Donald Trump Transition Team James Woolsey Quits

[Ender]

So......why is no one talking about THIS?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-transition-team-james-woolsey-quits-former-cia-director-russia-hack-could-be-playing-us-a7512296.html

Coulda missed a post but have seen nothing on this.

[Jan2017]

Well, come on . . . these are transition teams - and for Trump are gonna have some "Celebrity Apprentice" style revolving doors -
Chris Christie getting canned was interesting though, but most are gonna be *yawn* imho

Interesting what the link says about this . . .


Mr Trump tweeted earlier this week that the intelligence briefing on Russia that he was supposed to receive had been delayed until Friday, which he said was “very strange”.

[Zippyjuan]

Woolsey has been critical of Trump ignoring the intelligence community and he is big on diplomacy- being careful of what one says in public less it be misconstrued- and says Trump isn't careful enough with what he says on Twitter. He also wondered why he was considered an advisor when his opinion on intelligence and military was not sought.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/05/former-cia-director-james-woolsey-quits-trump-transition-team/?utm_term=.fb2c4448cd44


Former CIA director R. James Woolsey Jr., a veteran of four presidential administrations and one of the nation’s leading intelligence experts, resigned Thursday from President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team because of growing tensions over Trump’s vision for intelligence agencies.

Woolsey’s resignation as a Trump senior adviser comes amid frustrations over the incoming administration’s national security plans and Trump’s public comments undermining the intelligence community.


People close to Woolsey said that he had been excluded in recent weeks from discussions on intelligence matters with Trump and retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the incoming White House national security adviser. They said that Woolsey had grown increasingly uncomfortable lending his name and credibility to the transition team without being consulted. Woolsey was taken aback by this week’s reports that Trump is considering revamping the country’s intelligence framework, said these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly.

“Jim is very uncomfortable being considered an adviser in an area where one might consider him an expert when he is not involved in the discussions,” one person close to Woolsey said. “To be called ‘senior adviser’ and your opinion is not sought is something he cannot handle.”


The person close to Woolsey described him as having chafed at Trump’s loose style on Twitter. They described Woolsey as a “very principled” diplomat who takes care to communicate the right message with just the right words. “This is a guy [for whom] commas, periods, etcetera, all have special meaning,” this person said.

Woolsey joined the Trump campaign last September, issuing a statement commending Trump’s plans to grow and modernize the military.

[dannno]

This is how you drain the swamp.

[enhanced_deficit]

He probably just un-defected.

Defection: Bill Clinton's CIA Director James Woolsey Joins Donald Trump Campaign
www.breitbart.com/
Sep 12, 2016


Not sure if any connection to news of Clinton considering NY Mayor run.. but so far most hardcore neocons and Trump don't seem to entangle too well.

[Zippyjuan]

This is how you drain the swamp.

It is?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-coats-idUSKBN14P2E6


Trump picks former U.S. Senator Coats as director of national intelligence

President-elect Donald Trump on Thursday picked former U.S. Senator Dan Coats as his director of national intelligence, two senior transition officials said, as he puts his stamp on a U.S. intelligence community that he frequently criticizes.

The official announcement was expected this week as Trump makes decisions on some of the remaining major positions he must fill as he prepares to take over the White House on Jan. 20.

Coats, 73, is a traditional conservative from Indiana who just finished a six-year term in the U.S. Senate. He was also U.S. ambassador to Germany for Republican President George W. Bush.

Coats “would be an excellent choice,” Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican, told reporters.

“Because Dan’s got the experience, he’s got the leadership skills having been an ambassador and I think his time on the committee has served him to understand what that role entails.”

One Democratic official familiar with Coats' background and views described him as a "very reasonable guy." Another U.S. official familiar with intelligence matters said he was "very well respected on both sides of the aisle."

A source close to the transition said Trump had also considered New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for the job but that Christie had chosen not to take it.

BUTTING HEADS OVER RUSSIA?

Trump has repeatedly expressed doubts about the U.S. intelligence community's assessment that Russia had a hand in hacking during the presidential campaign.

