Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-28-2019, 04:38 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
For the raid into Pakistan, a nuclear power and ostensible ally, to get OBL, this makes sense. We've been bombing and raiding over much of Syria for years now. Trying to notify Congress of each individual air strike or raid, when they're already being done in that country at a fairly high volume, seems impractical.

*I* certainly wouldn't mind if Pelosi were tied up in Syria briefings every day, but I think she, and her allies, would probably mind.
I agree that this didn't rise to the level of having to inform leaders of congress. Neither did this rise to the level of having the president make a live TV announcement. An official WH statement would have been sufficient. Instead, we got the Orange Menace embarrassing the nation once again with incoherent blather and self-important bragging. Why? Because the attention whore in chief just can't help himself.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #52  
Old 10-28-2019, 04:53 PM
guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 8,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I agree that this didn't rise to the level of having to inform leaders of congress. Neither did this rise to the level of having the president make a live TV announcement. An official WH statement would have been sufficient. Instead, we got the Orange Menace embarrassing the nation once again with incoherent blather and self-important bragging. Why? Because the attention whore in chief just can't help himself.
It's very likely that Trump didn't even know who Baghdadi was. He probably just said to Esper: "I need something to make me look tough against ISIS. I want to do what Obama did with Binladen, but make it tougher, so I can be the hero." I wouldn't be surprised if they'd been sitting on this and he rushed it for the publicity.
  #53  
Old 10-28-2019, 04:55 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
How many "accidental" victims do you think are going to be in Baghdadi's compound in Bashira, Syria, at 1 AM?
I dunno, how many wedding parties do you think have been attacked by American drones? I'm glad you're content to assume the raid couldn't go wildly awry but I'm afraid I can't join you in the magical republic of Confidentistan.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #54  
Old 10-28-2019, 05:01 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
For the raid into Pakistan, a nuclear power and ostensible ally, to get OBL, this makes sense. We've been bombing and raiding over much of Syria for years now. Trying to notify Congress of each individual air strike or raid, when they're already being done in that country at a fairly high volume, seems impractical.
By what metric do you establish this impracticality, and who said it had to be "each individual air strike or raid" ? If we believe Trump, and I'm unclear why any rational adult would at this point, this particular attack was highly significant. How many such raids do you think are happening every week?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #55  
Old 10-28-2019, 05:04 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I dunno, how many wedding parties do you think have been attacked by American drones? I'm glad you're content to assume the raid couldn't go wildly awry but I'm afraid I can't join you in the magical republic of Confidentistan.

Not sure how concerned they were with collateral casualties even after the raid. Less than 24 hours later, US jets turned the compound into a parking lot. Now, maybe everyone on the ground knew this was coming and stayed away. Maybe they were warned. Or maybe nobody checked before turning it into rubble and ash.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #56  
Old 10-28-2019, 05:12 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,993

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
You just made this nonsense up. Nobody is arguing that Congress needs to individually authorize these types of actions. While one can argue that the AUMF is narrowly constructed, nobody in Congress has argued to take this power away from the president.
It may seem like this could be construed as an accusation of lying, but I don't see it that way in this context. I see this as more of an assertion of strawmanning.

Carry on.

[/moderating]
  #57  
Old 10-28-2019, 05:25 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,498
Am I the only one who thinks it wouldn't have been particularly important that he didn't inform them if his reason for doing so hadn't been essentially an accusation of treason?
  #58  
Old 10-28-2019, 05:35 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
By what metric do you establish this impracticality, and who said it had to be "each individual air strike or raid" ? If we believe Trump, and I'm unclear why any rational adult would at this point, this particular attack was highly significant. How many such raids do you think are happening every week?
Your previous post said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
It seems prudent to me to inform senior members of Congress just in case the raid goes crazily wrong and instead of taking out a terrorist, the Marines wipe out the wedding reception of the son of the Minister of Finance. ...
Any given airstrike might accidentally wipe out the wedding reception of the son of the Minister of Finance (or some other innocuous gathering that I am guessing this particular example is a stand-in for). In fact, there's probably more risk of that with airstrikes than with a boots-on-the-ground gunfight, so if your criteria is that it would be prudent to inform senior members of Congress just in case we kill a bunch of innocent people during the operation, that prudence would seem due for "each individual air strike and raid", wouldn't it? In other words, aren't YOU the one arguing that we should be notifying Congress whenever there's some risk of the operation going "crazily wrong" and killing innocents?
  #59  
Old 10-28-2019, 06:22 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,004
Ah forget it. This thread is a joke.

