiasm for the ‘thrust,’ but unease with Trump himself. Didn’t vote for him in the GOP primary, but cast his mystical lot in the general, where seems fair to propose even there, t’was for the thrust, & against the oligarchic monsters who hate Trump.
*
Now they intend both to coopt & destroy him. Until they succeed with the former goal, seems prudent to fight them in that & the latter goal, rather than just assume their success – as so many did during the campaign – before it’s achieved.
Correct: Raimondo never indicated anything but disdain for Johnson (and that disdain was not unreasonable — Johnson was a poor candidate, especially in a year when if the Libertarian Party had bothered to choose well, it might have had significant influence).
Alright then, I’ll also concede that you are right on Raimondo/Johnson too. So fwiw, who did he vote for? Not that it’s important at this point in time. I have no idea who would have been a good choice for the Libertarian party but I’ll be interested in hearing if you say before this piece is taken down.
Most of my comments will be to antigon.
I think my new post today explains it all completely on Trump. If you have any disagreement then I would like to hear it. It really dissolves the Trump mystery as far as I’m concerned. It will drive Trump’s supporters crazy but they’re already there anyway IMO.
“So fwiw, who did he vote for?”
How the hell should I know? To the best of my knowledge he has never publicly said who he voted for. But I could be wrong.
Oh I see. So you don’t know if he voted for Johnson. You were pretty adamant that he wasn’t supporting Trump at the time though. Fwiw, how did you know that?
Forget it. Pulling together on the antiwar cause is more important now.
I won’t take pleasure in seeing Raimondo crash and burn but I won’t be at all disappointed because it’s always been in the cards for him.
See my post at the top today. It’s not complicated anymore. Everything about Trump is easily predictable but I’ll stick with foreign policy only for now.
He is using a reality show technology. First, he introduces a figure — usually, that happens if he himself is not about to make an outright appointment. Once the figure is introduced, he dangles them around for a while, while the audience gets apoplectic — and votes him off the island.
Antigon, I have difficulty understanding your post but have read it 3 times in an attempt to understand. So here goes:
No, frankly I know now that Trump doesn’t have an agenda and never did. Read my new post today for my explanation, which I invite you to challenge.
Let’s put Abrams aside as no longer important.
I suggested Johnson because it was stated adamantly by Thomas that Raimondo didn’t and wasn’t supporting Trump. No longer important.
My evidence is not that Trump will succumb as such, but rather that Trump’s real agenda will become evident as it is dictated to him as to what his appropriate agenda must be. My interest here with you goes nowhere but foreign policy. Trump’s agenda will be consistent with US foreign policy. On that I am 100% certain! NO CHANGE ON RUSSIA!
If you feel I haven’t addressed all your concerns then please restate them.
And finally, yes they (whoever ‘they’ is) intend to destroy Trump.
1. In part possibly in revenge for what the R’s did to Obama. (in ‘their’ opinions)
2. On foreign policy, because neither side has any wishes for improving relations with Russia. Trump is trapped in that promise and desperately wants out. That tells you the depth of the man.
That’s not true but it’s the way they are trying to spin it. The real reason is because even some of the R’s were going to oppose Abrams and that would have given Trump two big defeats close succession.
Not true. Many people who know the work and ideology of Abrams, thought it to be horrible idea.
Very pleased that Trump is LISTENING.
Yes, ***VERY*** pleased that he is listening. It’s a remarkable, maybe even unprecedented Trumpian feature. And not only listening, he’s also responsive. He listens and then responds, alertly, to what he hears. He acts, and then nimbly adjusts. This is the key to his effectiveness. He doesn’t sit around over-thinking something:
“…some craven scruple
Of thinking too precisely on th’ event—
A thought which, quarter’d, hath but one part wisdom
And ever three parts coward…”
He’s no coward. He sees that something needs doing, decides on a course of action, … and acts. He’s confident, sure of himself and his method. He’s done this before with a very high success rate, so he doesn’t worry about the action going wrong. Why? Because he knows to pay attention, and that when things start to go off course, he adjusts. He’s bold, he’s decisive, and he’s smart. He’s a NY man-of-action not a DC man-of-pander.
