Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Sen. Cotton is from Arkansas, not Arizona. And yeah, I've also read that it looks like Kelley has an actual plan of action (since they'd want to minimize downtime). Tillerson is absolutely bad at it and the bar is so low that it's guaranteed that Pompeo will do better. Hopefully the damage done can be repaired quickly. Tillerson has also repeatedly said that he'd like to serve at least to the end of the year to retain some dignity.

The one main thing Pompeo has going for him is that he has built a solid relationship with Trump, which Tillerson hasn't, so, that at least will help.

Editwhiletyping: Apparently Sen. Corker said that the US needs Tillerson as a Secretary of State. I can get not wanting to change Secretary of State at a sensitive time, but if the person is terrible, then it'd be worse to leave him in.

[RedKing]

Meh. Nothing engenders trust in your diplomatic efforts like having a former CIA Director there. 

I haven't seen that Tillerson is terrible (other than some of the State Dept reorg), I think his chief sin is contradicting Trump. If you think Pompeo won't continue gutting the State Dept, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona for you.

[smjjames]

I'm sure theres a road named oceanfront in Arizona somewhere, ha.

In all seriousness though, the way that Tillerson has been going about the restructuring is what's so bad and Pompeo could be better at it since he knows how the Washington bureaucracy works.

There is a way to do restructuring so that it isn't done in a terrible way.

[EnigmaticHat]

CIA and state department intuitively seem like streams that shouldn't be crossed.  But I can't concretely describe why I think that.  I mean the CIA head is going to have a knowledge of foreign affairs, the state of the world, and US practical interests... so he has to be better than Tillerson I guess.  Hope he hasn't dirtied his hands lately, that could make things awkward.

Anyway, bigger problem with that: Republican senators can't be trusted with intelligence matters.  Not now.  We've seen that with the senate intelligence committee, and this guy is apparently a "staunch ally of Trump on foreign policy matters", which means only bad things.  We only hear about what the CIA does 50 years later but they're still very important.  The CIA director should come from the intelligence community and ideally from within the organization.  Not a politician that's friends with the president.

[misko27]

Meh. Nothing engenders trust in your diplomatic efforts like having a former CIA Director there. 

I haven't seen that Tillerson is terrible (other than some of the State Dept reorg), I think his chief sin is contradicting Trump. If you think Pompeo won't continue gutting the State Dept, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona for you.

Piece by the NY Times, a few very upset opinion pieces, and a general drumbeat of Tillerson ganking the State Department and leaving positions unfilled.

Not that I'm particularly happy about the replacement, mind. But at least it'll be a different flavor of terrible.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Tillerson is essentially Trump Minoris: Highly specialized towards the task he trained himself for to the point that all other conceptions of leadership become heretical.

Tillerson is doubtless very good at running a publicly traded oil transnational, which the Department of State decidedly is not. You can see that in the line he sticks to. He considers it bloated and useless, particularly the diplomats. He sees no reason why what amounts to socializing with foreigners is useful, it brings in no capital. So he cuts them, to bring more funds to the top instead of "wasting" them. Such is the mindset you see among most executive types, who are just as on average idiots who can't do their jobs as any store manager or HR rep.

Given the purpose of the Department of State, the mounting disaster he's caused should be no surprise to anybody.

[Culise]

CIA and state department intuitively seem like streams that shouldn't be crossed.  But I can't concretely describe why I think that.  I mean the CIA head is going to have a knowledge of foreign affairs, the state of the world, and US practical interests... so he has to be better than Tillerson I guess.  Hope he hasn't dirtied his hands lately, that could make things awkward.

Anyway, bigger problem with that: Republican senators can't be trusted with intelligence matters.  Not now.  We've seen that with the senate intelligence committee, and this guy is apparently a "staunch ally of Trump on foreign policy matters", which means only bad things.  We only hear about what the CIA does 50 years later but they're still very important.  The CIA director should come from the intelligence community and ideally from within the organization.  Not a politician that's friends with the president.