Last edited by Ravenman; 10-28-2019 at 06:23 PM.
  #60  
Old 10-28-2019, 06:46 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Any given airstrike might accidentally wipe out the wedding reception of the son of the Minister of Finance (or some other innocuous gathering that I am guessing this particular example is a stand-in for). In fact, there's probably more risk of that with airstrikes than with a boots-on-the-ground gunfight, so if your criteria is that it would be prudent to inform senior members of Congress just in case we kill a bunch of innocent people during the operation, that prudence would seem due for "each individual air strike and raid", wouldn't it?
No, unless you're determined to argue by strawmen and excluded middles. If so, have at it with my blessing.

Quote:
In other words, aren't YOU the one arguing that we should be notifying Congress whenever there's some risk of the operation going "crazily wrong" and killing innocents?
Was this a significant attack or not, targeting a specific high-profile individual? Trump wants to establish that this is a HUUGE-ly bigly deal, simply too important to give congressional leaders a heads-up, so significant that it's worth a post-raid staging of the situation room for a photo-op. If it had gone wrong, missed the target, ended up aggravating the situation, do we trust Trump to be honest about it? I don't believe we can or should, and if there had been Russian casualties (oh, wait, the Russians knew about it), shouldn't Congressional leadership be at least vaguely aware that a very big die had just been cast? Why are these people in charge of military budgets and yet not important to keep apprised of significant military operations? Got any evidence Pelosi is as blabber-mouthed as, say, Trump himself?

I get what you're trying to do, I just can't take it seriously. If this was a run-of-the-mill operation not important enough (even if it had gone wrong) to inform Congressional leadership, fine. Somebody should let Trump know. I think he's about to give himself the Medal of Honor.
  #61  
Old 10-28-2019, 07:03 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
No, unless you're determined to argue by strawmen and excluded middles. If so, have at it with my blessing.



Was this a significant attack or not, targeting a specific high-profile individual? Trump wants to establish that this is a HUUGE-ly bigly deal, simply too important to give congressional leaders a heads-up, so significant that it's worth a post-raid staging of the situation room for a photo-op. If it had gone wrong, missed the target, ended up aggravating the situation, do we trust Trump to be honest about it? I don't believe we can or should, and if there had been Russian casualties (oh, wait, the Russians knew about it), shouldn't Congressional leadership be at least vaguely aware that a very big die had just been cast? Why are these people in charge of military budgets and yet not important to keep apprised of significant military operations? Got any evidence Pelosi is as blabber-mouthed as, say, Trump himself?