Exactly…Anyone claiming otherwise should present evidence. If it was ideological, someone explain to me why ultra-neocon Frank Gaffney’s man (Pompeo) is now heading up the CIA.
http://www.ronpaulinstitute. org/archives/featured-articles/2016/december/04/trump-s-promised-new-foreign-policy-must-abandon-regime-change-for-iran/
Trump’s pick for National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, has said the following about Iran: “I believe that Iran represents a clear and present danger to the region, and eventually to the world…” and, “…regime change in Tehran is the best way to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program.”
Trump’s CIA choice, Mike Pompeo, has said of President Obama’s Iran deal, “The Iranian regime is intent on the destruction of our country (!) Why the President does not understand is unfathomable.”
And Trump’s selection for Defense Secretary, General James Mattis, was even more aggressive, saying, “The Iranian regime in my mind is the single most enduring threat to stability and peace in the Middle East. …Iran is not an enemy of ISIS. They have a lot to gain from the turmoil in the region that ISIS creates.”
GOOD….!!!!!!!!!!!! The real question here is WHY…??????? Who, why, what, caused his name to be put out? Of all the people to choose from why him at state of all places…???? Who is, was pushing this convicted LIAR…???? Did this guy’s name just jump out like a streaker, or are their Neocon moles whispering his name. Elliot, Elliot, Elliot….. It’s CREEPY……
Thank GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I belive ABRAMS is a war criminal, convicted liar to Congress, unindicted co-conspirator to circumvet the constition in defianse of congressionally proscribed arms exports and he is also an absolute racial supremist. He apparently sees no problem killing tens of thousands of innocents to further his own supremacist
genocidal delusions….. He is in short a monster.?
TV
Good. So who’s next in the neocon campaign to get themselves appointed to something, anything? Wolfoshlitz?
That is a real relief! Credit to all those who raise the alarm at the dire prospect of Abrams feeding the neocon poison into the State Dept, from politicians like Ron and Rand Paul, through opinion influencers like Raimondo, to all those ordinary American folk who took the trouble to make their opinions clear.
A bullet dodged, but the Trump regime’s direction in foreign policy is still balanced on a knife edge it appears. After words that seemed to suggest confrontation with China and with Russia, we now have words suggesting a confrontation with Iran. We’ve yet to see any real deeds acting on any of those particular globalist fantasies, though.
It seems to me Trump knows enough to be his own man on Russia, and the greater dangers are over China and Iran. In the first place there is a real strategic rivalry over China’s recovery in areas around China that the US has gotten used to treating as it own over the past 70 years, and Trump might well think that confrontation is the way to get a good deal out of China. And on Iran, a lot of Trump’s advisers – even the non-neocon ones – seem to buy into the general US elite irrationality concerning that country, and the military ones seem to be motivated by inappropriate and immature resentment at Iran helping the Iraqis resist the US occupation of that country. Trump might well fall for the idea that confronting Iran militarily is necessary, and politically useful.
Hopefully it will be limited to just involving the US in another costly, immoral and futile intervention in Yemen, rather than actually going to war with Iran.
Very nice to see a victory for the home team!
Here again I think the ANTI war web site and the libertiarians may have influenced our government . like they stopped Obama from bombing Syria .
Let him slither back under his rock
Justin Raimondo,
Something for you to think about answering on Trump’s agenda, from the lunatic fringe:
What is consistent in Trump’s agenda? My preference would be for you to deal with his antiwar agenda, or even specifically Russia.
Can it be real when we know that he has promoted the ilk of Bolton? Can his stance on Iran be consistent? Can his initial stance on China be consistent? (before he saw the very pressing need to correct it)
My theory is that Trump would dearly love to escape from his campaign promises of cooperation with Russia. He can’t do that right now and fwiw, those who hate and oppose him won’t let him. The issue is killing him and he wants out of it very badly.