The Democratic official said Coats knew a lot about Europe and Russia and might "butt heads with Trump over Russia."

The president-elect was to get a briefing about the intelligence community's findings on the topic from senior U.S. officials on Friday at Trump Tower in New York.

Some U.S. intelligence officials on Thursday welcomed Coats' selection, saying they hoped his appointment was a sign that Trump was seeking to mend fences with the intelligence community after months of enmity over its assessment that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election through hacking.

One official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a domestic political issue, said he hoped that if confirmed by the Senate, Coats could negotiate what he called "a truce" between the intelligence community and Trump's choice for national security adviser, retired Army Lieutenant General Mike Flynn, who was fired as Defense Intelligence Agency director by the current director of national intelligence, James Clapper.

Coats has been a vigorous defender of government surveillance programs, having voted against congressional reforms to the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of U.S. call records in 2015.

While on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Coats also joined other Republican members in 2014 in approving a minority report that defended the CIA’s use of harsh interrogation methods against detainees in secret foreign prisons, saying the program “saved lives and played a vital role in weakening al Qaida.”

The conclusion contrasted with the majority report that found the program failed to produce significant intelligence and that the CIA misled the Bush administration, Congress and the American public about the use of so-called Enhanced Interrogation Techniques.

The techniques included waterboarding, which simulates drowning and was condemned as torture by President Barack Obama, other senior officials and lawmakers, and human rights experts

[dannno]

It is?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-coats-idUSKBN14P2E6

Yep, it is.

Trump's goal is to get the smartest, most connected, well meaning people into his cabinet as possible so he can be as effective as possible.

The problem is that the smartest, most connected people tend to be part of the swamp and are not well meaning.

However there are some smart, well connected and well meaning people who are part of the establishment and this is who Trump is targeting for his administration. But it's difficult to tell who these people are until he brings them on board and works with them. That's why we are seeing a lot of revolving door stuff happening, and you will continue to see that if his reality TV show was any indication.

It would be a lot easier to go in and pick people like Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Judge Napolitano, Peter Schiff, Tom Woods, Massie, Amash and other liberty minded folks to be in the administration, but would congress allow them to be nominated for those positions which require congressional approval? How effective would they be at being able to restore liberty? I don't know. I sure would like to find out, but clearly that is not going to happen this go-around. Nope, this go-around is Trump style and this is how Trump do. Is it the best way? I dunno. But it's a far better direction than your girl Hillary would have taken us.

[Zippyjuan]

So tapping your communications and waterboarding and the Patriot Act are good things.

[dannno]

So tapping your communications and waterboarding and the Patriot Act are good things.

No, that's an "equal" thing. Hillary was all for all of those things. Trump is better on nearly everything else, and will probably be a lot better on those issues simply due to the fact that he is so much better on nearly every other issue. Like not going to war, for example. If we don't go to war, then we won't be waterboarding as much. If we don't go to war, we will have less people who hate us and won't need to utilize the Patriot Act as much.

[Zippyjuan]

No, that's an "equal" thing. Hillary was all for all of those things. Trump is better on nearly everything else, and will probably be a lot better on those issues simply due to the fact that he is so much better on nearly every other issue. Like not going to war, for example. If we don't go to war, then we won't be waterboarding as much. If we don't go to war, we will have less people who hate us and won't need to utilize the Patriot Act as much.


He wants to massively increase military spending and go and kick ISIS's butt. He also said he wants to seize Iraqi oil fields. That isn't going to war or going to not piss of anybody?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/15/middleeast/donald-trump-isis-strategy/


"I will quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS, will rebuild our military and make it so strong no-one -- and I mean, no one -- will mess with us."

"I would bomb the s*** out of them."

"The attack on Mosul is turning out to be a total disaster. We gave them months of notice. US is looking so dumb."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/21/donald-trump-iraq-war-oil-strategy-seizure-isis


One of the recurring themes of Donald Trump’s national security strategy is his plan to “take the oil” in Iraq and from areas controlled by Islamic State (Isis) extremists. It would drain Isis’s coffers and reimburse the US for the costs of its military commitments in the Middle East, the candidate insists.