I get what you're trying to do, I just can't take it seriously. If this was a run-of-the-mill operation not important enough (even if it had gone wrong) to inform Congressional leadership, fine. Somebody should let Trump know. I think he's about to give himself the Medal of Honor.
My point is that while yes, the outcome of the operation - the death of al-Baghdadi - was indeed a "big fucking deal", there's no reason to think that the risk of collateral damage / sparking a war with Russia, etc, was any more significant than various other operations we undertake within Syria on a routine basis, and without notifying Congress of with any significant level of detail beforehand. That risk seems to be the criteria you have adopted. If that's what you're concerned about, then I can't see any real reason to notify Congress ahead of time, or at least no more reason to notify Congress of this al-Baghdadi raid than any mundane airstrike.
  #62  
Old 10-28-2019, 07:12 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
My point is that while yes, the outcome of the operation - the death of al-Baghdadi - was indeed a "big fucking deal", there's no reason to think that the risk of collateral damage / sparking a war with Russia, etc, was any more significant than various other operations we undertake within Syria on a routine basis, and without notifying Congress of with any significant level of detail beforehand. That risk seems to be the criteria you have adopted. If that's what you're concerned about, then I can't see any real reason to notify Congress ahead of time, or at least no more reason to notify Congress of this al-Baghdadi raid than any mundane airstrike.
I suppose I'll ask, do you consider this event to have slipped through the tiny window where things are both super-important and yet also completely mundane and unworthy of notice, or do you just figure it's unnecessary to inform Congress of anything, so long as the congresspeople are Democrats?
  #63  
Old 10-28-2019, 09:17 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
My point is that while yes, the outcome of the operation - the death of al-Baghdadi - was indeed a "big fucking deal", there's no reason to think that the risk of collateral damage / sparking a war with Russia, etc, was any more significant than various other operations we undertake within Syria on a routine basis, and without notifying Congress of with any significant level of detail beforehand.
Yeah.... why? I simply don't see any reason to trust Trump's word on this, and even if we decide that established courtesies are optional... it's Trump. Why are you taking his word for this? Hasn't he lied to you so often that his motives become suspect by default?

Quote:
That risk seems to be the criteria you have adopted. If that's what you're concerned about, then I can't see any real reason to notify Congress ahead of time, or at least no more reason to notify Congress of this al-Baghdadi raid than any mundane airstrike.
I'm confident my position is better reasoned than yours, because if it was a Democrat president with Republican congressional leadership, I'd still think it was a good idea to keep them informed.
  #64  
Old 10-28-2019, 10:11 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
I suppose I'll ask, do you consider this event to have slipped through the tiny window where things are both super-important and yet also completely mundane and unworthy of notice, or do you just figure it's unnecessary to inform Congress of anything, so long as the congresspeople are Democrats?
I don't think there's anything about this operation that required the President to notify Congressional leadership of it beforehand. At least, I haven't seen any information to indicate that it was required. It seems that the dems are sore about it not having been done, but I can't figure out why, other than that they're generally sore about virtually anything and everything President Trump does, and how he does it, and why, and where, and when, and with who.

As a matter of courtesy, I can see why it might be a nice thing to do, but Pelosi and Schumer have chosen to pursue a toxic, vitriolic relationship with President Trump rather than a courteous and nice one, with the unsurprising result that they should no longer expect courtesies from him.
  #65  
Old 10-28-2019, 10:41 PM
Chingon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 696
Lol
  #66  
Old 10-28-2019, 10:59 PM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,975
Yes, it's terrible how Pelosi and Schumer are so impolite to the person who has been hurling kindergarten-level insults at them since day one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
I truly believe that liberals will do anything to hurt Trump including sabotaging a mission to kill terrorists.
And yet it was Trump himself who sabotaged all the Pentagon's careful planning of the mission. Funny that.
  #67  
Old 10-28-2019, 11:07 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Yeah.... why? I simply don't see any reason to trust Trump's word on this, and even if we decide that established courtesies are optional... it's Trump. Why are you taking his word for this? ...
What "this" do you think I'm taking President Trump's word on?
  #68  
Old 10-28-2019, 11:11 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What "this" do you think I'm taking President Trump's word on?
That not informing congressional leadership was a good idea.
  #69  
Old 10-28-2019, 11:35 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
That not informing congressional leadership was a good idea.
Ahhhh, then I'm not "taking his word on this". He and you seem to have a difference of opinion on whether it was a good idea or not. He's the elected president and in this case, AFAICT, he's free to act on his opinion on the matter. I don't have any particularly strong feelings about whether it was a good idea or not.
  #70  
Old 10-28-2019, 11:43 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
... so significant that it's worth a post-raid staging of the situation room for a photo-op. ...
BTW, how did you conclude that the photo was staged post-raid?
  #71  
Old 10-29-2019, 12:00 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
BTW, how did you conclude that the photo was staged post-raid?
It looks staged (not candid, certainly, the way the Obama-era bin Laden raid picture looks), and there are reports that the photo was taken about 90 minutes after the raid, during which Trump was golfing. It may turn out none of this is true, I'm open to the possibility.

