Rand Paul: Generals are corrupting Trump's anti-war instincts

[jct74]

Rand Paul: Generals are corrupting Trump's anti-war instincts

by Steven Nelson
Feb 11, 2018

Sen. Rand Paul said Sunday President Trump’s anti-war instincts are being muted by generals he’s named to senior positions in his administration.

The Kentucky Republican said he believes Trump is "the least interventionist-minded president we've had in a long time," but that advisers are pushing back on the impulse.

“This is something that we've seen even going back to Reagan. Conservatives said, 'Oh, we love Reagan,' and then the people appointed around him were all big government types,” Paul said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

“I think Donald Trump is probably the least interventionist-minded president we've had in a long time. I mean, he criticized George Bush for the intervention in the Iraq War. I think he's not that excited about continuing the Afghan war forever, but the generals he's surrounded him[self] with don't want to admit there's not a military solution. So the war goes on and on and on,” Paul said.

...

read more:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rand-paul-generals-are-corrupting-trumps-anti-war-instincts/article/2648773

[dannno]

Ya hopefully Trump will tire of this all very soon. My initial guesses of 6 months to a year may have been a little bit optimistic.

[acptulsa]

Ya hopefully Trump will tire of this all very soon. My initial guesses of 6 months to a year may have been a little bit optimistic.

Huh, ya think?

Is that an apology for all the rude things you called people who doubted your 'optimistic' assessment?

[dannno]

Huh, ya think?

Is that an apology for all the rude things you called people who doubted your 'optimistic' assessment?

Is that an apology for beating your mom?

[phill4paul]

Huh, ya think?

Is that an apology for all the rude things you called people who doubted your 'optimistic' assessment?

Lol. Ain't gonna happen.

[Zippyjuan]

Yeah- Trump is totally against using the military.

More bombing on Syria. Iraq. Afghanistan (used biggest non-nuclear weapon ever dropped). Yemen. Threatens to attack Iran, North Korea. Venezuela.

During the election campaign he promised to bomb the shit out of ISIS and also talked about bombing Iranian oilfields and seizing their oil.

Trump likes being Tough Guy. His generals actually try to keep him in check.

And he is the Commander in Chief (though he does like to farm out decision making-avoiding the hard details on things and taking credit when things go well and passing on blame when they don't).

[phill4paul]

Never back an opponent into a corner where he will become obstinate. Allow him an honorable "out." Politics 101. Sun Tzu would be proud.

[Origanalist]

Ya hopefully Trump will tire of this all very soon. My initial guesses of 6 months to a year may have been a little bit optimistic.

Ha ha ha ha ha,ha,ha.

Maybe just a tad

[Swordsmyth]

President Trump sounds a lot like Rand Paul – or even his father Ron Paul – during military meetings by asking generals why they won’t bring the troops home.
This is according to a story in the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/can-jim-mattis-check-an-impulsive-president-and-still-retain-his-trust/2018/02/07/289297a2-0814-11e8-8777-2a059f168dd2_story.html) which tried to smear the president as “impulsive” – yet reading deeper into the article reveals that Trump leans libertarian when it comes to foreign policy – more so than previously known.
For one thing, the president wonders why the US is in Somalia of all places:
He has repeatedly pressed Mattis and McMaster in stark terms to explain why U.S. troops are in Somalia. “Can’t we just pull out?” he has asked, according to U.S. officials.
And Trump questioned US involvement in Afghanistan, which is now the country’s longest war:
In a meeting with his top national security aides, the president grew frustrated.
“You guys want me to send troops everywhere,” Trump said, according to officials in the Situation Room meeting. “What’s the justification?”
“Sir, we’re doing it to prevent a bomb from going off in Times Square,” Mattis replied.
The response angered Trump, who insisted that Mattis could make the same argument about almost any country on the planet.

More at: https://www.infowars.com/trump-channels-rand-paul-during-military-meetings/

[dannno]

President Trump sounds a lot like Rand Paul – or even his father Ron Paul – during military meetings by asking generals why they won’t bring the troops home.
This is according to a story in the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/can-jim-mattis-check-an-impulsive-president-and-still-retain-his-trust/2018/02/07/289297a2-0814-11e8-8777-2a059f168dd2_story.html) which tried to smear the president as “impulsive” – yet reading deeper into the article reveals that Trump leans libertarian when it comes to foreign policy – more so than previously known.
For one thing, the president wonders why the US is in Somalia of all places:
He has repeatedly pressed Mattis and McMaster in stark terms to explain why U.S. troops are in Somalia. “Can’t we just pull out?” he has asked, according to U.S. officials.
And Trump questioned US involvement in Afghanistan, which is now the country’s longest war:
In a meeting with his top national security aides, the president grew frustrated.
“You guys want me to send troops everywhere,” Trump said, according to officials in the Situation Room meeting. “What’s the justification?”
“Sir, we’re doing it to prevent a bomb from going off in Times Square,” Mattis replied.
The response angered Trump, who insisted that Mattis could make the same argument about almost any country on the planet.