At a forum hosted by NBC on 7 September, Trump suggested oil seizure would have been a way to pay for the Iraq war, saying: “We go in, we spend $3tn, we lose thousands and thousands of lives, and then … what happens is we get nothing. You know, it used to be to the victor belong the spoils.”

He added: “One of the benefits we would have had if we took the oil is Isis would not have been able to take oil and use that oil to fuel themselves.”

[dannno]

He wants to massively increase military spending and go and kick ISIS's butt. He also said he wants to seize Iraqi oil fields. That isn't going to war or going to not piss of anybody?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/15/middleeast/donald-trump-isis-strategy/



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/21/donald-trump-iraq-war-oil-strategy-seizure-isis

Ya I'm kinda sick of the cherry picking from your side.

Trump has come out giving entire speeches that have been focused on his foreign policy plans and he talks about how he wants to tone back our foreign policy and how we have been involved in way too many conflicts. He has come out against all of the conflicts we have been in with other countries in the last 15 years.

Going after ISIS probably won't entail much, in fact, if we stopped funding them and got out of the way they would probably be destroyed or dissipate soon enough without us doing anything else.

Trump wants a strong defense, so does Ron Paul. Trump isn't as good on foreign policy as Ron Paul, or even Rand Paul, but he is thousands of miles ahead of Hillary.

[Zippyjuan]

Going after ISIS probably won't entail much, in fact, if we stopped funding them and got out of the way they would probably be destroyed or dissipate soon enough without us doing anything else.



Saddam was only supposed to take a few weeks. Ask GW about that one.

Cherry picking Trump is easy. You do it too He has said things on both sides of almost every issue. He says one thing and a few days later is saying something else. We don't know what he is really thinking or will really do.

[Brian4Liberty]

Good riddance.


James Woolsey, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) under President Bill Clinton, is a well-connected advocate of militarist U.S. foreign policies. He has supported the work of several neoconservative-led groups, including the Committee on the Present Danger, the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, the Project for the New American Century, the Center for Security Policy, among others.

Woolsey chairs the Leadership Council of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, an important bastion of hawkish “pro-Israel” advocacy in the United States that has served as an outpost for many well-known rightist ideologues.[1] Among his activities at FDD has been to support the work of its Energy Security” program, which advocates for the United States to break “break the oil monopoly” that helps prop up “regimes and individuals who fund terrorist activities.”[2]

Woolsey has also served on the board of advisors of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a spinoff of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee,[3] and the advisory board of the right-wing Jamestown Foundation.[4]
...
Woolsey is a frequent consultant and advisor to private businesses and defense contractors, as well as government boards and panels. A former vice president of Booz Allen Hamilton, a Pentagon contractor, and partner at the high-profile D.C. law firm Shea and Gardner, Woolsey’s experience includes serving as chair of his firm Woolsey Partners, serving as venture partner and senior advisor to VantagePoint Venture Partners, chairing an advisory group of the private equity fund Paladin Capital Group, and serving as counsel to the law firm Goodwin Procter.[5]
...
Advocacy Agenda

A long-standing hawk on U.S. Middle East policy, Woolsey has championed President Obama’s decision to broaden U.S. involvement in rolling back the Islamic State (ISIS) in Iraq and Syria. In a September 2014 interview, he argued that Obama was “heading in the right direction” on ISIS but that he should call it war instead of counterterrorism. He also said the United States should commit ground troops: “We may not need large military units fighting in a tradition fashion, but Special Forces, SEALs, Army rangers, CIA officers helping put together ways to advise and oversee our allies are all going to be necessary.”[7]

After the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, Woolsey called for a “coalition with us and France and NATO” to “go after them.” He added that if the “American president isn’t going to take the lead … we’re going to have another 15 months of the world believing we are sort of flaccid dupes.”[8]