On a related note, was it a good idea for Obama to inform congressional leadership of the above-mentioned bin Laden raid? If not, why not? If so, why is the situation different?
  #72  
Old 10-29-2019, 12:07 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,367
On further checking, it looks like Politifact is disputing the claim that the picture is staged, so I'll cheerfully withdraw judgement until the matter is settled. I do not consider this in any way a positive for Trump, just a negative returning to neutral.

I would still like the second paragraph of post 71 to be addressed, if it's not too much trouble.

Last edited by Bryan Ekers; 10-29-2019 at 12:12 AM.
  #73  
Old 10-29-2019, 12:21 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Yes, Pete Souza, a photographer for Obama, seems to be the original source of that erroneous claim:

Quote:
The raid, as reported, took place at 3:30PM Washington time. The photo, as shown in the camera IPTC data, was taken at "17:05:24".
He has since backtracked quite a bit:

Quote:
It's entirely possible that the raid was still going on at 5:05pm. Before drawing definite conclusions about the photo, reporters need to nail down the actual timeline of the raid.
Quote:
Just to be clear, I didn't say it was staged. Trump himself said he didn't arrive to the Situation Room until "around 5pm". So it's definitely possible the photo was taken during the raid.
Quote:
The latest reporting from the NYT: the helicopters left Iraq at 5PM (Washington time), and they reported it was about a 70-minute flight to Syria. So actual raid had to happen some time after 6:10PM.
I suppose you're free to consider it still unsettled, but this looks like one of those silly claims that libs jumped all over that turned out to be false, and pretty obviously so.
  #74  
Old 10-29-2019, 12:24 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,367
The second paragraph of post 71 is still addressable.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #75  
Old 10-29-2019, 12:39 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
The second paragraph of post 71 is still addressable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
... On a related note, was it a good idea for Obama to inform congressional leadership of the above-mentioned bin Laden raid? If not, why not? If so, why is the situation different?
I thought I already addressed this in post #50:

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
For the raid into Pakistan, a nuclear power and ostensible ally, to get OBL, this makes sense. We've been bombing and raiding over much of Syria for years now. Trying to notify Congress of each individual air strike or raid, when they're already being done in that country at a fairly high volume, seems impractical. ...
If that wasn't clear enough, some key differences I see:

1) Pakistan is armed with nuclear weapons and Syria is not.

2) Pakistan is an ally (ostensibly) and Syria is not.

3) The raid into Pakistan represented a significant escalation of force (above and beyond the previous plethora of drone strikes in the tribal regions). The raid in Syria did not (there had already been various commando raids in Syria).

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-29-2019 at 12:42 AM.
  #76  
Old 10-29-2019, 12:56 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,367
So Obama did the right thing, and you're trusting Trump to use his best judgement?



Excuse me, I'll be chuckling in the corner for a few minutes.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #77  
Old 10-29-2019, 01:07 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
So Obama did the right thing, and you're trusting Trump to use his best judgement? ...
As I noted, there are some significant differences with a commando raid into Pakistan that made it rise on the (completely arbitrary) "HD-thinks-this-merits-a-notification-to-Congress-beforehand" scale. I don't know if I'd say I'm "trusting" President Trump so much as noting that he has the authority to decide that, not you or I.

I'm curious about your opinion though: you seem to think that both the OBL and Al-Baghdadi raids merited a notification to Congress beforehand, or at least that it was a "good idea". Are there some examples of military actions that you think it unnecessary? For example, you seemed to take issue with the idea that a president would need to notify Congress about "each individual air strike or raid", but if the Al-Baghdadi raid is above your line, and other raids and airstrikes below it, what's the difference you see there?
  #78  
Old 10-29-2019, 01:29 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
For example, you seemed to take issue with the idea that a president would need to notify Congress about "each individual air strike or raid"
You're the one who brought the quoted phrase into the discussion, not I.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #79  
Old 10-29-2019, 08:59 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,550
I'm not sure why I'm wading into this mess, but Trump did inform members of congress, but just on the GOP side. He also apparently informed Lindsay Graham, who is not a leader of either party in either chamber. I think it's common to inform the party leaders from each chamber (Majority and Minority leader in the Senate, and Speaker and Minority leader in the House). Trump didn't do that -- he informed the GOP side and irrelevant others in the GOP.