More at: https://www.infowars.com/trump-channels-rand-paul-during-military-meetings/



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhFHIlwCSq0



And remember the US airstrike on a Syrian airfield that made Trump appear aggressive? The strike was the “most limited” military option presented to Trump, according (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/world/middleeast/us-said-to-weigh-military-responses-to-syrian-chemical-attack.html?_r=0) to the New York Times – and it effectively neutered Trump’s enemies at the time who were pressuring him to go to war.While this isn’t an endorsement of the strike – it did kill a Syrian pilot – it is worth pointing out that the attack left the runway unharmed (https://www.infowars.com/trumps-syria-strike-what-theyre-not-telling-you/), meaning the air base was left operational for Syria to continue air strikes on ISIS.
It’s as if Trump wanted to appear he could wage war, while maintaining some of the restraint of Rand Paul.

[Swordsmyth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhFHIlwCSq0


[/FONT][/FONT]


It's still not good enough yet, if he doesn't start to make major changes like leaving Afghanistan then his personal preferences (if true) will have been worthless.
I posted the article because it shows that Rand isn't just talking through his hat as some people claimed.

[dannno]

It's still not good enough yet, if he doesn't start to make major changes like leaving Afghanistan then his personal preferences (if true) will have been worthless.
I posted the article because it shows that Rand isn't just talking through his hat as some people claimed.

Yes, but it plays PRECISELY into what I've been saying all along, even before the election. Other people here think Trump wants to go kill and bomb people for fun, I'm not saying Trump is perfect, just making the point that they don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

He said he was going to go after ISIS, so I expected some military action for a short time after he was President to get rid of ISIS.

Trump has actually been successful, ISIS is almost gone. But to do that, he had to give the military a bunch of power to actually go after them. The problem is they wanna do a bunch of other crap too, and unfortunately they've been able to get away with it.

So as he was putting his cabinet together we saw that he was bringing in less than desirable people and giving them free reign to reach some goals. But Trump is not a guy who likes to waste money. But he is also patient. So once he reaches his goals, and we are pretty close, I think we will see a significant drop in military activity coming out of the Trump admin. I also think we are going to see a lot of cuts in government spending in the future, but again he needs to cooperate to get some of his other goals reached.

If all he did was cut spending, congress probably wouldn't do a very good job anyway, it would get all caught up in the process and he probably wouldn't get a lot of the other things done that he is trying to accomplish before getting to spending cuts.

[AuH20]

Yes, but it plays PRECISELY into what I've been saying all along, even before the election. Other people here think Trump wants to go kill and bomb people for fun, I'm not saying Trump is perfect, just making the point that they don't know what the $#@! they are talking about.

He said he was going to go after ISIS, so I expected some military action for a short time after he was President to get rid of ISIS.

Trump has actually been successful, ISIS is almost gone. But to do that, he had to give the military a bunch of power to actually go after them. The problem is they wanna do a bunch of other crap too, and unfortunately they've been able to get away with it.

So as he was putting his cabinet together we saw that he was bringing in less than desirable people and giving them free reign to reach some goals. But Trump is not a guy who likes to waste money. But he is also patient. So once he reaches his goals, and we are pretty close, I think we will see a significant drop in military activity coming out of the Trump admin. I also think we are going to see a lot of cuts in government spending in the future, but again he needs to cooperate to get some of his other goals reached.

If all he did was cut spending, congress probably wouldn't do a very good job anyway, it would get all caught up in the process and he probably wouldn't get a lot of the other things done that he is trying to accomplish before getting to spending cuts.

Trump is a builder by trade. He's never been a hawk. How can one make America great again by stationing troops in Somalia? It goes against his instincts.

[dannno]

Trump is a builder by trade. He's never been a hawk. How can one make America great again by stationing troops in Somalia? It goes against his instincts.

That's why...


He has repeatedly pressed Mattis and McMaster in stark terms to explain why U.S. troops are in Somalia. “Can’t we just pull out?” he has asked, according to U.S. officials.

Once Trump gets what he wants from the MIC (a win against ISIS), he will start cutting them out.

[AuH20]

Once Trump gets what he wants from the MIC (a win against ISIS), he will start cutting them out.

Easier said than done.

[dannno]

Easier said than done.

