I gather the cognomen reflects an affectionate irony for a man who is noted for his devoted concern for his troops. Got a nickel says Trump did not know that, and was pumped to think he was getting a guy who was a cross between Patton and Chesty Puller.
OK. Stipulate that the chance Trump will launch a nuclear strike is Zero. This puts our fears to rest*** if the only decision the Leader of the Free World and Commander-in-Chief of the World’s Largest Military ever has to make is whether to punch one particular button.***
But is that the only decision-question that might arise? I dunno — I’ve never studied the Daily Intelligence Briefing for the President. OTOH, neither has Trump.
“Cognomen”? Seriously?
https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/politics/james-mattis-mad-dog-nickname/index.html
Yeah, “cognomen”. About as seriously as need be, I think.
You notice that you were wrong on the nickname, right?
Whatever. We’re in a world where the election happened, the voters don’t get another crack at Trump until November 2020, and Trump’s party controls the Senate, insulating him from any consequences of his decisions. And Trump’s policies aren’t good or bad within normal parameters; we’re way outside the normal map here with respect to the areas of concern to a Secretary of Defense.
You say that “This notion that Cabinet secretaries have some kind of duty to act as a check against presidential authority has no basis in law or fact.” Whoa! Cabinet officers may serve at the pleasure of the President, but they don’t serve the President; they serve the United States of America and its Constitution.
At a time when a normal President’s policies were defensible or objectionable within normal parameters, things would and should happen as you suggest. But given where we are right now, I’d contend that Mattis’ higher duty to the nation does in fact mean acting as a check on an irrational Chief Executive for as long as possible. The electoral mechanism (not the electorate, which narrowly favored the other candidate) put the wrong person in the White House, and Congress will not check him. Mattis is the last line of defense, and I continue to believe it was the wrong choice for him to abandon his post under those circumstances.
Cabinet secretaries take an oath to support, protect, and defend the Constitution, not the President.
Please stop using the ad hominem fallacy and the appeal to incredulity.
You have made assertions, but you have provide nothing to back them up. Not reasoning, not a citation, nothing.
Your only supporting premise is to call people stupid, or to mock them. That is not an argument.
On the other hand, others have provided a pretty good reason. They claim that Trump has previously been talked down from using nuclear weapons. If this is true, then it stands to reason that there is a non-negligible risk that, without this one guy to stop him, Trump would use the nuclear weapons.
So they have provided a logical, rational reason for their statements. You have not. You have simply provided mockery. All that does it make it seem like you lack a counterargument.
I get not wanting the argument to be valid. And if you can provide an actual counterargument, that would be great. But calling people crazy and fear mongers doesn’t accomplish that. It just makes me think you are scared that they are right, and you can’t rebut it.
Mocking people has not been and never will be a substitute for an argument.
Is the fine cash-only, or can he use PayPal?
He has to let me wear his skin like a poncho.
“Abandon his post” is an ugly and slanderous thing to say about a career military man who has served his country faithfully for decades.
These are ugly and slanderous times.
It’s crazy how much the media wants war… As a left-of-center guy, it’s appalling for Democrats to defend Mattis. If Trump says single-payer works fine in Canada (which he did in the first GOP debate), liberals (if there are any) should at least try to embrace it, instead of being anti-Trump regardless.
(Notice how both political parties seem to have done a 180 on trade in the last few years, but since the 90s in general).
(apologies for the hijack)
As far as I can tell, he has not, at all, really advocated for any sort of single-payer system in the US since becoming president. Yes, he has, on occasion, said that the systems in Canada (and Scotland) were really good. Yes, during the campaign, he said things like (source):
That sure sounds like single-payer, doesn’t it? But, it seems like, once he really realized that his base, and the GOP, wouldn’t really support it in practice, while he still keeps occasionally saying that “we will have a great system,” he hasn’t actually proposed anything. And, while he’s praised the Canada system, he’s also said:
If he actually did propose a single-payer system that would cover everyone, and wasn’t just a pipe dream that would never actually work (or built to put money into Trump’s or his allies’ pockets), I think that many liberals actually would embrace it. Two years in, all we’ve seen is attempts to stamp out Obamacare.
(end hijack)
Huh?
The approach to foreign policy he argues for is the dominant position of both sides of the aisle, including the US left, post- WWII. He even uses a key term associated with a member of Bill Clinton’s administration. That approach is at odds with Trump’s approach but also would have been at odds with Bernie Sanders’ platform.
As a left of center guy, will you dutifully protest in front of the Turkish embassy when they start slaughtering the Kurds the US left hanging?
Bit late for you to start worrying about that, isn’t it?
If Trump were after peace, that’d be one thing. But he’s not the peacenik president: he’s threatened to use nuclear weaponry, and he’s got the temperament of a colicky infant. A warmonger who’s experienced and level-headed is a terrible person to have in power, but if they’re the person who’s been keeping the nuke-enabled infant from throwing the Mother of All Temper Tantrums, maybe we want that devil in place.
Also, FWIW, Brett McGurk, who has been serving as special presidential envoy to the coalition in Syria, has also resigned, effective immediately. Apparently, he was already scheduled to leave the job in February, but has chosen to depart immediately, due to the pullout.
Well, since HurricaneDitka can’t be arsed to back up his sneering implication of plagiarism, how about if I link to the [POST=20125889]original source[/POST]. Oh hey, look! It’s my own post from last April, which as noted has an out of date reference to the then nascent Trump administration but is otherwise on point (IMHO). The thread also contains [POST=20124103]a discussion with reference to prior threads on the topic[/POST] of the role of the Secretary of Defense (or another Senate-confirmed individual) in confirming that a nuclear launch order is issued by the President but not requiring any kind of concurrence or agreement with the validity of the order.
While we’re here, do you want to make any other snidely passive-aggressive allegations, HurricaneDitka?
Cabinet secretaries, and for that matter everyone else in federal service, has an obligation to reject illegal and unconstitutional orders or directives. But if Mattis or any other cabinet member disagrees with the President’s legal orders, their only lawful response is to either choke down their personal disagreement (presumably after raising objections) or resign their post as untenable. Mattis has long been at odds with Trump and Bolton and has clearly gotten to some breaking point where he can no longer participate or agree to continue to execute his job in line with the expectations of the President.
If you find that disconcerting (and you should) disparaging Mattis for not remaining inside the asylum is neither useful or reasonable. You should be contacting your Congressional representatives and encouraging them to use their check as the legislative branch to curtail the authority of the President from taking precipitous and ill-advised action, and perhaps start seriously considering the constitutional means for removing Trump from that office entirely.
Stranger