If this wasn't important enough to inform the congressional leaders, that's fine (I think it was, given the post-event fanfare), but that's not what happened. He just left the Democrats out.
  #80  
Old 10-29-2019, 11:14 AM
Railer13 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Kansas
Posts: 2,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
I'm not sure why I'm wading into this mess, but Trump did inform members of congress, but just on the GOP side. He also apparently informed Lindsay Graham, who is not a leader of either party in either chamber. I think it's common to inform the party leaders from each chamber (Majority and Minority leader in the Senate, and Speaker and Minority leader in the House). Trump didn't do that -- he informed the GOP side and irrelevant others in the GOP.

If this wasn't important enough to inform the congressional leaders, that's fine (I think it was, given the post-event fanfare), but that's not what happened. He just left the Democrats out.
And this is back to the OP. Trump obviously determined that it was important enough to tell some members of Congress, but only those of his party. How can this be justified? (And stating that the Democrats are leakers is not a justification.)
  #81  
Old 10-29-2019, 01:03 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan ekers View Post
if this was a run-of-the-mill operation not important enough (even if it had gone wrong) to inform congressional leadership, fine. Somebody should let trump know. I think he's about to give himself the medal of honor.
ftw.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #82  
Old 10-29-2019, 02:15 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't think there's anything about this operation that required the President to notify Congressional leadership of it beforehand. At least, I haven't seen any information to indicate that it was required. It seems that the dems are sore about it not having been done, but I can't figure out why, other than that they're generally sore about virtually anything and everything President Trump does, and how he does it, and why, and where, and when, and with who.

As a matter of courtesy, I can see why it might be a nice thing to do, but Pelosi and Schumer have chosen to pursue a toxic, vitriolic relationship with President Trump rather than a courteous and nice one, with the unsurprising result that they should no longer expect courtesies from him.
You can't figure out why democrats would be sore about being specifically excluded from the information, NOT because Trump didn't think the information was worth releasing to congress (since he did release it to congress), but rather because the deranged moron decided it would be a great way to exclude them while simultaneously accusing them of being traitors.

You can't figure out why that would be annoying?
  #83  
Old 10-29-2019, 02:24 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
You can't figure out why democrats would be sore about being specifically excluded from the information, NOT because Trump didn't think the information was worth releasing to congress (since he did release it to congress), but rather because the deranged moron decided it would be a great way to exclude them while simultaneously accusing them of being traitors.

You can't figure out why that would be annoying?
There might be an impasse if he thinks that annoying Democrats is a plus.
  #84  
Old 10-29-2019, 02:34 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
There might be an impasse if he thinks that annoying Democrats is a plus.
I am absolutely certain that he considers annoying democrats to be a plus, but that doesn't mean he can't acknowledge that they've been given a reason to be annoyed.

Of course, that would indirectly be acknowledging that the actions of the orange turd were obviously inappropriate, which could be construed as criticism - and a person who approves of annoying democrats wouldn't want to criticize such behavior, would they?
  #85  
Old 10-30-2019, 09:45 AM
Eonwe's Avatar
Eonwe is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Now, is this really a realistic fear? If the idea is that loose lips sink ships, (carelessness), that's one thing, but Trump seemed concerned the D's would intentionally get the raid scuttled. Maybe he is trying to jab the D's out of spite, but would Congressional Ds have really wilfully leaked it?
Well, do you think congressional Democrats are traitors or not? If you do not, then of course it's not a realistic fear.

