Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

[J Ed]

I'll bet that if the CIA report said that the Russians had attempted to rig the election in Clinton's favor, Trump would be singing the praises of the CIA right now.

No shit. The point is that people who pride themselves on being sensible rational moderates or whatever are behaving like that blustering buffoon did during his racist birth certificate campaign.

 

[J Ed]

When your defence for your behaviour is 'Trump would be doing it too!', that's very worrying indeed

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Let's not forget what Trump had to say about the FBI when they reopened the Clinton email investigation shortly before the election:

“I have great respect for the fact that the FBI and the Department of Justice are now willing to have the courage to right the horrible mistake that they made,” Trump said “This was a grave miscarriage of justice that the American people fully understood, and it is everybody’s hope that it is about to be corrected.”

All of a sudden, Trump had 'respect' for the FBI - when they were do the thing he wanted to see happen, and which would assist his efforts to become President.

 

[J Ed]

Let's not forget what Trump had to say about the FBI when they reopened the Clinton email investigation shortly before the election:



All of a sudden, Trump had 'respect' for the FBI - when they were do the thing he wanted to see happen, and which would assist his efforts to become President.

Great people, the best! There are going to be so many investigations that you are going to wish things stopped being investigated!

 

[J Ed]

Back in the real world and away from the redless scare fever dreams of idiot liberals

Rex Tillerson, from a Corporate Oil Sovereign to the State Department

The news that President-elect Donald Trump is expected to nominate Rex Tillerson, the chairman and chief executive of ExxonMobil, as his Secretary of State is astonishing on many levels. As an exercise of public diplomacy, it will certainly confirm the assumption of many people around the world that American power is best understood as a raw, neocolonial exercise in securing resources.

Tillerson figures prominently in “Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power,” a book I wrote about the corporation that came out in 2012. He declined my requests to interview him for that project, but I turned up at several public appearances he made and asked him a few questions from the reporters’ gallery. I also studied his public remarks, reviewed accounts of his activities reported in State Department cables obtained by Freedom of Information Act requests or released by WikiLeaks, and conducted interviews with other ExxonMobil executives, retirees, friends, competitors, civil-society activists and business partners from Asia to Africa to the Middle East.

Tillerson’s life has been shaped to a profound extent by two institutions: ExxonMobil and the Boy Scouts of America. He grew up in Texas, where his father was a modestly compensated administrator for the Scouts. Tillerson became an Eagle Scout. An engineering major at the University of Texas, in Austin, Tillerson joined ExxonMobil in 1975. He has never worked anywhere else. Of all the companies that were born out of the breakup of Standard Oil, Exxon is culturally the most direct descendant of John D. Rockefeller’s monopolistic giant, which was organized on principles of ruthless capitalism and Protestant faith. Exxon today is an unusually cloistered corporation that promotes virtually all of its top executives from within. Former executives I interviewed mentioned that as recently as the nineteen-seventies, it was not unusual to start company meetings with a prayer. When Tillerson finally won a competition for the top job, in 2004, he directed substantial time and charitable activity toward the Boy Scouts. In public appearances, he comes across as sophisticated, yet his life is rooted in environments that are fundamentally nostalgic for imagined midcentury virtues and for the days when burning fossil fuels did not threaten to trigger catastrophic climate change. Tillerson once listed his favorite book as “Atlas Shrugged,” Ayn Rand’s 1957 novel that has become a touchstone for libertarians and promoters of unbridled capitalism. Compared to the records of some of the other people around Trump, Tillerson’s is at least one of professional integrity; Exxon is a ruthless and unusually aggressive corporation, but it is also rule-bound, has built up a relatively strong safety record, and has avoided problems such as prosecutions under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, even though it operates in many countries that are rife with corruption.


Tillerson’s success within Exxon was attributable in part to the work he has done in Russia. He has forged close relations with both President Vladimir Putin and Igor Sechin, the close Putin ally who runs Rosneft, one of Russia’s oil-and-gas giants. In 2011, Tillerson flew to the Black Sea resort of Sochi to sign a joint-venture agreement with Putin under which ExxonMobil would partner with Rosneft to produce oil from the Arctic, a project made easier by the retreat of Arctic sea ice, due to global warming. Economic sanctions imposed on Russia because of its annexation of Crimea and its military interference in Ukraine have slowed this collaboration. If Tillerson is confirmed, he would be in a position to benefit the corporation where he spent his career, by, for example, advocating for the easing of Russian sanctions. In general, Tillerson and ExxonMobil have argued against economic sanctions as an instrument of American foreign policy. Tillerson’s compensation over the years has included large amounts of Exxon stock; he would presumably be required to divest those holdings, but at a minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest would remain, because of his long service at Exxon and the wealth it has given him.

