Echo from Washington DC - Donald Trump's broken promises

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/07/trump-promised-restraint-has-delivered-more-calamitous-intervention/?utm_term=.8363ae27f68b

Trump promised restraint but has delivered more calamitous intervention- vote Blue 2020!

Echo opinion by columnist Katrina vanden Heuvel, published in The Washington Post.

The lie of “promises made, promises kept,” a favorite phrase in Donald Trump’s stump speech for reelection, is perhaps most apparent in his foreign misadventures. 

In fact, the candidate who scorned “regime change,” and promised to end the policy of “intervention and chaos,” is sowing chaos and intervening from Yemen to Iran to Venezuela and beyond. Instead of wasting money on endless wars, Trump would rebuild America’s roads and bridges. The candidate who promised restraint has only delivered more calamitous intervention.

Last week, Trump vetoed the bipartisan joint resolution of Congress directing the president to withdraw U.S. support for the war in Yemen. This veto is a particularly execrable folly. The administration is continuing to support Saudi Arabia in its unconscionable savaging of that impoverished country, creating the worst humanitarian crisis in the world today. Fourteen million Yemenis are facing war-induced starvation. A cholera epidemic has broken out.

After the Saudi regime assassinated Post contributing columnist Jamal Khashoggi inside their consulate in Istanbul, Congress — led by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) in the House, and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) in the Senate — backed a joint resolution, under the authority of the War Powers Resolution, directing the president to end our complicity in this horror. 

Bipartisan majorities in both houses voted to end this shameful policy started under Barack Obama. Instead, Trump reasserted the claim of untrammeled executive prerogative in matters of war and peace and vetoed the resolution. Sadly, Congress failed to overturn the veto.

Meanwhile, the latest U.S.-backed coup attempt in Venezuela has sputtered, tramples international law and gives lie to Trump’s promise that “we will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we shouldn’t be involved with.” The administration decided that the misrule by authoritarian Nicolás Maduro, whose election as president was marred by voting irregularities, must end. It rushed to support the president of the National Assembly, Juan Guaidó, when the opposition leader announced that he was the legitimate leader of Venezuela. In an economy that has already shrunk by half over the past five years, sanctions have been tightened and tightened again, to the point that former U.N. special rapporteur Alfred de Zayas has called them “crimes against humanity.”

Trump announced that “all options were on the table.” His truculent trio of advisers — national security adviser John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and viperous special envoy Elliott Abrams — openly threatened U.S. intervention. Frustrated by the public embarrassment of the failed coup, Pompeo warned that “military action is possible.” 

(OMG!) Bolton asserts that “the Monroe Doctrine (?) is alive and well. It’s our hemisphere,” and invokes the Roosevelt Corollary, claiming the U.S. right of unilateral military intervention anywhere in the hemisphere.  (Did Monroe refer to Venezuela, a nation that was founded in 1811? Just asking.)

James Monroe  (1758-1831)

In 2015, Trump argued that “We’re nation-building. We can’t do it. We have to build our own nation.” 

Now, his administration’s aides are boasting about plans to revive the economy, after Maduro is ousted. Venezuela is a bitterly divided nation of nearly 32 million people. If the administration’s coup does succeed, horrific chaos is sure to follow.

And the “endless wars” that Trump promised to end continue — Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and so on. Libya is a failed state, mired in violence since our “humanitarian” intervention. Drone attacks have escalated in eight nations, almost certainly generating more terrorists than they kill. U.S. Special Operations forces were in 149 countries in Trump’s first year in office. The administration is ramping up economic sanctions against Iran, remaining bellicose with Russia and (especially) China, and going all in with Saudi Arabia and Israel, with Bolton and others pushing for military action. Bolton has designated Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua as the “triangle of terror,” expanding the list of targets.

