CIA, Democracy, Middle East, Trump

Send in the Clowns …

It was inevitable.

The idea that the administration of the federal government could be entrusted to a group of demonstrably unqualified Dunning Krugerites selected only for their ability to display servile loyalty was always a disaster in waiting.

“Signalgate,” the unbelievably incompetent use of unsecure text messaging by Trump administration national security figures who ended up sharing secret information about a military strike in the Middle East with a prominent journalist, is precisely the kind of thing — amazing as it is — that zealous, incompetent hacks are wont to do.

Telsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe, pretty clearly lying to Congress

This world-class screw up thankfully didn’t end with the loss of American lives, at least that we know of. But this fiasco will prove to be just the first of a cavalcade of arrogant buffoonery that will ultimately define not the “golden age of America,” as the chaos commander-in-chief calls it, but something resembling a battered bedpan holding our nation’s lost international respect, influence and moral authority.

And because this is the Trump administration, the response was not to accept responsibility for an extremely serious mistake — or to fire someone — but rather to gaslight. By Wednesday afternoon, the administration was still claiming that nothing of operational importance had been shared on an insecure messaging app by the former Fox News weekend host who now sits atop the military chain of command.

“These were sensitive and detailed bits of information that if they had fallen into the hands of the Houthis would have caused them to move in offensive weapons against our pilots,” Jack Reed, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, told the New York Times in an interview.

Perhaps it’s not all that surprising that an administration headed by a guy who stored state secrets in his bathroom in Florida and once shared secret information with top Russian officials in the Oval Office would so cavalierly treat the safety and security of American fighter pilots.

There is so much in this incredible incident that says so much about not only the individuals on that insecure chat but also underscores the broad free fall on the American far right, a free fall into utter incompetence tightly wrapped in deceitful malevolence.

As the historian Garrett Graff notes, Signalgate provides evidence of at least five scandals that should sink any administration:

1) There was, of course, a massive leak of very sensitive information.

2) Clear evidence of perjury, particularly by Director of National Intelligence Telsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe, who brazenly lied to congressional committees this week.

3) Obvious violations of the law relating to the Federal Records Law. The Signal app was set to erase messages after 30 days, a violation of the law.

4) A federal government information technology failure of the first order. Who else not yet known to us was listening in or, thanks to this mess, now has greater insight into how these clownish people handle decision-making and sensitive information?

5) Likely war crimes violations. As Graff wrote, “Reporting at the time last weekend estimated that the U.S. attack discussed in the Signal group chat killed about 31 people, and now the new group chat screenshots (released by The Atlantic) gives us some fresh perspective, including this: We have clear documentary evidence of U.S. officials targeting an entire civilian building to kill a single target.”

If you study the documentary evidence carefully — evidence we have because the president’s national security adviser, Mike Waltz, added a journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, to the group chat — you’ll be struck by the shallowness of the decision-making that launched airstrikes that killed civilians and put American military personnel in harm’s way.

The chat reads like a bunch of hormone-raging teenage boys talking macho while playacting at incredibly serious jobs. Rather than snapping towels in a locker room, these MAGA Bros are launching drones and dispatching F-18s.


The Atlantic published this screen shot of the infamous chat

On the afternoon of the U.S. attack on Yemen, the national security adviser to the president responded to Vice President JD Vance: “Typing too fast. The first target — their top missile guy — we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and it’s now collapsed.”

Vance responded a minute later: “Excellent.”

Earlier in the exchange of messages, it wasn’t altogether clear that these profoundly unserious people really knew the intent of the president, who naturally initially denied any knowledge of the entire screw-up and then quickly pivoted to more gaslighting.

The Republican senators who voted to confirm people like Gabbard and Ratcliffe and continue to whistle past the national graveyard own this unfathomable chaos. Saying, as most of them did, that incompetent, unserious, careless and unqualified people were suitable for such important responsibilities because “the president is entitled to his team” looks increasingly like a death wish, a political death wish and we can pray not a death wish for all that America has stood for in the post-war world.

James Risch of Idaho, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, voted for every Trump nominee. Most Republicans have done the same.