Woolsey has also long pushed for a confrontational approach on Iran. He has pushed back against the notion that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who was elected in 2013 on a platform of improving Iranian relations with the West, is a “moderate.” In an October 2013 op-ed for The Hill coauthored with Bijan Khan and David J. Smith, Woolsey argued that before the United States engages with Rouhani, he must demonstrate Iran’s “unequivocal commitment” to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and its additional protocols, as well as end the country’s support for anti-Israel militant groups in the Levant, protest China and Russia’s mistreatment of their ethnic and religious minority populations, denounce the common “Death to America” slogan in Iran, and improve conditions for Iran’s own marginalized populations.[9]

Woosely has been a stern critic of negotiations with Iran. Regarding the interim nuclear deal signed between Iran and world powers in November 2013, Woolsey said, “We are basically caving in.” “Now it’s going to be hard to move it where we should move it if we want to cause major disruption in the Iranian government, and I think we should want to do that.”[10]
...
In November 2006, Woolsey was the keynote speaker at a conference sponsored by the hawkish American Foreign Policy Council titled “Understanding the Iranian Threat.” He told the audience, “First of all, the Persians invented chess, and they are very good at it,” he began, calling Iran’s nuclear program a “queen” that it was protecting various other “lesser pieces,” such as Syria, Muqtada al-Sadr, Hezbollah, and Hamas. Woolsey suggested that North Korea might ship Iran plutonium or highly enriched uranium in diplomatic pouches in exchange for weapons purposes. Other speakers at the conference included Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and Walid Phares of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.[13]

In a September 2008 Wall Street Journal op-ed, Woolsey and his co-authors (Richard Holbrooke, Dennis Ross, and Mark Wallace) announced the creation of an advovacy group called United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI).[14] While the authors’ claimed that the group did “not aim to beat the drums of war,” UANI has pushed a number of confrontational policies. In mid-2009, for example, UANI made headlines when it began running an ad on cable news channels that called for the Obama administration to take a tougher line on Iran. The narrator of the 30-second ad, titled “Unclenched Fist,” says, “This is Iran. Young, vibrant — a people Americans have no quarrel with. Unfortunately, this is also Iran — radical rulers seeking nuclear weapons, threatening the world. Americans can do something about it. We can put economic pressure on the Iranian regime-pressure to keep them from building a nuclear arsenal. And that will ensure security for all of us.”[15]

Drawing on his background at the CIA and as a former vice president of Booz Allen Hamilton—the military contractor that employed NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden—Woolsey has also defended the U.S. government’s extensive domestic surveillance program and inveighed against Snowden for alerting the public to its existence.
...
Woolsey has blasted suggestions of giving Snowden amnesty and argued he should be “hanged” if convicted for treason. “He should be prosecuted for treason. If convicted by a jury of his peers, he should be hanged by his neck until he is dead,” Woolsey said in a 2013 interview with Fox News.[17] After it was revealed that the NSA had spied on German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Woolsey defended the practice of spying on allies but conceded that “the U.S. has taken a heavy blow” and was risking its counter-terrorism capabilities by targeting Merkel.
...
After the terrorist attacks in Paris in November 2015, Woolsey sought to partly blame Snowden for the attacks, arguing that changes in communications methods and the use of encryption by ISIS were spurred by Snowden’s leaks. “I’m no fan of the changes that were made after Snowden’s leaks of classified information,” he said of the minor NSA reforms implemented after the Snowden revelations. “I think Snowden has blood on his hands from these killings in France.”[19]
...
Woolsey also promotes a hard line on North Korea, invoking in May 2013 the generally discredited threat that North Korea could launch a nuclear device in the stratosphere to trigger an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that would cripple U.S. infrastructure. “An EMP attack,” Woolsey claimed in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that month, “would collapse the electric grid and other infrastructure that depends on it—communications, transportation, banking and finance, food and water—necessary to sustain modern civilization and the lives of 300 million Americans.” Woolsey concluded by calling for a U.S. attack on the country, writing that “A surgical strike to prevent North Korean development of an ICBM has never been more urgent. Such a strike would draw a necessary line in the sand for North Korea—and Iran.”[21] (Commenting on Woolsey’s op-ed, a writer for Foreign Policy subsequently described the EMP scenario as “a wild claim” peddled by a “crowd of cranks and threat inflators.”)[22]