Here, the so-called adults in the room, the keepers of the “guardrails” to protect an ignorant and impulsive president from himself, are part of the problem. When Trump called for removing troops from Afghanistan and Syria, his national security advisers got in the way. As Trump expresses caution about actual military action in Venezuela, the truculent trio barrels forward.

Trump has trampled his promise to war-weary Americans. Opposition to this endless folly is building, however. Progressives in the Congress — led by Khanna and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) in the House, and Sanders in the Senate — are intent on reasserting congressional power over war and peace. Republicans such as Lee and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) add bipartisan support.

Trump apparently believes that a bellicose position on Venezuela can help him win Florida in 2020. His broken promises about opposing regime change and ending our endless wars should cost him far more. Americans have voted for candidates who promised restraint again and again since 2000. They are likely to keep doing that until they elect someone who will actually live up to that pledge.

Donald Trump policies are not Christian - a Wyoming point of view

This excellent opinion letter was published in the Montana Billings Gazette newspaper and the author is from Wyoming!  

I thank Richard Miller from Thermopolis, Wyoming, for this point of view. 

This is my very first echo opinion authored from Wyoming!

In fact, it is impossible for MaineWriter to comprehend how it is that Christians support the anti-Christian and cruel policies being enforced by the Donald Trumpzi administration.

How is it that many millions of self-proclaimed Christians can support the presidency of Donald Trump?

His violations of basic Christian ethics are too numerous to list here, so let’s just consider his veto of the congressional resolution calling for an end to U.S. military support for Saudi Arabia's murderous war against Yemen. That assault has killed tens of thousands of people and put other thousands in danger of perishing from starvation and disease. A glimpse of the butchery was given in Britain's "Independent" newspaper of Oct. 26, 2018:

"... between 1 August and 15 October 575 civilians were killed in the port city of Hodeidah, including 136 children and 63 women. An airstrike on Wednesday killed 16 civilians in a vegetable market in Hodeidah, and other strikes this month have hit two buses ... killing 15 civilians, including four children."

If such atrocities are not violations of Christian ethics, then I guess the Holocaust wasn't either. Are the "Christians" who back Trump more focused on the brutal teachings of the Old Testament than they are on the more humane, loving teachings of Jesus? 

They certainly appear to be.

U.S. support for mass slaughter of innocents doesn't bother them, any more than separating immigrant children from their parents did. How can they seriously consider themselves to be followers of Jesus?

Richard Miller in Thermopolis, Wyoming

"Civilizationalists" and the weather - an interview with Daniel Pipes

I had not heard the concept of "civilizationists". Not sure exactly what the concept means, other than what I learned by reading this article published in the History News Network.  

Some of the data presented are obvious danger warnings about the future of the human condition. Wow, yet something else to ponder. 

Drought in Africa is a threat to "civilizationalists"

Described in Catholicism.org "The civilizationist is an individual who embraces the history, customs and traditions of a place and people — his homeland or region and countrymen — in contrast and opposition to the economic and political globalist. He believes in rootedness and identity. He also thinks fences make for good neighbors. The globalist wants to “tear down barriers” with all peoples homogenized into their “shared humanity.”

Where the civilizationist sees a man attached to, and nurtured by, family, community and religion, the globalist aims to dissolve such attachments and reduce him to a consumer who will wind up shopping not merely for goods and services but also a creed, a spouse, even a gender. It is also common for this consumer to abandon one thing for another (a spouse, for instance) in the same way a car-owner will trade an old vehicle for a new model or a social-media addict will discard last year’s smartphone for this year’s iteration.

Notable civilizationists include, perhaps first and foremost among Western European ones, Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban. He has repeatedly declared his nation under his leadership to be Christian and a bulwark against globalism. As a civilizationist, Matteo Salvini, Interior Minister and dominant personality in the Italian government that came to power last spring, is almost as weighty a figure as Orban. If elections next May for members of the European Parliament go as many now predict, Orban and Salvini together could be running a new E.U. of sovereign nations (if it isn’t simply scrapped) in place of the present globalist one that gets its directions from Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron.