How often in the past has the opposing party in the legislative branch intentionally spilled plans for an imminent military strike to the press in order to sabotage the operation?
  #86  
Old 10-30-2019, 10:28 AM
Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eonwe View Post
How often in the past has the opposing party in the legislative branch intentionally spilled plans for an imminent military strike to the press in order to sabotage the operation?
Tacking on, this has clearly not happened.

But the closest analogue we do have are Senate Republicans sending that letter to Iran during the negotiations for the now defunct nuclear deal.
  #87  
Old 10-30-2019, 10:52 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eonwe View Post
Well, do you think congressional Democrats are traitors or not? If you do not, then of course it's not a realistic fear.

How often in the past has the opposing party in the legislative branch intentionally spilled plans for an imminent military strike to the press in order to sabotage the operation?

For the record, I don't think the D's would have.

That being said, consider it from Trump's viewpoint: He's the most polarizing president in decades, Democratic opposition to his presidency has been intense from Day 1 of his presidency, there are numerous Democrats calling for his impeachment, there have been numerous leaks in his administration already, it would be a (short-lived) PR triumph for him for al-Baghdadi to be killed, Democrats have traditionally been perceived as the more anti-war party, Trump knows many of his opponents wouldn't want him to get a PR boost of any sort, there is no practical benefit to telling the Congressional D's (there's nothing they could say or do that would help the operation,) it gives some spiteful satisfaction for him to stiff Pelosi and Schumer this way, and if he can brag afterwards that he did not inform the D's about the upcoming operation, he gets a big win in the eyes of his supporting base, who would perceive it as a "burn" moment that jabs the D's. On the flip side, if he does inform the D's, and one of them leaks it to the press, then Trump would be lambasted by his own supporters, and denied a foreign-policy triumph. With all these factors, why would Trump inform the D's about the upcoming military mission?
  #88  
Old 10-30-2019, 10:56 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
The answer to the question in your thread title is still "no".
  #89  
Old 10-30-2019, 11:17 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
For the record, I don't think the D's would have.

That being said, consider it from Trump's viewpoint: He's the most polarizing president in decades, Democratic opposition to his presidency has been intense from Day 1 of his presidency, there are numerous Democrats calling for his impeachment, there have been numerous leaks in his administration already, it would be a (short-lived) PR triumph for him for al-Baghdadi to be killed, Democrats have traditionally been perceived as the more anti-war party, Trump knows many of his opponents wouldn't want him to get a PR boost of any sort, there is no practical benefit to telling the Congressional D's (there's nothing they could say or do that would help the operation,) it gives some spiteful satisfaction for him to stiff Pelosi and Schumer this way, and if he can brag afterwards that he did not inform the D's about the upcoming operation, he gets a big win in the eyes of his supporting base, who would perceive it as a "burn" moment that jabs the D's. On the flip side, if he does inform the D's, and one of them leaks it to the press, then Trump would be lambasted by his own supporters, and denied a foreign-policy triumph. With all these factors, why would Trump inform the D's about the upcoming military mission?
All this just translates to "According to Trump's viewpoint, fuck the national interests, what's good for me?"
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.

Last edited by Bryan Ekers; 10-30-2019 at 11:17 AM.
  #90  
Old 10-30-2019, 11:27 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
That being said, consider it from Trump's viewpoint..
There is a whole branch of government and at least three media networks giving us Trump's viewpoint 24/7/365, so I don't think we need to waste any more time considering his viewpoint. This devil isn't lacking for advocates.
  #91  
Old 10-30-2019, 11:27 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
... With all these factors, why would Trump inform the D's about the upcoming military mission?
I have this same question. Schiff gave a (rather unconvincing IMHO) response:


Also, Pelosi released a statement on the raid. The most relevant bit to this thread seems to be:

Quote:
... The House must be briefed on this raid, which the Russians but not top Congressional Leadership were notified of in advance, and on the Administration’s overall strategy in the region. Our military and allies deserve strong, smart and strategic leadership from Washington.”
  #92  
Old 10-30-2019, 11:44 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I have this same question. Schiff gave a (rather unconvincing IMHO) response:




Also, Pelosi released a statement on the raid. The most relevant bit to this thread seems to be:
Can you explain why he told the Republication side of the 8, and also Graham (who I believe is not one of the 8), but not the Democrats? If congress doesn't need to know, they don't need to know, but if they do, then both parties should know, right? Obama told the 8 before the Bin Laden raid.
  #93  
Old 10-30-2019, 11:45 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
With all these factors, why would Trump inform the D's about the upcoming military mission?
Because it's the responsible way to run a country?