The main themes of “Private Empire” involved the ways that ExxonMobil saw itself as an independent, transnational corporate sovereign in the world, a power independent of the American government, one devoted firmly to shareholder interests and possessed of its own foreign policy. Exxon’s foreign policy sometimes had more impact on the countries where it operated than did the State Department. Take, for example, Chad, one of the poorest countries in Africa. During the mid-two-thousands, the entirety of U.S. aid and military spending in the country directed through the U.S. Embassy in the capital, N’Djamena, amounted to less than twenty million dollars annually, whereas the royalty payments Exxon made to the government as part of an oil-production agreement were north of five hundred million dollars. Idriss Déby, the authoritarian President of Chad, did not need a calculator to understand that Rex Tillerson was more important to his future than the U.S. Secretary of State.

In Kurdistan, during the Obama Administration, Tillerson defied State Department policy and cut an independent oil deal with the Kurdish Regional Government, undermining the national Iraqi government in Baghdad. ExxonMobil did not ask permission. After the fact, Tillerson arranged a conference call with State Department officials and explained his actions, according to my sources, by saying, “I had to do what was best for my shareholders.”

The goal of ExxonMobil’s independent foreign policy has been to promote a world that is good for oil and gas production. Because oil projects require huge amounts of capital and only pay off fully over decades, Tillerson has favored doing business in countries that offer political stability, even if this stability was achieved through authoritarian rule. As he once put it, “We’re really thinking about, well, what is it going to be fifteen, twenty years from now, and so what are the conditions in some of these countries likely to be?” The corporation maintains a political-intelligence and analysis department at its headquarters in Irving, Texas, staffed by former government officials, which tries to predict the stability of countries many years into the future by analyzing demographics, employment, political control, and other “fundamentals.” Although ExxonMobil has a stated policy of promoting human rights, and has incorporated the advice of human-rights activists in its corporate-security policies, it nonetheless works as a partner to dictators under a version of the Prime Directive on “Star Trek”: It does not interfere in the politics of host countries. The right kinds of dictators can be more predictable and profitable than democracies. ExxonMobil has had more luck making money in Equatorial Guinea, a small, oil-rich West African dictatorship that has been ruled for decades by a single family, than in Alaska, where raucous electoral politics has made it hard for Exxon to nail down stable deal terms. Similarly, ExxonMobil promotes the rule of law around the world—especially that part of the rule of law that favors international investment and makes international contracts enforceable.


Although ExxonMobil hires former State Department, Pentagon, and C.I.A. officials from time to time in order to bolster its political analysis and negotiations, some of the Exxon executives I interviewed spoke about Washington with disdain, if not contempt. They regarded the State Department as generally unhelpful, a bureaucracy of liberal career diplomats who were biased against oil and incompetent when it came to sensitive and complex oil-deal negotiations. They managed Congress defensively, and as just one capital among many in the world, a place more likely to produce trouble for Exxon than benefits. In nominating Tillerson, Trump is handing the State Department to a man who has worked his whole life running a parallel quasi-state, for the benefit of shareholders, fashioning relationships with foreign leaders that may or may not conform to the interests of the United States government. In his career at ExxonMobil, Tillerson has no doubt honed many of the day-to-day skills that a Secretary of State must exercise: absorbing complex political analysis, evaluating foreign leaders, attending ceremonial events, and negotiating with friends and adversaries. Tillerson is a devotee of Abraham Lincoln, so perhaps he has privately harbored the ambition to transform himself into a true statesman, on behalf of all Americans. Yet it is hard to imagine, after four decades at ExxonMobil and a decade leading the corporation, how Tillerson will suddenly develop respect and affection for the American diplomatic service he will now lead, or embrace a vision of America’s place in the world that promotes ideals for their own sake, emphatically privileging national interests over private ones.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The point is that Trump's excoriation of the CIA for being untrustworthy, or even the fact that the CIA is and has been untrustworthy at times, is not proof in and of itself that the Russians did not attempt to tamper with the US election.

 

[J Ed]

The point is that Trump's excoriation of the CIA for being untrustworthy, or even the fact that the CIA is and has been untrustworthy at times, is not proof in and of itself that the Russians did not attempt to tamper with the US election.