Obviously, the definition described in the Catholicism article are at odds with what Daniel Pipes discusses in this interview:

Daniel Pipes warns that droughts in the Middle East are driving immigration

The following text excerpts a panel on Nov. 17, 2018, at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, in Palm Beach, Florida.

The panel included Bill Gertz and Anne Marie Waters and was moderated by John Gilmore. For the complete, raw transcript, see the FrontPageMag.com version posted on Dec. 6, 2018. Transcription errors have been corrected and the idiosyncrasies of oral remarks edited for clarity.

Daniel Pipes: I'm Daniel Pipes and normally I'm here as a Middle East/Islam specialist. But in part to coordinate with Anne Marie Waters and in part because it's a particular passion of mine, I'm going talk about what I call Europe's civilizationalist parties (and what the press calls far-right parties). Like Anne Marie's For Britain, they are standing up to the Establishment to talk about immigration and Islamization.

In 2015, the EU commissioner for enlargement, Johannes Hahn, said that there might be some 20 million refugees at the borders of Europe wanting to come in. That's a substantial number; but not if you look at economic migrants as well as refugees, at the water and food shortages already existing in the Middle East, and at population growth in Sub-Sahara Africa.

- An official of Iran's government has said that 70 percent of the country's population will have to leave unless there's some major change to the use of water.

- In Yemen, some villagers are allotted one liter, or roughly one quart, of water per day.

- Ethiopia's damming of the Blue Nile has created a looming crisis in Egypt, which overwhelmingly depends on that river's waters.

- Africa's population is expected to double from 1 billion to 2 billion by 2050, and quadruple to 4 billion by 2100.

It's reasonable to say that the number of would-be immigrants to Europe easily matches the number of the population of Europe itself. Including Russia, that is 740 million people. Tens and hundreds of millions of people will want to leave the Middle East and Africa; where will they want to go to? Mostly to the West: especially Europe, the United States, Canada, and Australia.

The population of the United States and Canada together is almost exactly half of that of Europe, 360 million. While we in North America are further, modern transportation means that we too will be inundated with immigrants. So, while my specific subject is Europe, it also has clear implications for the United States and Canada.

I shall make four points about Europe's civilizationalist parties.

First, they are many and they're coming on strong. Some of them are well known like the National Rally in France, the League in Italy, the Freedom Party in Austria, the PVV in the Netherlands, and the Sweden Democrats; others are less known. All are in revolt against the elites, or what I call the six Ps: police, politicians, press, priests, professors and prosecutors.

Civilizationists are already in government in a small way in three countries: Norway, Switzerland, and Slovakia. They have major roles and are the driving force in five countries; Poland, Hungary, Czechia, Austria and Italy. I expect they will be powerful in more countries to come, such as France, the Netherlands and Sweden.

Germany is of particular interest. The ruling party, the CDU, will hold its congress on Dec. 7-8 and its vote for a new party leader is critical for the future of Europe: Angela Merkel has Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, or AKK (or Mini-Merkel), her would-be successor, in place. If AKK does succeed, Germany will continue down the Merkel path of mass immigration and Islamization. If either of the other contestants, former faction leader Frederick Metz or (more interestingly) Health Minister Jens Spahn, succeed, that will augur a dramatic shift in Germany, the largest and arguably the most powerful and important country in western Europe. So, my first point is, civilizationalists are on the march.

Secondly, yes, almost without exception they are highly problematic. In many cases, they're staffed by neophytes. They contain disturbing numbers of cranks, anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim extremists, racists, power-hungry oddballs, conspiracy theorists, historical revisionists and Nazi nostalgists. 

Autocrats run their parties. They take money from Moscow. They're anti-American. There are all sorts of problems with these parties, no question.

But two points in reply. They're getting better, as symbolized by the fact that Marine Le Pen, threw her father Jean-Marie Le Pen, out of the party he had founded in 1972 because of his antisemitism. 