Pretty sure he has a plan. He always does. He is a smart cookie.

[Zippyjuan]

That's why...



Once Trump gets what he wants from the MIC (a win against ISIS), he will start cutting them out.

We have heard that one before.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01112/mission_accomplish_1112950c.jpg

[AuH20]

Pretty sure he has a plan. He always does.

But this isn't some building commission. This is some of the most dangerous people on the planet.

[AuH20]

We have heard that one before.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01112/mission_accomplish_1112950c.jpg

Son of Bush doesn't count. Trump has always been a foreign policy skeptic, going back to the early 80s. But such a rebellion could be a life altering decision.

[Zippyjuan]

Son of Bush doesn't count. Trump has always been a foreign policy skeptic, going back to the early 80s. But such a rebellion could be a life altering decision.

Is that why he is bombing more than Obama and threatened to attack Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela? Because he doesn't want to get involved?

[dannno]

We have heard that one before.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01112/mission_accomplish_1112950c.jpg

Really who gives a shit [edit: what the excuse is as long as] if we bring the troops home?

But, this looks pretty solid to me:

http://www.patriotinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/ISIS-trump.jpg

[dannno]

But this isn't some building commission. This is some of the most dangerous people on the planet.

Ya, and so far he has been doing a pretty great job. I'm sure it would be nice to have some encouragement.

We may have some actual investigations against the swamp forthcoming.

[Zippyjuan]

Ya, and so far he has been doing a pretty great job. I'm sure it would be nice to have some encouragement.

We may have some actual investigations against the swamp forthcoming.

Awesome job.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zdLuEscXy1g/WW0XIASGVEI/AAAAAAABo3U/bK4U28t5hOUfxhaFwKO2raJWern9Z1EcgCLcBGAs/s1600/bombing%2Bchart.png

https://mediaassets.thedenverchannel.com/photo/2017/04/07/Screen%20Shot%202017-04-07%20at%2012.56.41%20PM_57949608_ver1.0.png

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/09/18/u-s-bombs-falling-in-record-numbers-in-three-countries/


U.S. Bombs Falling in Record Numbers In Three Countries


Trump’s looser authorities for airstrikes have unleashed huge increases in ordnance in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.

[dannno]

Awesome job.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zdLuEscXy1g/WW0XIASGVEI/AAAAAAABo3U/bK4U28t5hOUfxhaFwKO2raJWern9Z1EcgCLcBGAs/s1600/bombing%2Bchart.png

Is that the Soros propaganda again????





https://mediaassets.thedenverchannel.com/photo/2017/04/07/Screen%20Shot%202017-04-07%20at%2012.56.41%20PM_57949608_ver1.0.png

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/09/18/u-s-bombs-falling-in-record-numbers-in-three-countries/

Agreed.

[acptulsa]

Really who gives a $#@! if we bring the troops home?

You did, back when you were using the promise that Trump would do so as a selling point.

Still sucking your Alpha Dog, yet still haven't noticed he has no balls. You're cucking for something that was neutered. Stop embarrassing yourself.

[Swordsmyth]

....

[dannno]

That may be the most embarrassing thing you have ever posted.

Besides the moral considerations if we don't bring the troops home we won't stop hemorrhaging money like a hemophiliac.

What are you talking about?? Did you read what I wrote in the context of what I was responding to? I said if we DO bring our troops home, who cares what the excuse is?? (in this case, that we beat ISIS)

(edit: Ya it was a little confusing, I explain below and edited my original statement for clarity - but the important thing is I was saying who cares WHAT THE EXCUSE IS for pulling the troops out, pulling them out is the important thing)

[dannno]

You did, back when you were using the promise that Trump would do so as a selling point.

Still sucking your Alpha Dog, yet still haven't noticed he has no balls. You're cucking for something that was neutered. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Ya, you mis-read what I wrote also.. sorry it was confusing, but it was a correct statement.

I said "Who cares [what the excuse is] if we [do in fact] bring out troops home".. It makes more sense when you see what I was responding to. I was responding to zippy saying that we have heard that before (Bush saying we won the war on terror) but Bush kept the troops there..

Trump is clearly pushing for and talking about pulling the troops out.. So I'm saying, who cares what the excuse for pulling the troops out is, what is important is that it happens.

[Swordsmyth]

....

[dannno]

Maybe you said that elsewhere or maybe you meant to say that but that is not what that post says.



Those words should never be uttered by any member of this site in any context other than mocking some warmongering lunatic. (and that is not the context of that post)


No, it's technically a correct statement in response to what zippy wrote and does not mean at all what you are implying by posting the quote out of context.. Go back and read it, I filled in the missing context in brackets []. The point is that I was not saying what you are implying. I'm not faulting you, it was confusing, just correcting you.