In the 71 days he’s been in office, Donald Trump has caved to Russian President Vladimir Putin on Ukraine, displayed utter disdain for our NATO allies, precipitated a profoundly stupid fight with Canada, threatened Greenland and Panama, floated the idea of forced relocation in Gaza in order to build a resort, set off a global trade war that has shaken markets and driven down consumer confidence, destroyed — or tried to destroy — vast parts of the federal government, shut down world-class health research, worsened a measles outbreak, caused numerous countries to issue travel warnings about visiting the U.S. and complained about his portrait in the Colorado state Capitol.

I’m just not used to the United States being the laughingstock of the world.

I’ve long thought this second version of the Trump administration would unravel very quickly and in very many ways. But frankly, the speed and scope of the unraveling is a surprise. And I can’t help but think how much the boys in the Kremlin and in Beijing are enjoying the unraveling. Every day they laugh at this chaos and, of course, benefit from it.

Send in the clowns. Don’t bother, they’re here.

—–0—–

Additional Reading:

They voted for Trump. Will he green light their $2B infrastructure project?

The Port of Coos Bay on the south Oregon coast received a huge grant to modernize its facilities in a bid to create jobs and revitalize an economically challenged area.

Local folks – Republicans and Democrats – support the project, as do all the members of the Oregon congressional delegation.

“In his first week in office, Trump broadly froze many federal grant programs, including some funds allocated by the bipartisan infrastructure law. He has repeatedly denigrated the big spending packages that were a hallmark of the Biden administration. He has not spoken specifically about the Coos Bay port, and the White House did not respond to a request for comment.”

Read the entire story.


As the President invokes Alien Enemies Act, a museum is dedicated to sharing the stories

“The last time a U.S. President invoked the Alien Enemies Act, Heart Mountain happened. Almost over night, a remote yet beautiful square mile of land deep within the nation’s interior became the third largest city in Wyoming, populated by people who were rounded up in raids and sent packing, hemmed in by guard towers and floodlights.”

Have most Americans forgotten – or never knew – this ugly page of our history?

From The Daily Montana.


The NIH’s Most Reckless Cuts Yet

“The Trump administration has been laying siege to science for months—just this week, the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the NIH, announced that it will fire 10,000 people. But the federal government’s disregard for clinical trials is one of the most direct illustrations yet that the nation’s new leaders have abandoned people’s health.”

Are they really intending to be this mean or are they just stupid … or both?

Read the full story.


More soon. I’m afraid there will be much more to worry about. Stay in touch. Thanks for reading.

Church, Johnson, U.S. Senate, Ukraine, Vietnam

America needs a Church; it gets a Risch …

On Feb. 17, 1965, Frank Church, a 41-year-old United States senator from Idaho, became one of the first senators to openly question U.S. policy in Vietnam. On that same day, George McGovern, a 42-year-old senator from South Dakota, expressed similar reservations. The Senate speeches were reported, among other places, on the front page of the New York Times under a headline “Johnson Asserts U.S. Will Persist in Vietnam Policy.”

Church’s speech reported in the Harrisburg, PA Evening News, Feb. 18, 1965

In their Senate speeches, Church and McGovern warned against the administration of President Lyndon Johnson becoming involved in what each correctly viewed as a post-colonial war of national liberation. Vietnam was, in fact, of little strategic importance to the United States. As the war intensified over the next 10 years, criticism of Church and McGovern increased, even as others joined their critique of what famed journalist David Halberstam pronounced at the time “a quagmire.”

The Senate action by Church and McGovern, Democrats from traditionally Republican states, marked the beginning of what became a sustained debate in Congress of Vietnam policy. That debate ultimately spilled over to street protests in many cities and on the campuses of its colleges. Pursuing the war would eventually claim more than 58,000 Americans and as many as 2 million Vietnamese.

Sixty years later, the historical consensus holds that Church and McGovern were right about both the war and Vietnam’s lack of strategic importance to the United States. Yet, political prescience aside, and measured against the fraught and divided politics of the country today, what remains fundamentally important about the stands made by the two was their principled criticism of the policy of a president of their own party.

Privately and with selective leaks to reporters, Johnson berated both senators for their stand. “But Frank Church spoke out,” as the Washington Post noted in Church’s obituary in 1984, “even as joking staffers wondered when President Johnson would send the Army Corps of Engineers to begin dismantling Idaho’s dams.”

