Trump to nominate retired Gen. James Mattis to lead Pentagon

[Morch]

43 minutes ago, stevenl said:

There is a law in place to prevent somebody like him getting the nomination. So now the law has to be changed first.

 

Bad idea.

 

I don't think that it needs to be changed, but rather that a congressional waiver be given. As mentioned in the OP, there is a precedent.

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I don't think that it needs to be changed, but rather that a congressional waiver be given. As mentioned in the OP, there is a precedent.

There's a reason that law is there, bad idea.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

There's a reason that law is there, bad idea.

 

Was it a bad idea also with regard to the aforementioned precedent?

[stevenl]

22 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Was it a bad idea also with regard to the aforementioned precedent?

The law is there for a reason. If that reason is not valid any more, it should be abolished. If the reason is still valid, it should be upheld. Laws should not be used for political purposes like this one.

[sgtsabai]

Yes, I would follow General Mattis into hell with a bucket of water and expect to win, but Secretary of Defense I'm not sure is the right job for him. The soon to be fascist in chief has shown nothing but choices for his cabinet and advisor's that are about as bad as they get, adding alligators to the swamp.

 

I will say, even hard charging Marine Generals, ah, they are supposed to be hard charging, not pencil pushers, do have some knowledge of how to be diplomatic and the General is well read. I also see a clash of personalities between he and the soon to be fascist in chief, also with Flynn who he already has had clashes with. I am surprised that the good General would even give scum like draft dodging orange fascist the time of day.

 

My biggest concern is not terrorism or the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan but the ongoing aggression of China who has been our main enemy all along.

 

Who knows this pick may be the one and only appointment the fascist in chief to be makes that is worth a hill of beans, the others certainly should never be allowed in any government position, not even dawg catcher.

 

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/donald-trump-james-mattis-defense-secretary?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Marine DNR 12-01-16&utm_term=Editorial - Marine Corps - Daily News Roundup

[sgtsabai]

I forgot to add another concern that General Mattis may run head up against. He is known for his real support of the troops, Republicans and the Koch (John Birch Society) traitor brother's CVA are NOT.

 

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/trump-vets-policy-cva?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Marine DNR 12-01-16&utm_term=Editorial - Marine Corps - Daily News Roundup

 

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/trump-palin-va-secretary?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Marine%20Corps%20Times%20DNR%2011/30/16&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Marine%20Corps%20-%20Daily%20News%20Roundup

[elgordo38]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

 

I actually think he's a good choice. Certainly better then the other names floated. The "Mad Dog" moniker ought to be taken with regard to his combat performance, not quite descriptive of his command style in general. With regard to the fun to shoot some people quote - may want to refer to the full quote and context. Might not be PC, but personally, no issues there.

 

Just don't call him Mad Dog

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-just-dont-call-him-mad-dog-2013jan19-story.html

 

About his involvement with Theranos, well yes - this does give some pause, but not sure it's quite out of the norm (without saying the norm is great). Theranos was a big thing, and a whole lot of hope and money went along with that. Perhaps more relevant are his ties with General Dynamics.

 

Would be interesting to things would work between himself, Trump and several of the other key appointments. Mattis holds some views with run contradictory to Trump's (and for example, to Flynn's).

Me smells poop floating to the surface. 

[ilostmypassword]

8 hours ago, Penicillin said:

Yeah , huhu, this is terrible !   We want a ISIS fighting Marine DOD General who's moniker is "Pussycat" !!

 

oops

[NickJ]

Retired...Yet ready to serve. Didn't have his hand out for the Job. or Expect it. Ohhh Raa Mad Dog.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, silent said:

With respect, isn't that a scary thought considering the waiting in the wings Commander in Chief's public ridicule of servicemen in his campaign indicates that his own perception of what the title mad dog would likely imply, is the man's best friend. Once again no disrespect and strictly my concern based on his track record of using people with the end justifying the means more than honor.

Trump ridiculed McCaine, which he shouldn't have done, but other than that, Trump is more for the ordinary soldier etc than Obama or HRC ever was. The VA under Obama was a disgrace. Trump has vowed to sort it, but can we wait till he has been president a few days before criticizing him for not doing it before having the power to change it.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, sgtsabai said:

Yes, I would follow General Mattis into hell with a bucket of water and expect to win, but Secretary of Defense I'm not sure is the right job for him. The soon to be fascist in chief has shown nothing but choices for his cabinet and advisor's that are about as bad as they get, adding alligators to the swamp.

 

I will say, even hard charging Marine Generals, ah, they are supposed to be hard charging, not pencil pushers, do have some knowledge of how to be diplomatic and the General is well read. I also see a clash of personalities between he and the soon to be fascist in chief, also with Flynn who he already has had clashes with. I am surprised that the good General would even give scum like draft dodging orange fascist the time of day.