It's also not proof in and of itself that alien space communists didn't hack voting machines in the rustbelt

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The CIA warned G W Bush multiple times before 911 of an impending attack:

May 1, 2001
On May 1, 2001, the CIA informed the White House that "a group presently in the United States" was in the process of planning a terrorist attack.[4]

June 29, 2001
The President's Daily Brief on June 29, 2001, stated that "[the United States] is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden". The document repeated evidence surrounding the threat, "including an interview that month with a Middle Eastern journalist in which Bin Laden aides warned of a coming attack, as well as competitive pressures that the terrorist leader was feeling, given the number of Islamists being recruited for the separatist Russian region of Chechnya."[4]

The CIA reiterated that the attacks were anticipated to be near-term and have "dramatic consequences".[4]

July 10, 2001
In July 2001, J. Cofer Black, CIA's couterterrorism chief and George Tenet, CIA's director, met with Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Advisor, to inform her about communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States. Rice listened but was unconvinced, having other priorities on which to focus. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld questioned the information suggesting it was a deception meant to gauge the U.S. response.[5][6]

August 6, 2001
On August 6, 2001, the President's Daily Briefing, entitled Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US warned that bin Laden was planning to exploit his operatives' access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike: FBI information... indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country, consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attack.[6] Rice responded to the claims about the briefing in a statement before the 9/11 Commission stating the brief was "not prompted by any specific threat information" and "did not raise the possibility that terrorists might use airplanes as missiles."[7]

Bush ignored the CIA.

Was Bush foolish for doing so; or did he wisely ignore these reports from an 'untrustworthy organization'?

 

[squirrelp]

Let's not forget what Trump had to say about the FBI when they reopened the Clinton email investigation shortly before the election:

All of a sudden, Trump had 'respect' for the FBI - when they were do the thing he wanted to see happen, and which would assist his efforts to become President.

There is no inherent problem in judging different actions by the same entity differently. I applaud Trump for saying the CIA is full of crap, and say his attitude to climate change is terrifying.

 

[J Ed]

Was Bush foolish for doing so; or did he wisely ignore these reports from an 'untrustworthy organization'?

Stalin reduced inequality in Poland and yet ungrateful and foolish people called him untrustworthy too!

 

[squirrelp]

Far right, far left, full circle.

This is the problem with just looking to the left and the right. You miss the elite shitting on everyone from above.

 

[Casually Red]

Far right, far left, full circle.

The standard line long utilised by fascists, liberals , right wingers , the kissingers of this world and even fifth columnist lefties to delegitimise socialism/communism by twinning it with fascism . a device first utilised by Goebbells to confuse the working class in the 30s and 40s .

Did you trust the media mouth pieces when they told you this ? or maybe Noam " don't boycott Israel, Chavez and the Cubans are fascists, hold your nose and vote Clinton " Chomsky when he says it ?

 

[CRI]

There is no inherent problem in judging different actions by the same entity differently. I applaud Trump for saying the CIA is full of crap, and say his attitude to climate change is terrifying.

Trump is pretty fucking consistent in his berating of anything and anyone who doesn't do exactly but Trump wants, but sure, applaud him for the one time when you like what he says.

 

[CRI]

This is the problem with just looking to the left and the right. You miss the elite shitting on everyone from above.

Yup, and both will gleefully lick the ringpiece of whoever in the elite promises to help them up the greasy pole, or shit harder on the folks they hate (who are often inches from them ideologically, but not deemed "pure" enough.)

 

[squirrelp]

Trump is pretty fucking consistent in his berating of anything and anyone who doesn't do exactly but Trump wants, but sure, applaud him for the one time when you like what he says.

ok, let's put it another way.

Why should I not welcome that the president-elect agrees with my already-held position that the CIA is full of nonsense, and in particular that this hacking story is just such propaganda?

Should I change my mind on that because I need to disagree with him about everything? because he's 'right wing' and we should have a football fan mentality where everything on the left is good and the right is bad? Or vice-versa depending on your preferred orientation?

 

[butchersapron]

This is the problem with just looking to the left and the right. You miss the elite shitting on everyone from above.

No, you miss the right using the left to pretend that they're not shitting on people by pretending that the left is the right.

The left is not the right. Right wingers claim it is - working class racists, socially progressive neo-liberals. It's not.

 

[CRI]

Trump: 'I'm, Like, a Smart Person'

The president-elect has a novel explanation for why he doesn’t need the daily intelligence briefings his predecessors have received.

"I'm, like, a smart person," Trump told Fox News Sunday. "I don't have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years. Could be eight years—but eight years. I don't need that."

Trump complained that his briefings are repetitive, and insisted he’s receiving the information he needs, even he takes the briefings only once a week. “I get it when I need it,” Trump told Chris Wallace. “First of all, these are very good people that are giving me the briefings. And I say, ‘If something should change from this point, immediately call me. I'm available on one-minute's notice.’”