An erstwhile proponent of the notion that the “War on Terror” is World War IV, Woolsey has described himself as a “Scoop Jackson/Joe Lieberman Democrat.”[23] Together with the likes of Lieberman and Michael O’Hanlon, Woolsey blends Democratic Party domestic politics with advocacy for neoconservative foreign policy causes, including interventionist military policies in the Middle East. Despite his party affiliation, Woolsey has advised a number of Republican Party figures, including President George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain.
...
Woolsey is also a longstanding backer of controversial weapons programs. In a July 2010 Wall Street Journal op-ed, Woolsey hyped the idea that Iran could in a few years be able to launch a nuclear-armed missile at the United States. Thus, he warned, it was imperative for the United States to deploy a “robust and comprehensive ballistic missile defense” — this despite the fact that such a system has never proven workable. Such a system, he added, should be coupled with additional missile defense systems in Europe.[28]
...
After 9/11, Woolsey was among the first government advisors to call for ousting Hussein, joining Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle in pressing for an expanded war on terror to include regime change in Iraq. According to the Atlantic Monthly‘s James Fallows, “The very next day, September 12, 2001, James Woolsey, who had been Clinton’s first CIA director, told me that no matter who proved to be responsible for this attack, the solution had to include removing Saddam Hussein, because he was so likely to be involved next time.”[30]

Woolsey became a prominent media presence after 9/11, criticizing opponents of the Bush administration’s “war on terror” and characterizing the conflict in stark, existential terms. Regarding European and Arab reluctance to support an invasion of Iraq, in December 2001 Woolsey argued “only fear will reestablish [Arab] respect for the U.S. … We need to read a little bit of Machiavelli. … We really don’t need the Europeans. Anyways, they will be the first in line patting us on the back following our success and saying they were with us all along.”[31]

In late 2002, Woolsey gave a widely quoted speech at the Restoration Weekend convention, an annual conference of high-profile conservative figures, during which he argued that the United States was fighting “World War IV”—a term promoted by Norman Podhoretz, a key neoconservative ideologue, and Eliot Cohen, one of Woolsey’s Defense Policy Board colleagues and a supporter of the Bush administration’s response to 9/11— against totalitarian movements “coming out of the Middle East.”[32] (Woolsey repeated the main items of this speech during another conference at UCLA that was organized by campus Republicans and Americans for Victory over Terrorism, a Claremont Institute-sponsored letterhead group for which Woolsey once served as a senior advisor.[33])
...
During John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, Woolsey served as an adviser—along with a number of high-profile neoconservatives like Randy Scheunemann, Gary Schmitt, and William Kristol—on the candidate’s national security policies.[48] Woolsey also advised McCain on energy security, an issue long at the heart of Woolsey’s policy discourse.[49]
...
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Woolsey_James/

[UWDude]

Woolsey has been critical of Trump ignoring the intelligence community and he is big on diplomacy

Like hell he is. Iv'e seen his interviews. He is an interventionist and warhawk.
He probably just now figured out Trump charmed him long enough to figure out the players inthe CIA... ...which news is now saying he is planning to "greatly curb".



Good riddance.

Hey, who should I believe, your article full of facts... ..or zippyjuan saying Woolsley is big on diplomacy? LMAO!

[oyarde]

Well , Coats is not great but better than Woolsey I imagine .

[anaconda]

Yep, it is.

Trump's goal is to get the smartest, most connected, well meaning people into his cabinet as possible so he can be as effective as possible.

The problem is that the smartest, most connected people tend to be part of the swamp and are not well meaning.

However there are some smart, well connected and well meaning people who are part of the establishment and this is who Trump is targeting for his administration. But it's difficult to tell who these people are until he brings them on board and works with them. That's why we are seeing a lot of revolving door stuff happening, and you will continue to see that if his reality TV show was any indication.