Also, the Establishment parties have problems too. For example, there's more freedom of speech today in Hungary then in Great Britain. (I'm thinking in particular about the Tommy Robinson case about what you heard a bunch of lies yesterday: he should not have been put in jail; the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales pulled him out of jail in a 24‑page decision that said, in effect, he was subject to a kangaroo court.)

Thirdly, civilizationalist parties have a crucial role. Where they do not sit in parliament, as in Britain and Spain, you see things go more rapidly downhill. Where they do sit in parliament, you see a push back, That's why it's so important that a party like For Britain get into parliament, and in numbers.

Finally, civilizationalist parties have several paths to power. They can rule on their own, as in Hungary. The Fidesz Party with Viktor Orbán at its head has two-thirds the seats in parliament, meaning it can do what it wants – and (from an American point of view) it does too much: it controls the judiciary, the economy, the media, the schools, and much else. But that's one way: win outright.

Or civilizationists can join with a legacy conservative party, as in Austria, where the Freedom Party joined forces with the traditional conservative party, the People's Party. Together, they won 58 percent of the vote and run the country between them.

Or the most exotic path to power is where the civilizationalist party joins with an anarchist/left wing party, as in Italy. The League formed a coalition with the Five Star Movement. It's been a wild ride, with the League gaining much popularity at Five Star's expense.

What will happen when civilizationist parties reach power? The easy thing for them to do is to stop illegal immigration; if they have the will, they can do it. They can also expel criminal illegal migrants. But those are rather small steps compared to the difficult problems that lie ahead, such as expelling non-criminal illegals and integrating legal immigrants.

But at least Europeans are waking up to these problems and want to effect change. I urge you to watch the situation, not only because Europe has three-quarters of a billion people and is the source of our civilization, but also because what happens there directly affects us.

Gilmore: I'd like to start off the discussion with an admittedly broad question, but you can each tailor it to your area of expertise. Bill Gertz spoke of denial about the threat that China poses to the United States. Anne Marie Waters is a living testament to continued, insistent, strong denial about the manifest downsides of importing whole cultures with which the host country has nothing in common. 

Daniel Pipes has just given an overview of civilizationist parties in the face of massive denial of certain realities. Why these denials, what accounts for them and can they be overcome? ...

Pipes: Europeans have a profound sense of guilt over the satanic trio of imperialism, racism and fascism. Guilt means believing your civilization is inherently bad, that you brought bad things to the rest of the world, even that your white skin is a sign of evil. These are the fundamental sentiments that lie behind wanting to bring in a new population and eradicating an old civilization.

It is a profound sentiment primarily found among the elite, flourishing among the six Ps: again, that's the police, politicians, priests, press, professors and prosecutors. It is not found so much among the general population whose eyes are increasingly open.

I foresee a coming revolution. It's already started in 5 countries out of the 28 of the European union and it's going to be felt in more of them as civilizationists reach power. I predict that in 20 years these parties will be in power through most of Europe.

This guilt is found primarily in Western Europe. It's ironic and sad to note that countries in NATO during the Cold War are in far worse shape than those in the Warsaw Pact. In other words, the American aegis leaves one less prepared for 2018 then the dead hand of Soviet communism. ...

Audience Question: It seems like there's a natural linkage between these nativist parties and Europe's Jews because they both want to de‑Muslimize the continent. Can be an alliance between while the parties still have a Nazi tinge and Jews fear them?

Pipes: No question, civilizationalist parties contain fascistic or neo-fascistic elements. No question, they contain antisemitic elements. I grant these criticisms. But the usual criticisms go too far. Two points:

First, non-civilizationists are often worse. While Viktor Orbán is condemned for his anti-George Soros campaign; I note that our host, the Horowitz Center, has also condemned Soros; does that make David Horowitz an antisemite? Further, how can one focus on Orbán when Jeremy Corbyn's overt antisemitism and friendship with Hamas, could be the next UK prime minister? Note that Orbán is Israel's best friend in Europe while Corbyn would probably break relations with it. Note that Israel now has better relations with Saudi Arabia than with Sweden, with Egypt than with Spain.