A single statement can mean multiple things based on context, and you have to read the context into the sentence to understand it. That is often how fake news gets Trump. But the point is, the meaning of the statement I wrote was "who cares what the excuse is for bringing the troops home if we bring them home". If you read the statement in the context of responding what zippy said carefully, you will see it.

[Swordsmyth]

No, it's technically a correct statement in response to what zippy wrote and does not mean at all what you are implying by posting the quote out of context.. Go back and read it, I filled in the missing context in brackets []. The point is that I was not saying what you are implying. I'm not faulting you, it was confusing, just correcting you.

A single statement can mean multiple things based on context, and you have to read the context into the sentence to understand it. That is often how fake news gets Trump. But the point is, the mean of the statement I wrote was "who cares what the excuse is for bringing the troops home if we bring them home". If you read the statement in the context of responding what zippy said carefully, you will see it.

I still don't understand how you think what you originally wrote could mean what you wanted to say but I am perfectly willing to believe that you didn't mean what it looked like you said, it didn't sound like you.

[dannno]

I still don't understand how you think what you originally wrote could mean what you wanted to say but I am perfectly willing to believe that you didn't mean what it looked like you said, it didn't sound like you.

Let's start from the beginning of the exchange:



Once Trump gets what he wants from the MIC (a win against ISIS), he will start cutting them out.


(cutting them out = bring them home)



We have heard that one before.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01112/mission_accomplish_1112950c.jpg




Original with context in brackets: Really who gives a shit [what the excuse is] if we bring them home




You can say it without what is in the brackets, and technically it means the same thing. It can also mean something entirely different without the context.

I should have worded better, but it is not technically incorrect from a grammatical standpoint.

I said Trump will bring them home and declare victory against ISIS, zippy responds with what Bush did when he proclaimed victory against the war on terror, and responded that it doesn't matter why we bring the troops home as long as that is what happens, and we can see that Trump is pushing for that heavily. I never saw Bush push for troop reductions.

[Swordsmyth]

Let's start from the beginning of the exchange:




(cutting them out = bring them home)






You can say it without what is in the brackets, and technically it means the same thing. It can also mean something entirely different without the context.

I should have worded better, but it is not technically incorrect from a grammatical standpoint.

Now I see, "IF" should have been "AS LONG AS" for clarity.

[dannno]

Ya that would have been better.

[Zippyjuan]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-afghanistan-troops-increase-numbers-war-us-army-escalation-a7905841.html


Trump expected to send 4,000 extra troops to Afghanistan

Decision contradicts Mr Trump's earlier criticisms of war effort

Donald Trump has agreed to send as many as 4,000 additional US troops to Afghanistan to tackle a steadily deteriorating security situation in the beleaguered country, according to senior officials quoted in American media.

The report comes ahead of a pre-planned speech by the President on Monday evening to spell out his policy for Afghanistan. Mr Trump and his advisors had signaled for days that a decision on the president's Afghanistan strategy was forthcoming.

In agreeing to boost troop levels in Afghanistan, Mr Trump has cemented America's continuing involvement in a conflict that has now stretched across three presidential administrations and nearly two decades.



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHypTGAXYAAXTof.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9UcE9CU0AAErxd.jpg

[Origanalist]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhFHIlwCSq0


[/FONT][/FONT]

So infowars quoting the Washington Post trying to slant it to make Trump look good is not 'fake news'?

Good to know, it's hard to keep up sometimes. The definition seems a bit fluid.

[dannno]

So infowars quoting the Washington Post trying to slant it to make Trump look good is not 'fake news'?

Good to know, it's hard to keep up sometimes. The definition seems a bit fluid.

C'mon.. you're better than that.

The WaPo article was written with the narrative that Trump is unhinged and fighting with his cabinet. That is the fake news narrative.

The real story is what infowars wrote, using the actual quotes that they reported on which can be verified, in which Trump is pushing to pull out the troops and his cabinet is doing everything including using ridiculous scare tactics to keep the troops in place and expand the wars.

The fake news media reports quotes out of context, use sources who make things up, etc.. But these can all be verified, I guarantee you will not see Trump coming out saying he didn't make these statements in the meeting or anything like that.

[devil21]

Maybe someone should inform Rand that it is the generals that are actually in control of the government corporation on a day-to-day basis and Trump isn't. That whole 'gold-fringed military flag standing behind Trump every time he speaks' dealie. Hell, maybe someone should tell Trump that.

[dean.engelhardt]

I guess is that Trump has been briefed on his own assassination plans if we decides to pull out of the Middle East.