Johnson viewed the young Idaho senator as a protégé and had engineered Church’s appointment to the Foreign Relations Committee, a plum assignment then that has become less plummy in our time. Johnson used the celebrated “Johnson treatment” on both the senator and his wife, Bethine, flattering, cajoling, praising, threatening, while always angling for public support.

When Johnson campaigned in Boise in 1964, he laid it on particularly thick, calling Church, “your eloquent and able young senator and his charming wife who helps Frank do such a good job.”

“I have always agreed with the people of Idaho on your choice of Churches,” Johnson said. “There is no senator that Washington respects more, and none that the nation needs more, and none that your president values more, than Frank Church.”

Yet, weeks later Church was pointing out the flaws in Johnson’s Vietnam policy and suffering for doing so. As his dissent became more intense, Vietnam became a central issue in Church’s reelection in 1968. His Republican challenger, Congressman George V. Hansen, slashed Church for being a “dove” providing “aid and comfort” to Communists.

More reaction to Church’s 1965 speech

Church biographers LeRoy Ashby and Rod Gramer detail the almost slapstick story of a St. Maries dogcatcher, Gene Mileck, who led a recall campaign against Church. Mileck’s efforts were supported by the John Birch Society, the far right of the Idaho Republican Party and wealthy out-of-state millionaires, in large part because of Church’s stand on the war. The recall effort was clearly unconstitutional and eventually collapsed, but the constant attacks on Church took a political toll, even as he proved he could fight back. Using language that might well resonate with some in Idaho today, Church said, “I think the people of Idaho have too much sense to allow this state to be taken over politically and economically by carpetbaggers from California.”

Church would go on to win four terms in the Senate — he defeated Hansen in 1968, winning 60% of the vote — becoming a leading advocate for a foreign policy based not on military intervention in the world’s revolutions but squarely focused on the nation’s vital interests. Church’s historic investigation into the abuses of the nation’s intelligence agencies remains his enduring legacy. Late in his last term, Church assumed the chairpersonship of the Foreign Relations Committee, a lifelong ambition.

Today, the United States faces a foreign policy challenge as existential as Vietnam proved to be in the 1960s: How does the country confront the ambitions of a brutal Russian dictator who aims to recreate much of the former Soviet empire and end American leadership of the most successful military alliance in the history of the world?

While the circumstances of America’s role in Vietnam and its posture in Ukraine are vastly different, the role of the United States Senate in helping shape American policy — or at least demanding debate of foreign policy issues — has all but disappeared. And today, another Idahoan helms the Foreign Relations Committee, a position that — would Sen. James Risch use it — could help define and shape U.S. policy in central Europe and elsewhere.

Risch has been silent as the Trump administration has demanded concessions from Ukraine while browbeating Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. While Trump wages a tariff war against Canada and threatens Canadian sovereignty, the leader of the Foreign Relations Committee says nothing. Threats to NATO, senseless posturing on Greenland or Panama, nothing prompts the least bit of pushback from Risch.

Risch, who seemed steadfast in support of Ukraine before Trump’s return, might use his position to conduct hearings on U.S. policy, drawing on the expertise and experience of diplomats and military leaders, much as then-Foreign Relations Committee Chairman J. William Fulbright did in the 1960s or Church did in the 1970s.

Instead of hearings or speeches or even an interview with a reporter, Risch actually blocked a Senate resolution last week that condemned Russian action and demanded an immediate end to the war. In doing so the Idaho senator’s particular brand of arrogance was on full display, lecturing Sen. Bernie Sanders – the sponsor of the resolution – that he didn’t know what he was talking, while make the preposterous claim that the only person “on the planet” who can end the war in Ukraine is “Donald J. Trump.”

Watch the video of the exchange, but you might consider doing it on an empty stomach.

The senator’s posture is a case study of the dreadful decline of influence of the U.S. Senate as an essential institution shaping the nation’s foreign policy. When Idaho and the nation requires a Church, it has a Risch. History will remember one for independence and another for carrying the briefcase of a president apparently determined to hand Vladimir Putin the first of what is likely to prove to be many victories in the heart of Europe, while frightening and alienating allies that have been with America for decades.