Second, civilizationists are improving in this regard. I gave you the example of Marie Le Pen. Let me offer you another: In 2010, Heinz-Christian Strache, the head of the Austria's Freedom Party, dutifully went to the Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem, Yad Vashem, but he wore the beer cap of his brotherhood (Burschenschaft), which is tainted with antisemitism, prompting much disgust. He returned to Yad Vashem in 2016 and this time he wore a homburg with no associations whatsoever. So, he learned.

Yes, there are problems concerning Jews. But generally, civilizationists are better than their opponents and improving. 

To answer your question, there can be alliances. Note the just-formed "Juden in der AfD," Jews of the Alternative for Germany.

Hypocrisy in Trump foreign policy ~ echo from Delaware

Delaware echo opinion letter to the editor: The Daily Times

(Selective criticism ~ ignores despicable despots)

"We criticize loudly that the one act is obscene, but remain silent when an equally obscene act is carried out by our client-state subordinates."~ "Why the U.S. support? The rationale is clear and cold, devoid of humanitarian ethical concerns." ~ Michael O'Loughlin

Two recent events in the Middle East illustrate well the hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy.

We claim to uphold human rights the world over — and to oppose the use of barbaric weapons. Hence, consistent with that principle, it was right and fitting to condemn the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons against civilians in the city of Douma, Syria, killing dozens.

Criticism, of course, also flowed against Russia and Iran for backing the Assad government of Syria, justifiably so.

Trump’s tweet was clear.

“President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price to pay.”

Yet in this same month, Saudi-led air strikes have rained down upon civilians in Yemen, killing upwards of at least 40 people. In one strike, 20 were killed, mainly children, at a wedding in the town of Alraqqah. 

Yemeni men carried the body of victim killed in a Saudi-led airstrike on Monday in Al Hudaydah, the only remaining Yemen port controlled by Houthi rebels.CreditAbdo Hyder/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

The U.S. response? Silence.
More: Trump, U.S government show respect to dictators ~ NewYorkTimes

Here we see the double standard applied, revealing the absence of genuine moral abhorrence against barbarity. If we were to be engaged in genuine pursuit of human rights, condemnation of barbarous acts of governments would apply equally to all those who engage in genuine acts of terrorism — both of which we see in these cases.

The difference lies, however, in who engages in these acts: U.S. allies or enemies.

In the case of Syria, the Assad government is viewed as part of a strategic enemy camp, including in particular Iran but also Russia, both allies to the Assad regime in Syria.

In the case of the bombing of Yemen, the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia is viewed as an “ally” and therefore, the airstrikes are considered necessary and acceptable.

We criticize loudly that the one act is obscene, but remain silent when an equally obscene act is carried out by our client-state subordinates. As such, the U.S. critique is found to reveal simply a strategic power play rather than a credible moral claim: We really have little interest in moral play, interested primarily in actions that advance power in the region.

By assisting Saudi Arabia in its effort to control Yemen, we advance our imperial influence in the region.

Moreover, the hypocrisy is historical. We should remind ourselves long before Trump, President Ronald Reagan supported the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein throughout his tenure — including support for his regime when it used chemical weapons against its own citizens, comparable to Assad, and in the Iraq-Iran war, 1980-88.

The Geneva Protocol of 1925 outlaws the use of chemical weapons and it is this protocol Trump cites as justification for the two bombings of Syrian territory.

Yet the Reagan administration knowingly violated the same protocol by aiding and abetting Hussein’s use of mustard gas in 1983, followed by the use of sarin gas as well against Iranian forces in the Iran-Iraq war, 1987-88.