Trump also pointed out that Vice-President-elect Mike Pence receives the daily briefings he declines, although he did not explain why Pence—like every recent president—finds value in receiving the daily assessments while he does not. "And I'm being briefed also,” he told Wallace. “But if they're going to come in and tell me the exact same thing that they tell me—you know, it doesn't change, necessarily. Now, there will be times where it might change. I mean, there will be some very fluid situations. I'll be there not every day, but more than that. But I don't need to be told, Chris, the same thing every day, every morning, same words. ‘Sir, nothing has changed. Let's go over it again.’ I don't need that.”

Trump is the first person elected president without having held prior military or public office. Intelligence officials have stressed that, given his lack of prior experience, the daily briefings may be particular important in ensuring that he is fully up to speed by the time he takes the oath of office.

Trump, evidently, disagrees.

 

[two sheds]

no, i think if you disagree with trump on that one [that you can't really trust CIA for an impartial opinion] you start looking silly

i liked his reasoning though he doesn't need the intelligence because he's clever

 

[butchersapron]

ok, let's put it another way.

Why should I not welcome that the president-elect agrees with my already-held position that the CIA is full of nonsense, and in particular that this hacking story is just such propaganda?

Should I change my mind on that because I need to disagree with him about everything? because he's 'right wing' and we should have a football fan mentality where everything on the left is good and the right is bad? Or vice-versa depending on your preferred orientation?

Do the same to assange then you'kl be taken seriously.

 

[squirrelp]

Do the same to assange then you'kl be taken seriously.

I also welcome it when Assange says that the CIA is full of nonsense

This isn't difficult

 

[butchersapron]

I also welcome it when Assange says that the CIA is full of nonsense

This isn't difficult

When you manage to use that burning critical scrutiny on assange...Seems difficult.

 

[squirrelp]

When you manage to use that burning critical scrutiny on assange...Seems difficult.

What are you talking about? I don't need Assange, or indeed Trump, to tell me something I already realise, which is that CIA is full of crap. Do you?

 

[butchersapron]

What are you talking about? I don't need Assange to tell me something I already realise, which is that CIA is full of crap. Do you?

The critical faculties that you used to decide the CIA are shit. Use them on Assange.

Not a chance is there?

 

[squirrelp]

The critical faculties that you used to decide the CIA are shit. Use them on Assange.

Not a chance is there?

I really have little idea what you are trying to say. If you are saying that I must decide that Assange is lying when he says that the DNC leaks were not Russian hacking, because I think the CIA lies, in a kind of 'you have to be balanced' type way, I really don't see how I can even attempt to answer

 

[butchersapron]

I really have little idea what you are trying to say. If you are saying that I must decide that Assange is lying when he says that the DNC leaks were not Russian hacking, because I think the CIA lies, in a kind of 'you have to be balanced' type way, I really don't see how I can even attempt to answer

The critical faculties that you used to decide the CIA are shit. Use them on Assange. Is this really so complicated

 

[squirrelp]

The critical faculties that you used to decide the CIA are shit. Use them on Assange. Is this really so complicated

My critical faculties are telling me that in the matter of the DNC hacks, the CIA is making stuff up, and I see no reason to doubt Assange's unequivocal rejection of their claim: however even if Assange was completely silent on the matter of his sources, it would still not conduce me to believing the CIA.

 

[Casually Red]

Trump is pretty fucking consistent in his berating of anything and anyone who doesn't do exactly but Trump wants, but sure, applaud him for the one time when you like what he says.

When the president elect of the USA states the CIA can't be trusted it's a good thing.

You certainly weren't doing this little dance when the Hildebeest and her team were wailing the FBI can't be trusted . You weren't saying that made her unsuitable for office .


And just to get this even straighter..you're now saying the CIA and the Washington post are trustworthy news sources ? Way more trustworthy than wiki leaks who actually post up verifiable data and sources as opposed to " anonymous CIA sources say...."

That's more trustworthy ? Alex Jones is more believable than that . Even ..god help me..Donald Trump is more trustworthy a source than the Washington post using unattributed, evidence free anonymous quotes from anonymous CIA officials .

 

[butchersapron]

My critical faculties are telling me that in the matter of the DNC hacks, the CIA is making stuff up, and I see no reason to doubt Assange's unequivocal rejection of their claim: however even if Assange was completely silent on the matter of his sources, it would still not conduce me to believing the CIA.

What did i say to you?

 

[squirrelp]

What did i say to you?

Can't you read your own posts?

 

[butchersapron]

Can't you read your own posts?

I can, you seem to be struggling though. Again.