It would be sad if it were not so dangerous.

—–0—–

Additional reading:

Two more items for your consideration …

One Word of Truth Shall Outweigh the Whole World

The Russian author’s Nobel Prize lecture contains an urgent message for contemporary audiences.

By Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

“The world is being inundated by the brazen conviction that power can do anything, justice nothing,” the man who had spent nearly a decade in the labor camps of the Gulag told a complacent world. “The price of cowardice will only be evil; we shall reap courage and victory only when we dare to make sacrifices.”

Read the whole speech.


A Town Without Time by Gay Talese review – New York by an old master

I recently read Talese’s amazing book about The New York Times. Can’t wait to read this.

“It’s a wonderful nonfiction rendering of New York – in fact, a piece of New Journalism to relish at a time when the fourth estate increasingly seems to favour No Journalism instead.”

From The Guardian.


Do what you can. Do all you can. See you soon.

Trump, Ukraine

The Putinization of America …

Vladimir Putin has the United States right where he wants us.

Putin, who learned his brutal craft as a top KGB operative in East Germany before reunification, long ago identified Donald Trump as an easy mark. You don’t have to believe the conspiracy notions that Putin has something on our American authoritarian to see — if you care to see — that the one-time Russian spy has orchestrated Trump as well as Dmitri Shostakovich ever orchestrated a symphony.

Putin helped elect Trump the first time in 2016 and again in 2020, assistance that Trump gladly accepted, constituting an act of betrayal of democracy rivaling any other in American history. The Russia hoax, as Trump likes to say, wasn’t.

The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee reported in 2020 — confirming the essential findings of special counsel Robert Mueller — that there was “unprecedented Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election,” all designed to boost Trump. While much of that Senate report remains secret, it contains clear and compelling evidence of Russian interference then and now. Of course, the beneficiary of Russian help has repeatedly sided with Putin against the evidence of American intelligence agencies, while his then-attorney general, William Barr, wildly mischaracterized Mueller’s report.

“It’s Russia, Russia, Russia all over again,” Trump said at a campaign rally in Wisconsin last year. “But they don’t look at China and they don’t look at Iran. They look at Russia. I don’t know what it is with poor Russia.”

Poor Russia.

Remember, before it recedes further in the avalanche of Trumpian disinformation and lies, the Helsinki summit with Putin in 2018. “President Putin says it’s not Russia. I don’t see any reason why it would be,” Trump said during an infamous news conference where he sided with a dictator against his own government.

“No prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant,” the late Republican Sen. John McCain said at the time.

Never before, until that recent meeting in the White House.

The Oval Office ambush of the president of Ukraine

“You’ve got to be more thankful because let me tell you, you don’t have the cards,” Trump ranted at Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office. “With us, you have the cards, but without us, you don’t have any cards.”

That meeting will be recorded as the moment the United States of America joined the enemies of democracy; a reality confirmed by the Kremlin.

“The new administration is rapidly changing all foreign policy configurations,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said. “This largely aligns with our vision.”

“Even though anyone with eyes could see this coming, Donald Trump’s recent moves with regard to Ukraine and Russia come as a huge blow,” writes political scientist Francis Fukuyama. “We are in the midst of a global fight between Western liberal democracy and authoritarian government, and in this fight, the United States has just switched sides and signed up with the authoritarian camp.”

The online site Political Wire tallied the Putinization of America:

“The last two weeks alone offer a damning case study:

“The U.S. voted with Russia and other authoritarian-leaning nations to oppose a U.N. resolution condemning Russia’s ‘aggression’ in Ukraine.

“Trump openly called for elections in Ukraine — despite the ongoing war — and he floated the idea that Zelenskyy might need to be replaced.

“After already slow-walking military aid, Trump outright suspended weapons shipments to Ukraine.

“Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly ordered U.S. Cyber Command to halt offensive cyber and information operations against Russia.

“The White House directed the Treasury and State Departments to identify Russian sanctions that could be lifted under the guise of ‘improving relations.’

“And that’s just the last two weeks.”

And what concessions has Trump demanded of Putin?

The international affairs think tank Chatham House says zero: “In sum, Putin has ceded nothing — territory, claims on territory or force posture. He has denied everything, and been blamed for nothing.”

