US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6983

On February 28 2017 03:31 a_flayer wrote:
The CIA has to show me convincing evidence before I'll believe what they say without a doubt. Too often they just use circumstantial evidence to back up their claims. As they did with Iraq, where they basically went "Well, the surrounding nations all say that Iraq has WMDs."

Aside from that, I'll eat my shoes before I'll trust "an unnamed CIA official" in the Washington Post.

On February 28 2017 03:32 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I kind of wonder where the pernicious "intelligence community pulled us into Iraq" perception comes from. I find it particularly fascinating because there was a massive failure of the intelligence community fairly close to that temporally (9/11) but for whatever reason people jump to the less clear fuckup that probably (I would say almost certainly given what I know) can't be laid squarely at intelligence's doorstep.

On February 28 2017 03:33 Plansix wrote:

As long as you are consistent with you level of skepticism, there is no problem with that.


Because the Iraq war was voted on by congress and people can blame a specific party for that. 9/11 doesn’t help anyone’s argument against a specific political party or world view.

On February 28 2017 03:38 Sermokala wrote:

You can't blame a specific party you can blame the people who voted for it. Support for the war was pretty bipartisan until the civil war broke out in the country.

President Trump's budget will propose a $54 billion increase in defense spending, while slashing domestic programs by the same amount. The president told the nation's governors on Monday that his plan "puts America first," and that "we're going to do more with less, and make the government lean and accountable to people."

An official with the White House Office of Management and Budget, who spoke to reporters only if not named, said most agencies will see budget cuts, including foreign aid, which comprises less than 1 percent of federal spending.

A formal budget blueprint will be sent to Congress in March. The official said this the first step of "internal collaboration" between the White House and federal agencies.

The official said details about tax cuts and entitlement programs, including Social Security and Medicare, will come later. The administration is not expected to proposed changes to entitlements.

It will be up to Congress to write the final spending plan, and it's likely there will be strong objections from Democrats to the proposed domestic cuts.

Already, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer tweeted that the budget will take "a meat ax to programs that benefit the middle-class."

Current defense spending is put at $590 billion, down about 25 percent from the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Still, the U.S. spends more on the military than the next seven countries combined, according to data from 2015.

Trump called his proposed defense increase "historic," and that it will send a "message to the world in these dangerous times, of American strength, security and resolve."

"Everybody used to say America never lost a war," he said, adding, "Now we never win and don't fight to win."

He repeated his claim that the U.S. has spent $6 trillion in the Middle East, calling the situation a "hornet's nest." (PolitiFact has looked at this figure and found that it includes projected spending, beyond money that has already been spent.)

Trump said he would also increase spending for law enforcement and on infrastructure, but offered no specifics. He said he would have "big details" in his address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night.

It's unclear what the overall impact of Trump's plan will be on the federal budget deficit. While the proposed military buildup will be offset by domestic spending cuts, the size and nature of the yet-to-be-released tax reform proposal will determine the deficit picture.

On February 28 2017 03:31 Danglars wrote:

NATO allies very clearly don't care about the costs. I wonder what standing armies would look like if NATO collapsed? Interesting question. It might cut into one or two welfare states.

On February 28 2017 03:38 LegalLord wrote:

Going into Iraq was a foregone conclusion because people in our government wanted the war.

Disingenuous intelligence legitimized the move though. And quite rightfully depleted our trust in intelligence. But it's far from the only stupid thing they have ever done that we should be wary of them for.

On February 28 2017 03:31 Danglars wrote:

NATO allies very clearly don't care about the costs. I wonder what standing armies would look like if NATO collapsed? Interesting question. It might cut into one or two welfare states.

On February 28 2017 04:10 KwarK wrote:

It's an apples to oranges comparison. Expecting that Germany pays the same proportion of GDP on the military as the United States when Germany is a regional power with regional interests and the US is a global power with global interests is absurd. If you want to do a direct comparison then compare just the cost of US commitments in Europe with German defence spending. The cost of the US fleet in the straits of Taiwan isn't a relevant factor for the NATO allies.

As for what would happen if NATO collapsed. A stronger EU based military policy and the collapse of nuclear non proliferation. That's all. The kind of army the US has is only really useful for projecting power, occupying countries and forcible regime changes. It has no real defensive virtue over a nuclear deterrent and a clear will to use it.