 

My biggest concern is not terrorism or the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan but the ongoing aggression of China who has been our main enemy all along.

 

Who knows this pick may be the one and only appointment the fascist in chief to be makes that is worth a hill of beans, the others certainly should never be allowed in any government position, not even dawg catcher.

 

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/donald-trump-james-mattis-defense-secretary?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Marine DNR 12-01-16&utm_term=Editorial - Marine Corps - Daily News Roundup

Hmmmm. If you don't like Trump's choices, that would indicate to me that he must be doing something right.

[ilostmypassword]

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Trump ridiculed McCaine, which he shouldn't have done, but other than that, Trump is more for the ordinary soldier etc than Obama or HRC ever was. The VA under Obama was a disgrace. Trump has vowed to sort it, but can we wait till he has been president a few days before criticizing him for not doing it before having the power to change it.

So how do you explain the fact that veterans overwhelmingly approve of the VA. Sure they want it better. But they don't like Republican plans to privatize it. And do you really believe that the VA's problems began with the Obama administration?

And here's a statement from those left-wingers at the American Legion:

"Dollar-for-dollar, there is no better care or value available anywhere in the United States – period. While we will always support strong and expeditious accountability measures for bad actors, the institution of the Department that was designed to care for those who have borne the battle is sacrosanct, and it belongs to the more than 22 million veterans who risked their lives in defense of this country, many of whom left significant pieces of themselves on the battlefield."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/legion-outlines-veterans-priorities-trump-transition-team-214700037.html

 

And then there's this:

Former military service members using Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals are just as happy with their care as patients using private medical clinics, according to a leading customer-satisfaction survey.

The American Customer Satisfaction Index for 2013 shows that the VA health network, which serves more than 8 million veterans, achieved marks equal to or better than those in the private sector.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2014/04/17/va-hospitals-on-par-with-private-sector-for-patient-satisfaction/?utm_term=.98be6fb83476

[Johpa]

As a 20 year Marine veteran myself, "Mad Dog" is a Marine's Marine, and his men would follow him into hell just to slap the devil in the face. 
 

Yep, as a tactical leader Mattis is a Marine's Marine, a quintessential jar head. But as a strategic thinker, as a general, as the former commander of that total failure of a command CENTCOM, the guy was a total a failure. CENTCOM should be disbanded and all the former command members should be put out to pasture without any future government employment. Again, a great Marine, but a terrible choice by Trump unless you want to reward strategic failure in the Greater Middle East.


Trump d'III

[CMNightRider]

2 hours ago, elgordo38 said:

Me smells poop floating to the surface. 

 

Check you shorts :-)

[Penicillin]

9 hours ago, AGLV0121 said:

 

Do you think that may even happen?

Only under a democrat president could  that happen . 

[Xircal]

12 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

Oh get over it.  Geez.  It's not his name, oh great military sensei:  the military is and always has been chock full of callsigns, aliases, etc.   I actually used to fly with a guy whose callsign actually was exactly that. 

 

Just great......another mindless backbiter sharing their deep military insight. 

 

But as mentioned in the OP, the position is designed to ensure civilian control over the armed forces. Mattis doesn't fit that bill: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38056197

 

[Xircal]

12 hours ago, Just1Voice said:

As a 20 year Marine veteran myself, "Mad Dog" is a Marine's Marine, and his men would follow him into hell just to slap the devil in the face. 

 

 

That's as maybe, but does he fit into the role of a civilian tasked with control of the military? That implies restraint which doesn't sound like one of his qualities.

[sgtsabai]

And the soon to be fascist in chief's choices that are liked by some indicate to me that those who like those scumbags are racist, misogynist, bigot, homophobic, anti-democratic, sociopath, fascist lovers. When you reap the whirlwind and realize you have been conned, don't come crying, I have no sympathy whatsoever for those people that brought this despot to rule.

 

Yes, one of the biggest factors is that the civilian part of government retains control over the military, of course the soon to be fascist in chief doesn't know this or much of anything else except he will make money out of his new power.

 

http://taskandpurpose.com/secdef-ruin-mattis-legacy/

[DogNo1]

Well, if Palin is put in charge of the VA, it will get sorted all right.  And for those who want the Middle East to sort itself out --- dream on.

[hawker9000]

3 hours ago, Xircal said:

 

But as mentioned in the OP, the position is designed to ensure civilian control over the armed forces. Mattis doesn't fit that bill: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38056197

 

What total BS.  George Washington and a number of other presidents were former military officers, most recently - and famously - Eisenhower who was a careerist; did THAT compromise the idea of "civilian control over the armed forces"?  Can't begin to count the number of former cabinet secretaries, members of the House & Senate, ambassadors, and other government executive service...   It's a GOOD thing!   The man knows the business, and Washington could use many more like him.   Mattis is no longer active; he's retired.  I.e., a civilian.   This is one of the most ridiculous claims against the man I've heard (next to heartburn over the nom de guerre thing, which is beyond laughable).