The real issue here is not the disgustingly boorish Oval Office behavior of Trump and Vice President JD Vance, and certainly not the pushback provided by Zelenskyy, but rather what national security interest is being served by the U.S. joining the bad guys.

Some Americans, particularly among Trump supporters, may be unaware that something very similar to Trump’s capitulation to Putin happened in the run-up to World War II.

Adolf Hitler, like Putin today an equivalent 1930s threat to Europe and the United States, demanded in 1938 a sizeable chunk of neighboring Czechoslovakia. With bluster and threats of military attack, Britain and France bargained away the area known as the Sudetenland, a portion of Czechoslovakia with an ethnic Germany population. The “negotiations” with Hitler took place in Munich without Czech participation — the same formula Trump is pursuing with Putin.

Returning from Munich, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain declared “peace in our time,” believing that sacrificing a country in the heart of Europe was an easy price to pay to placate a brutal dictator. Less than six months later — March 15, 1939 — Hitler occupied what remained of Czechoslovakia, confident that European democracies would not stop him. Six months later — Sept. 1, 1939 — World War II began when German invaded another neighbor, Poland.

Historical analogies are never perfect, but the symmetry of Britain and France coddling Hitler and Trump empowering Putin is impossible to miss, unless you want to miss it.

A news roundup from the Idaho Statesman, September 30, 1938

Trump says he wants to end the war. Doesn’t everyone? But to what end? Handing Putin a territorial victory after his war crimes? Emboldening China to attack Taiwan? Force longtime European allies who can no longer trust the U.S. to develop their own nuclear deterrent?

As former U.S ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul correctly says: “We need to focus on what America’s national security interests are. And our interests are to be with our European allies. This is catastrophic. What we’re doing by alienating our allies, because as Churchill once said, there’s nothing worse than going to war than going alone. And if we are not with our allies in the long run, it has dire consequences for us, not just in Ukraine. But in Asia as well.”

As Winston Churchill said after Munich, with words that chill the spine yet: “And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup, which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.”

—–0—–

Additional Reading:

A few other items of interest …

Hitler didn’t want a peace deal, and neither does Putin

Robert Kagen on Putin’s real aim: “Putin’s goal, as it has been from the beginning, is the incorporation of Ukraine into Russia and the complete erasure of the Ukrainian nation, language, and culture. He will gladly accept Ukraine’s surrender whenever Kyiv is ready to concede, but short of that he is going to keep the war going until he takes everything.”

From The Atlantic.


Why Trump’s Anti-NATO Rhetoric Is Working

Esquire’s Charles Pierce says: “The only thing that Trump hasn’t done in the last month to advance Russian interests in Ukraine is pick up a Kalashnikov and join the fighting. Of course, Trumps have avoided that sort of thing for three generations, going all the way back to his paternal grandfather, who beat feet to America rather than serve out his mandatory military duty to King Otto of Bavaria. Our European allies, who have watched this process with undisguised alarm because they do not believe Putin’s imperial ambitions end in Ukraine, have promised aid to Ukraine as they spend their days wondering whether NATO can long endure as a functioning alliance.”

Read the full story.


Marco Rubio: one-time Russia hawk makes stunning U-turn under Trump

By now this is an old story. It’s happened to so many GOP politicians, but the transformation of Marco Rubio is, well, stunning to the point of being parodied on SNL.

From The Guardian.

“The [Rubio] dynamic even caught the attention of Saturday Night Live, which featured a dour Rubio, played by Marcello Hernández, in its opening sketch last weekend.”

“Oh man, look at Rubio over there, fully dissociating,” James Austin Johnson, impersonating Trump, said. “He looks like Homer Simpson disappearing into that hedge.”

“It was a stunning display from the man who once attacked Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, as ‘a gangster’, ‘a thug’ and ‘a war criminal.’ Rubio’s ascension to the top of the State Department has seemingly forced him to embrace Trump’s ‘America first’ agenda and abandon his long-documented support of Ukraine.

“Here are eight of Rubio’s past comments on Russia and Ukraine to show just how much his position has changed … ”

Stunning.


Thanks for reading. These are perilous times.