He’s going to try after his meeting with Putin because the opportunity will be presented. What else after that will afford Trump the opportunity?
US foreign policy appears to be the one pronounced by the last interviewed or else publicly speaking member of the Trump team. In other words there is no coherent US foreign policy today.
Thanks for saving the human race antiwar.com
Elliott Abrams would be poison for American foreign policy. His neocon PAX AMERICANA imperial ambitions would make the world a far more dangerous place.
First Bolton, now Abrams. Good!!
What sort of games is Trump playing?
Is he a Globalist and Neo-con, or is he anti-Globalist and America first?
See my post at the top today. It’s not complicated anymore. Everything about Trump is easily predictable but I’ll stick with foreign policy only for now.
Alright then, I’ll also concede that you are right on Raimondo/Johnson too. So fwiw, who did he vote for? Not that it’s important at this point in time. I have no idea who would have been a good choice for the Libertarian party but I’ll be interested in hearing if you say before this piece is taken down.
Most of my comments will be to antigon.
“So fwiw, who did he vote for?”
How the hell should I know? To the best of my knowledge he has never publicly said who he voted for. But I could be wrong.
Oh I see. So you don’t know if he voted for Johnson. You were pretty adamant that he wasn’t supporting Trump at the time though. Fwiw, how did you know that?
Forget it. Pulling together on the antiwar cause is more important now.
I won’t take pleasure in seeing Raimondo crash and burn but I won’t be at all disappointed because it’s always been in the cards for him.
I was adamant that he was not ENDORSING Trump. The reason I was adamant that he wasn’t endorsing Trump is that I can, um, read.
Quite right as to a formal endorsement; but early on Raimondo recognized & championed the challenge Trump support posed to our ruling oligarchies.
*
Also recognized the seeming (at best) contradictions in Trump’s actual propositions. And that’s where the fight now stands.
*
As to his vote, via his column Raimondo made clear he did not vote for Trump in GOP primary, but via Twitter that he did so vote in the general.
He is using a reality show technology. First, he introduces a figure — usually, that happens if he himself is not about to make an outright appointment. Once the figure is introduced, he dangles them around for a while, while the audience gets apoplectic — and votes him off the island.
You claim Raimondo responsible for my issue, he claims you responsible. I have no interest in pursuing it further with either of you.
I don’t know what you mean by your “issue,” but I’ve never claimed Raimondo is responsible for anything regarding you.
If you’re referring to your old ban, that was over your anti-trans hate speech. I didn’t think it quite rose to that level, but I was overruled. Raimondo had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
I’m referring to my ban on Raimondo’s regular blurb. So there’s a third party hiding in the weeds? Forget it, it’s not important.
Trump was happy to appoint Abrams, until he found out that he had insulted him. Pure luck.
Trump is a smooth talker who zeroed in on what Americans want and need. Each bloc of support he gained was coaxed along with bait that appealed to them. This included the small antiwar bloc that were taken in with his promise of better relations with Russia.
Trump has no foreign policy agenda simply because he doesn’t understand the agenda of the US that is the status quo. He will fall into line with that agenda as he goes along. US foreign policy will not change and Trump won’t try to change it, other than make it more aggressive.
Trump is now trapped into his campaign promises of improving relations with Russia and it’s very likely that his opponents are keeping him there because it’s damaging to Trump. Americans in the large majority obviously hate the idea of any easing of sanctions on Russia and for that reason, it won’t happen.
Expect Trump to attempt to find his way out of the promises he made on the Russia issue. The excuse will be novel and transparently phony but will have to work for his supporters who have so far always accepted Trump’s waffling.
Mr. Raimondo is smart enough to know it’s coming and it’s likely he’s not enjoying the suspense. The building on Trump has taken a long time and the letdown is going to be embarrassing.
If Trump actually had any real principles it would be scary. That he has absolutely none other than the “whim of the day” is even scarier.
If Trump actually had any real principles it would be scary. That he has absolutely none other than the “whim of the day” is even scarier.