How about Republican Representatives?  Pompeo was a Representative for Kansas and a Tea Partier appointed as the Director of the CIA due to his political affinity with the President.  As far as I know, the closest he ever got to US intelligence work was serving on the House Select Committee appointed to investigate the Benghazi attacks in 2012.  Cotton's really just more of the same, for better or worse. 

EDIT:
It's not like it's a very difficult position that requires a CIA operative, though; it's no odder than the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces being non-military.  The Director of the CIA serves to provide civilian oversight, though it's traditionally one of the very few cabinet posts that often goes to serving military. 

[RedKing]

My concern is more that, whatever his other faults, Tillerson is a businessman. Businessmen (especially large corporate CEOs) value stability and certainty. He's not likely to be an agent provocateur for Trump. Pompeo is a pol and an ideologue.

Example: Tillerson has resisted Trump's talk about moving the US Embassy from Tell Aviv to Jerusalem, knowing full well that it'll touch off a shitstorm with no real upside, other than playing to the right-wing base.

Pompeo won't have any such hesitations.

[smjjames]

It looks like Sen. Cotton has even less intel experience than Pompeo had before being CIA director. His inexperience and youth seems like it would be an issue, but then again, all but one Republican (Rand Paul) voted to confirm Pompeo. So, clearly they didn't have a problem with inexperience on Pompeos part.

As for the stuff with former CIA director becoming Secretary of State, the closest that I could find (only looked at 1900 onwards) for Secretaries of State having experience in intel was Kissinger being in a counter-intel unit back in the waning days of WWII. There were some who were Secretary of War (back when that was still a Cabinet position) which could have dealt with Intel, but I didn't check. So, it's certainly a unique mix.

@RedKing: Him not being a moderating influence and instead amplifying Trumps worst impulses is certainly a concern. https://www.vox.com/world/2017/11/30/16719690/pompeo-tillerson-cotton-trump-state

Looks like Trump found a way to campaign in Alabama without being physically in Alabama (by using the Mobile, AL media market) http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/362703-trump-to-hold-rally-in-northern-florida-ahead-of-alabama-special-election Although, looking at google images, it's a somewhat compact media market and there are bigger ones that would be more effective.

Not known whether he's going to do some remarks on Moore, do more Tax Reform push, or just do a general rally.

[Sheb]

Yeah, Tillerson has been bad, but he's honestly on the good side for what I expect of a Trump appointee.

[Wolfhunter107]

NYT just reported that Flynn is expected to plead guilty, which could be an indicator that he's cooporating  with the FBI now.

[scriver]

NYT just reported that Flynn is expected to plead guilty, which could be an indicator that he's cooporating  with the FBI now.

His lawyers cut off charges contact with Trump’s for a month now.

Could you clarify?

[smjjames]

NYT just reported that Flynn is expected to plead guilty, which could be an indicator that he's cooporating  with the FBI now.

His lawyers cut off charges contact with Trump’s for a month now.

Could you clarify?

Mike Flynns lawyers stopped cooperating (and possibly cut off contact) with Trumps lawyers a month or so ago. Speculation that Flynn was cooperating with Mueller or striking a deal with him started at that time.

Ninjad

[bloop_bleep]

From my understanding of what I've read, Flynn's lawyers were in communication with Trump's lawyers up until a month ago, at which point they ceased to communicate to each other.

Probably means that Flynn is not going to cooperate with the FBI, or perhaps "cooperate" with them in a way that doesn't divulge any incriminating evidence about Trump. Or perhaps he has no incriminating evidence about Trump.

[smjjames]

From my understanding of what I've read, Flynn's lawyers were in communication with Trump's lawyers up until a month ago, at which point they ceased to communicate to each other.

Probably means that Flynn is not going to cooperate with the FBI, or perhaps "cooperate" with them in a way that doesn't divulge any incriminating evidence about Trump. Or perhaps he has no incriminating evidence about Trump.

And Mueller is a special independent investigator, so, whether he cooperates with the FBI (he obviously didn't very well as he lied) or not at this point is moot since he IS cooperating with Mueller.