 

I guess this is the depth and level of insight we can expect to be hounding Trump FNO.  'Good to know it's nothing to be taken seriously. 

[Grubster]

21 hours ago, Thaidream said:

I believe this is a good choice for SecDef. The US needs someone who knows how the military really works; doesn't care much about politics; and won't let the normal BS shut him down. Actually, the military is very conservative about getting into a war and most often counsels against it.  However, when you are in it- you go for the win and quick. They know getting out is the tough part.

Yeah I noticed how hard they fought against going into Iraq to stir the bees nest into what the world is experiencing today. They sounded like teenage cheerleaders.  If you are against the war you are against the troops, Remember? Mission Accomplished. Yeah I guess so. I think their mission has worked perfectly for them so far.

                  I am not against this General taking the position as we may need a strong military leader there, but if you think a combat general is going to lean towards peace in any conflict I think you are wrong.

     The word Conservative is very much misused by those who are against change, unless it fits their agenda of course.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

So how do you explain the fact that veterans overwhelmingly approve of the VA. Sure they want it better. But they don't like Republican plans to privatize it. And do you really believe that the VA's problems began with the Obama administration?

And here's a statement from those left-wingers at the American Legion:

"Dollar-for-dollar, there is no better care or value available anywhere in the United States – period. While we will always support strong and expeditious accountability measures for bad actors, the institution of the Department that was designed to care for those who have borne the battle is sacrosanct, and it belongs to the more than 22 million veterans who risked their lives in defense of this country, many of whom left significant pieces of themselves on the battlefield."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/legion-outlines-veterans-priorities-trump-transition-team-214700037.html

 

And then there's this:

Former military service members using Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals are just as happy with their care as patients using private medical clinics, according to a leading customer-satisfaction survey.

The American Customer Satisfaction Index for 2013 shows that the VA health network, which serves more than 8 million veterans, achieved marks equal to or better than those in the private sector.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2014/04/17/va-hospitals-on-par-with-private-sector-for-patient-satisfaction/?utm_term=.98be6fb83476

NB this is from CNN, and not a GOP supporting source. It is also about the period since Obama attempted to fix it.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politics/veterans-administration-va/

The report indicates the billions pumped into the VA since the wait-list scandal erupted two years ago have failed to relieve many of the problems in delivering health care to veterans. In some cases, the report points out where so-called improvements to the VA system may have actually made things worse.

[sgtsabai]

While I would love to "debate" the debacle of the orange fascist's choices for VA head (one front runner other than the bimbo from Alaska is the go to guy for the Koch (John Birch Society) traitor brothers phony Veterans organization) also, this is about General Mattis, who I don't believe would like the plans the fascist has for the privatization of the VA.

 

An article from Foreign Policy, definitely not a left leaning publication, that is if it opens and opens correctly. http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/02/if-all-you-have-is-a-mattis-everything-looks-like-a-nail-civil-military-balance-of-power-trump/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_term=%2AEditors%20Picks

[silent]

15 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Trump ridiculed McCaine, which he shouldn't have done, but other than that, Trump is more for the ordinary soldier etc than Obama or HRC ever was. The VA under Obama was a disgrace. Trump has vowed to sort it, but can we wait till he has been president a few days before criticizing him for not doing it before having the power to change it.

I'm impressed with many of his election claims too and can hardly wait to hear who gets blamed if this company ends up in bankruptcy or another eminent war gets started as a viable means to make America great again, create more jobs, resolve food shortage, decrease surplus population and depletion of the ozone layer at the same time. But I agree with you let's give him a chance to see if he won't piss the whole world off until they say Yankee go home more than with Obama.

[Morch]

20 hours ago, stevenl said:

The law is there for a reason. If that reason is not valid any more, it should be abolished. If the reason is still valid, it should be upheld. Laws should not be used for political purposes like this one.

 

The argument that the law is used for "political purposes" may apply to views against Mattis being appointed. I am not actually saying that the objections are merely partisan, because indeed, there is an issue with regard to the principals upon which the system is founded. IMO, though, the question is more to do with whether Mattis's appointment merits a deviation. If circumstances were different, I would probably argue that it doesn't. While Mattis's record is commendable, it cannot be said to be on par with some of the others mentioned in this context (Marshall, Eisenhower). But considering how the next administration is shaping up, perhaps his presence can serve as ballast for views held and style exhibited by others.

[Morch]

20 hours ago, sgtsabai said:

Yes, I would follow General Mattis into hell with a bucket of water and expect to win, but Secretary of Defense I'm not sure is the right job for him. The soon to be fascist in chief has shown nothing but choices for his cabinet and advisor's that are about as bad as they get, adding alligators to the swamp.