Donald Trump’s nominee to head the commerce department is facing intense scrutiny over whether the US president or his affiliates have ever received loans from a bank in Cyprus that is partly owned by a close ally of Vladimir Putin.

Wilbur Ross, a billionaire investor who has served as vice-chairman of the Bank of Cyprus since 2014, has received two letters from senators demanding answers about possible links between the bank and current and former Trump administration and campaign officials.

Ross, who has said he would step down from the bank after his final confirmation, has also been asked to provide more details about his own relationship with previous and current Russian investors in the bank, including Viktor Vekselberg, a longtime ally of the Russian president, and Vladimir Strzhalkovsky, the former vice-chairman of Bank of Cyprus who is also a former KGB agent with a close relationship to Putin.

The Senate is expected to approve Ross’s nomination to lead the commerce department on Monday evening. He has not yet responded to the questions from the senators, according to Senate aides.

An attorney for Ross said he was not handling the matter and referred questions about the letter to the commerce department, which declined to respond .

The senators’ scrutiny of Ross’s ties to Bank of Cyprus comes as the Trump administration faces several investigations, including by the FBI, into possible links between Trump campaign officials and Russia.

The first letter, sent on 16 February, was led by Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, the top Democrat on the Senate commerce committee, and was co-signed by Cory Booker of New Jersey, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Tom Udall of New Mexico and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin.

Details of the letter and Ross’s refusal to answer it were first reported by McClatchy, the US news organisation.

Among other questions, the letter asked Ross if he was “aware of any contacts between any individuals currently or formerly associated with the Bank of Cyprus and anyone affiliated with the Trump presidential campaign or the Trump Organization”. It also asked whether Ross was “aware of any loans made by the Bank of Cyprus to the Trump Organization, its directors or officers, or any affiliated individuals or entities”.

Ross also received a second letter with more specific questions from Senator Booker on Friday. In it, the New Jersey senator said the list of Russian businessmen with ties to both Putin and the Bank of Cyprus was “startling”.

“The American public deserve to know the full extent of your connections with Russia and your knowledge of any ties between the Trump administration, Trump campaign or Trump Organization and the Bank of Cyprus,” Booker wrote. “Americans must have confidence that high-level officials in the United States government are not influenced by, or beholden to, any foreign power.”

Among Booker’s list of 11 questions was a demand to know more about if – and when – Ross first learned about Strzhalkovsky’s ties to the KGB, and whether the former KGB official ever met Trump.

Booker also asked Ross whether he had any knowledge about the 2008 purchase of Trump’s Palm Beach home by Dmitry Rybolovlev, a Russian billionaire and investor in Bank of Cyprus. The beach house was reportedly sold for $95m.

Ross’s nomination to lead the commerce department has so far been relatively uncontroversial, in part because Ross is liked by Democrats and labour unions who credit the private equity investor with saving tens of thousand of jobs in the steel industry after buying up bankrupt steel companies in 2002.

But Ross’s 2014 investment in the Bank of Cyprus has received little public attention amid the broader concerns in Washington over the Trump administration’s potential ties to Russia.

On February 28 2017 04:15 Gorsameth wrote:

From what I understand the intelligence community was plenty sceptical about WMD's in Iraq. There was a lot of disagreement in how active the Iraqi weapon programs were.
It was the White House that disingenuously applied intelligence by ignoring the warnings that the data was far from conclusive.
(see the Senata IC report).

Yes it reduced trust in intelligence but you can't just blame the IC when their superiors purposefully chose to misrepresent information.

On February 28 2017 04:57 Danglars wrote:

You have horse blinders on. Some of that spending is due to global interests. Some is the big fat defense umbrella we subsidize others with. NATO has always been a one way street after the end of the Cold War. I mean is Europe really that hard-up that the US meets 72% of the funding needs for a European-focused defense pact? We'll still be the worldwide big spenders, but the margins will come down.

Obligatory shitposter clarification that I don't support the manner in which Trump announced NATO changes or an immediate dissolution of the alliance for obligations nonpayment.

On February 28 2017 04:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
President Trump's budget will propose a $54 billion increase in defense spending, while slashing domestic programs by the same amount. The president told the nation's governors on Monday that his plan "puts America first," and that "we're going to do more with less, and make the government lean and accountable to people."

...

"Everybody used to say America never lost a war," he said, adding, "Now we never win and don't fight to win."