It would be a lot easier to go in and pick people like Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Judge Napolitano, Peter Schiff, Tom Woods, Massie, Amash and other liberty minded folks to be in the administration, but would congress allow them to be nominated for those positions which require congressional approval? How effective would they be at being able to restore liberty? I don't know. I sure would like to find out, but clearly that is not going to happen this go-around. Nope, this go-around is Trump style and this is how Trump do. Is it the best way? I dunno. But it's a far better direction than your girl Hillary would have taken us.

Interesting analysis indeed.

[pcosmar]

Don't replace him with anyone..

disband the whole corrupt mess.

[jmdrake]

No, that's an "equal" thing. Hillary was all for all of those things. Trump is better on nearly everything else, and will probably be a lot better on those issues simply due to the fact that he is so much better on nearly every other issue. Like not going to war, for example. If we don't go to war, then we won't be waterboarding as much. If we don't go to war, we will have less people who hate us and won't need to utilize the Patriot Act as much.

WTF? Dannno I don't like Zippy so curse you for making me defend him, but you're just being stupid. Trump "drained the swamp" by picking someone to be over intelligence that supported the Patriot Act, waterboarding and the war in Iraq! And great! Trump, like John Kerry, was against the Iraq war before he was for it. Okay, maybe you can excuse his statements on Howard Stern as "Well....if we're gonna go...okay let's go." But Trumps support for the war in Libya was a full throated 100% neocon / neolib "Let's send in the troops to stop Ghadafi from killing his own people" (A total fabricated lie). After both Iraq and Libya were proven to be total disasters Trump decided to be against them and then he lied and said "I was always against them." Total, utter, bull^$^%. I glad Trump and Putin are buddies and Putin seems to have gotten Syria wrapped up prior to leaving so hopefully Trump won't drag us into a war with Syria. But to call him "anti war" is just dishonest.

[jmdrake]

He has come out against been for and against all of the conflicts we have been in with other countries in the last 15 years.

FIFY


Going after ISIS probably won't entail much, in fact, if we stopped funding them and got out of the way they would probably be destroyed or dissipate soon enough without us doing anything else.

I agree. That's Ron and Rand's position. Sadly it's not Trump's.


Trump wants a strong defense, so does Ron Paul. Trump isn't as good on foreign policy as Ron Paul, or even Rand Paul, but he is thousands of miles ahead of Hillary.

Ummmm....did you watch the report that Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams did with Chuck Grassley regarding U.S. Military spending especially with regards to the Air Force? Here at the cliff notes:

1) Trump has signed on to the stupid wasteful spending programs the Pentagon has already put in place like the F-35.

2) The F35 is CRAP and way to expensive and cannot do the job of cheaper aircraft such as the F-16 and A-10.

3) The types of wars we are claim to be preparing to fight don't require such aircraft anyway. You can take out ISIS largely with drones.

4) Why the hell do we need to "modernize our nuclear forces?" Who are we planning a nuke war with?

The ultimate conclusion was that we could have a stronger military by spending less money if we kill stupid platforms like the F-35. Trump is in the old mode of "throwing money at the problem means you want a strong defense."

[UWDude]

kill stupid platforms like the F-35. Trump is in the old mode of "throwing money at the problem means you want a strong defense."

Lockheed F-35 fighter project in doubt after Trump tweet encourages rival Boeing
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/23/lockheed-f-35-fighter-project-in-doubt-after-trump-tweet-encourages-rival-boeing

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump

Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!
2:26 PM - 22 Dec 2016

15,052 15,052 Retweets
62,951

[jmdrake]

Lockheed F-35 fighter project in doubt after Trump tweet encourages rival Boeing
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/23/lockheed-f-35-fighter-project-in-doubt-after-trump-tweet-encourages-rival-boeing

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump

Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!
2:26 PM - 22 Dec 2016

15,052 15,052 Retweets
62,951

Okay. Ya got me. I will admit when I'm wrong. I'm a bit shocked that Trump would do the right thing on this. Spending 1 trillion on infrastructure makes more sense than spending 1 trillion on a stupid designed by committee "joint strike fighter" that can't even do the job it was designed to do.