 

I will say, even hard charging Marine Generals, ah, they are supposed to be hard charging, not pencil pushers, do have some knowledge of how to be diplomatic and the General is well read. I also see a clash of personalities between he and the soon to be fascist in chief, also with Flynn who he already has had clashes with. I am surprised that the good General would even give scum like draft dodging orange fascist the time of day.

 

My biggest concern is not terrorism or the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan but the ongoing aggression of China who has been our main enemy all along.

 

Who knows this pick may be the one and only appointment the fascist in chief to be makes that is worth a hill of beans, the others certainly should never be allowed in any government position, not even dawg catcher.

 

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/donald-trump-james-mattis-defense-secretary?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Marine DNR 12-01-16&utm_term=Editorial - Marine Corps - Daily News Roundup

 

@sgtsabai

 

Not quoting both posts addressed, as not having no wish to propagate your inflammatory rhetoric.

 

This is the second time you alluded to Mattis and Flynn having crossed paths in the past, and not in a good way ("...also with Flynn who he already has had clashes with...."). While from published views of the two I can see how differences can arise, I do not know that such "clashes" actually took place, and over which issues. It would be appreciated if you could clarify and expand.

 

I would agree that while Mattis is obviously equipped to tackle issues relating to the ME, Afghanistan and  terrorism - perhaps less so when it comes to dealing with the PRC. That said, I don't think there's any candidate, ever, who gets full marks with regard to all of the challenges involved with filling this post. As to things with the PRC needing a bit more of a diplomatic approach, that may be, but then we'll have to wait and see who's Trump's pick for Secretary of State. IMO, there were instances in which the related US policy was perhaps too diplomatic, and where a more...assertive..approach may haven been preferable.

 

No idea how much fun things will be for Mattis as Secretary of Defense, but most high ranking generals are quite familiar with what's involved with running things on large scale. Not like he doesn't have an idea what he's getting into. Some of his views on the relations between the civilian and the military spheres can be found in a book he co-edited, Warriors and Citizens: American Views of Our Military.

[Morch]

20 hours ago, elgordo38 said:

Me smells poop floating to the surface. 

 

Always encouraging to see such well-thought out and reasoned posts. Well done.

[Morch]

18 hours ago, Johpa said:

 

Yep, as a tactical leader Mattis is a Marine's Marine, a quintessential jar head. But as a strategic thinker, as a general, as the former commander of that total failure of a command CENTCOM, the guy was a total a failure. CENTCOM should be disbanded and all the former command members should be put out to pasture without any future government employment. Again, a great Marine, but a terrible choice by Trump unless you want to reward strategic failure in the Greater Middle East.


Trump d'III

 

 

That's another great thing about TVF - can air pretty much whatever comes to one's mind without ever needing to actually support it with anything remotely factual or logical.

 

CENTCOM does not dictate US foreign policy, but works within the limits set by it.

[Morch]

18 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Trump ridiculed McCaine, which he shouldn't have done, but other than that, Trump is more for the ordinary soldier etc than Obama or HRC ever was. The VA under Obama was a disgrace. Trump has vowed to sort it, but can we wait till he has been president a few days before criticizing him for not doing it before having the power to change it.

 

Right-o.

 

How is Trump "more for the ordinary soldier etc." is not explained, just asserted.

 

Trump did not actually do anything for veterans, it seems, other than vowing to "sort it".

We are not to criticize Trump for things he haven't done, but apparently quite alright to praise him for the very same.

 

Trumplogic at work.

 

[sgtsabai]

@Morch my apologies for not stating correctly clashes. Their clashes are idiological and if General Mattis is approved there will be inevitable real policy clashes between the two. Flynn is an Islamaphobic and his style of management does not fit well ("Flynn facts") with anybody according to what I have read. No apologies whatsoever for my "inflamatory" but true remarks about the orange soon to be fascist in chief. He is not nor ever will be my president. I swore and oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. He is an enemy of the Constitution.

"For Mattis, the biggest risk for him personally is that he will have a national security adviser in the form of Mike Flynn whose management style and extreme views may arch Mattis’s eyebrows and cause conflict over time. It’s no fun to be secretary of defense if you have to constantly feud with the White House.” Washington Post

 

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/21/mattis-as-defense-secretary-what-it-means-for-us-for-the-military-and-for-trump/?wp_login_redirect=0

 

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21710812-jim-mattis-would-be-reassuring-choice-mike-flynn-alarming-one-donald-trumps

 

No the fascist has never done anything for Veterans and he could give a shit less unless he can make a buck. Just take a look at who he is selecting for VA position, all right wingnuts that want to privatize the VA. Wonder how much the fascist thinks he can make off that?