Look, I get that we're talking about the point of view of a person I wouldn't trust to care for my pet goldfish. But when asked why would the President of the United States inform key members of Congress about a important military strike involving Russian territory and ISIS Terrorists... it's because that's how you run a country.

Trump's inability to do the right thing, simply because there is a (comically theoretical) downside to him personally, is WHY he's a terrible president. Literally every decision is run through the "what's best for Trump" filter instead of the "what's best for the United States" filter.
  #94  
Old 10-30-2019, 11:47 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Can you explain why he told the Republication side of the 8, and also Graham (who I believe is not one of the 8), but not the Democrats? If congress doesn't need to know, they don't need to know, but if they do, then both parties should know, right? Obama told the 8 before the Bin Laden raid.
I think your statement here is riddled with factual inaccuracies. Here is an article from the Hill - McConnell, McCarthy not notified ahead of Baghdadi raid

Quote:
The top two Republicans on Capitol Hill say they were not notified by the administration ahead of the weekend raid that led to the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

...

"I wasn't, but I was in the similar position when President Obama ordered the attack on Osama bin Laden. I was not called in advance then, nor do I expect to be called in advance now," McConnell told reporters.

McCarthy separately told CNN that he was not notified in advance but was notified after the fact. A spokesperson for McCarthy confirmed his comments.

...

The president did report telling Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.) after the raid was successful.
  #95  
Old 10-30-2019, 11:55 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I have this same question. Schiff gave a (rather unconvincing IMHO) response:

Also, Pelosi released a statement on the raid. The most relevant bit to this thread seems to be:
None of this would need to have happened if he'd just kept his fat orange mouth shut and stayed off TV. The announcement could have come from the WH as an official statement, corroborated and with additional details by the Pentagon, National Security and Intelligence officials.

Instead, the orange cretin decided he couldn't live without the media attention and that of his adoring minion and cult followers. So he said dumb shit, again. Embarrassed himself, again. Opened himself up for contradiction from Russia, Pentagon, Democratic leadership and media.

Well done, President Fucking Moron.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #96  
Old 10-30-2019, 11:59 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
So now you're mad that he held a press conference?
  #97  
Old 10-30-2019, 12:01 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think your statement here is riddled with factual inaccuracies.
Even if so, it's the misplacement of deck chairs on this Titanic of a presidency.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #98  
Old 10-30-2019, 12:02 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think your statement here is riddled with factual inaccuracies. Here is an article from the Hill - McConnell, McCarthy not notified ahead of Baghdadi raid
Thank you for that correction. I appreciate it. It remains unclear why he told Lindsay Graham, who seems to be on no relevant committee, but that's fine. I think that he should have informed the 8, if the event was important enough to trumpet the results, but here we are.
  #99  
Old 10-30-2019, 12:04 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
So now you're mad that he held a press conference?
"Wow! Isn't the Grand Canyon magnificent?"
"So you like looking at holes?"
  #100  
Old 10-30-2019, 12:22 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Thank you for that correction. I appreciate it. It remains unclear why he told Lindsay Graham, who seems to be on no relevant committee, but that's fine. I think that he should have informed the 8, if the event was important enough to trumpet the results, but here we are.
BTW, here is some additional information about Obama and his decision to not notify the Gang of Eight prior to the OBL raid.

I don't know why he chose to talk to Lindsay Graham about it after the raid either, but I don't think it's a big deal.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-30-2019 at 12:24 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017