Sarin gas was used in large quantities against Iranian forces, in one strike called the “Blessed Ramadan Offensive.” To further secure his rule, Hussein used nerve gas against the Kurdish town of Halabja in the north of Iraq, where 3,000-5,000 Kurdish civilians were massacred at the end of that war in 1988.

Why the U.S. support? The rationale is clear and cold, devoid of humanitarian ethical concerns. As Reagan communicated to then-Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, “An Iranian victory is unacceptable.”

Hence, no holds barred. An Iraqi victory must be achieved at all costs. Estimates of the nerve-gas dead range into the thousands. And as with Assad’s apparent victory over Syrian rebels in 2018, so it was in 1988 that, with U.S. intelligence aid, Saddam was able to prevent an Iranian victory employing chemical weapons.

In this light, we should be unsurprised international opinion is unmoved and muted by Trump’s moralistic pretense. Our continued support for war in the Middle East belies the feigned interest in genuine compromise in the region.

The United States has the power to do better but we lack the leadership and the will to do so.

Michael O'Loughlin is a professor of political science at Salisbury University.

A transcending moment in the career of Donald Trump

"An open show of emotion transcended politics even for the briefest moment."

It's essential to remember, the tribute to Senior Chief Petty Officer Owens, who was lost in Yemen, was recognition for him, for his grieving family and for colleagues in SealTeam6. 

None of the tribute was in support of Donald Trump, who ordered the tragically failed raid.

Carryn Owens is the widow of Senior Chief Petty Officer and USNavy Seal Ryan Owens

It's a shame that Donald Trump had to learn about the responsibilities of executive leadership from Carryn Owens, the widow of Senior Chief Petty Officer Ryan Owens, lost in January's failed Yemen raid. My deepest sympathy to Mrs. Owens and to her family. I apologize for her unanticipated role in educating Donald Trump about leadership, via her family's heartbreaking tragedy.

Article by Abby Johnston

The most moving moment of President Donald Trump's address to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night came when he addressed a tearful woman, sitting next to Ivanka Trump, as lawmakers gave a standing ovation. 

As CNN's Van Jones put it, the exchange was "the moment Trump became president." (MaineWriter- Dear God, why did this moment pivot on this preventable tragedy? By the way, where's the investigation?)

But who is Carryn Owens? Ryan Owens' wife 

Carryn Owens is the recent widow of Senior Chief Petty Officer William “Ryan” Owens, a Navy SEAL who died in a mission in Yemen last month. In the aftermath, media reports have said that the military intelligence operation produced no actionable intelligence, and Trump has faced intense scrutiny for his decision to move forward with the operation. The president has been reticent to take responsibility for the attack, instead placing the blame on the Obama administration and the military.

Trump refuted that claim on Tuesday, saying that he had spoken to Defense Secretary James Mattis "who reconfirmed that, and I quote, 'Ryan was a part of a highly successful raid that generated large amounts of vital intelligence that will lead to many more victories in the future against our enemies.'"

It'd be easy, then, to chalk the exchange with Carryn up to political capital. Ryan's father refused to meet with Trump when his body arrived back in the United States, citing his anger over the raid. 

But even if mending a bit a bad of PR was the motive behind Trump's invitation, it's hard to deny the power of his direct address to the widow.

"Ryan's legacy is etched into eternity," Trump said. "For as the Bible teaches us, there is no greater act of love than to lay down one's life for one's friends. Ryan laid down his life for his friends, for his country, and for our freedom — we will never forget him."

Tears continued to stream down Carryn's face as Congress cheered for a length of time that Trump said must have broken a record.

There's a lot to be said putting a grieving family into the spotlight in such a manner, but the moment of bipartisan support for Carryn — if it can be separated from the president's political intentions — was undoubtedly moving. At the very least, she should know that the lawmakers in that room on Tuesday night won't be able to forget the exchange.

+Rest in peace SCPO Ryan Owens