U.S. lawmakers to probe Tillerson on Russia, diplomacy budget cuts

[webfact]

U.S. lawmakers to probe Tillerson on Russia, diplomacy budget cuts

By Patricia Zengerle

 

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson speaks at a press conference at the Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN) at Government House in Sydney, Australia, June 5, 2017. REUTERS/Jason Reed

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers will grill Secretary of State Rex Tillerson about President Donald Trump's unpopular budget, conflicting messages about foreign affairs and links between the administration and Russia, including his own ties, at congressional hearings starting on Tuesday.

 

The four hearings this week are a rare chance for members of the Senate and House of Representatives to question Tillerson, who has not testified publicly on Capitol Hill since his acrimonious confirmation hearing in January.

 

That hearing was dominated by Russia, as both Republicans and Democrats worried that the former Exxon Mobil executive, who had deep ties with Moscow, would be too soft on a country often at odds with the United States.

 

Forty-three members of the Democratic caucus voted against Tillerson's confirmation. It was the biggest "no" vote for a State nominee in decades.

 

Several senators planned to question Tillerson even more closely about his view of relations with Moscow. The Senate could vote on new sanctions on Russia as soon as this week.

 

"I haven't heard much from Mr. Tillerson, and what I've heard from him hasn't satisfied my concerns," Senator Ben Cardin, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters.

 

Tillerson testifies before Foreign Relations and a Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Tuesday, then before House Foreign Affairs and appropriations panels on Wednesday.

 

Lawmakers want to know where the administration stands after Trump seemed to side with Saudi Arabia and its allies in a dispute with Qatar, contradicting Tillerson, who sought to ease differences between the U.S. partners.

 

"The entire world has no idea where we stand with respect to the dispute between the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) and Qatar," said Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, a foreign relations committee member.

 

Lawmakers also promised close questioning about Trump's budget proposal, which features sharp cuts in spending on diplomacy and foreign aid, and big increases in military spending, a proposal several members of Congress dismissed as "dead on arrival."

 

Senator Lindsey Graham, the Republican chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the State Department budget, said he would argue against that proposal when Tillerson testifies to his panel on Tuesday afternoon.

 

"I'm going to make an argument that soft power is very important in winning the war against terrorism, it's important for our national security. When you look at the hard/soft power mix of this budget, it's way off kilter," Graham told reporters.

 

Separately, 16 retired four-star generals and other ex-military officers said they would submit joint testimony to the Senate on Wednesday about the importance of foreign aid to national security.

 

(Additional reporting by Amanda Becker; editing by Yara Bayoumy and Mary Milliken)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-06-13

[ilostmypassword]

It's been noted that the 2nd and 3rd level appointees who would ordinarily be dealing with the Qatar situation and informing the administration, are not in place.

[Thakkar]

12 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

It's been noted that the 2nd and 3rd level appointees who would ordinarily be dealing with the Qatar situation and informing the administration, are not in place.

 

By gutting the State department of personnel and budget, they are Just following the Russian plan to neuter the US government department that Putin hates most.

 

Tillerson is a Russian medal winner after all.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Thakkar

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Thakkar said:

 

By gutting the State department of personnel and budget, they are Just following the Russian plan to neuter the US government department that Putin hates most.

 

Tillerson is a Russian medal winner after all.

 

Incompetence trumps malice, IMO.

[Thakkar]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Incompetence trumps malice, IMO.

 

You could be right. With Trump,—who's been bankrupt four times—one can never rule out incompetence.

Either way, America suffers and Putin benefits. Either way Republicans and his other supporters should be endevouring to rein him in rather than constantly coming up with excuses for his behavior.

 

Thing is, virtually all the incompetence we've seen so far seems to benefit Putin at the expense of America and its allies.

[Morch]

Just now, Thakkar said:

 

You could be right. With Trump,—who's been bankrupt four times—one can never rule out incompetence.

Either way, America suffers and Putin benefits. Either way Republicans and his other supporters should be endevouring to rein him in rather than constantly coming up with excuses for his behavior.

 

Thing is, virtually all the incompetence we've seen so far seems to benefit Putin at the expense of America and its allies.

 

Putin benefits from the US being at disarray. From that angle Trump works well, as he spreads chaos, divisions and mistrust. Confusion to our enemies could be the new Russian toast. I think the beauty here is that there is no need for Trump to receive any actual cues or instructions, just a bit of prodding does the trick. The rest of the mess he manages quite well by himself.

 

 

[anon4546543]

I wonder where they will "probe" Tillerson before they "grill" him?

[JHolmesJr]

Might as well shut down the entire government for the next 4 years and open a 'Grill'.

 

LOL…..nincompoops.

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.  

[mrwebb8825]

On 6/13/2017 at 0:21 PM, webfact said:

"I'm going to make an argument that soft power is very important in winning the war against terrorism, it's important for our national security.

"Soft Power" over the last 2 decades is what has given rise to terrorists. They KNOW nothing will happen to them except a lot of tongue wagging. You can't sanction them, they don't have a country, government or GNP.

The world has gotten soft and they are making that very clear to all who are paying attention.

On 6/13/2017 at 4:13 PM, Thakkar said:

Thing is, virtually all the incompetence we've seen so far seems to benefit Putin at the expense of America and its allies.

What "Benefits" is Putin currently enjoying? The sanctions? The new sanctions coming?

People need to wake up. The "Commie Hunters Train" left the station decades ago.

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

"Soft Power" over the last 2 decades is what has given rise to terrorists. They KNOW nothing will happen to them except a lot of tongue wagging. You can't sanction them, they don't have a country, government or GNP.

The world has gotten soft and they are making that very clear to all who are paying attention.

 

Tell that to the Chinese. Or is that you don't understand what "soft power" means?

Edited June 15, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[mrwebb8825]

17 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Tell that to the Chinese. Or is that you don't understand what "soft power" means?

You'll need to elaborate here. I don't recall any ISIS terrorist attacks in China or originating from China. I DO recall them capturing, imprisoning for decades and executing though.

Edited June 15, 2017 by mrwebb8825

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, mrwebb8825 said:

You'll need to elaborate here. I don't recall any ISIS terrorist attacks in China or originating from China. I DO recall them capturing, imprisoning for decades and executing though.

The point is that soft power and hard power aren't mutually exclusive. But to understand that you have to understand what soft power means. So far, you're not providing any evidence that you do.

[mrwebb8825]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

The point is that soft power and hard power aren't mutually exclusive. But to understand that you have to understand what soft power means. So far, you're not providing any evidence that you do.

and you've not shown where China was in the OP but I cut you some slack.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, mrwebb8825 said:

and you've not shown where China was in the OP but I cut you some slack.

The topic of soft power was. You criticized it misguidedly as being weakness. I just gave an example of a nation that is hardly a pushover, that uses it very successfully.

[mrwebb8825]

17 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

The topic of soft power was. You criticized it misguidedly as being weakness. I just gave an example of a nation that is hardly a pushover, that uses it very successfully.

double-posted

Edited June 16, 2017 by mrwebb8825

[mrwebb8825]

17 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

The topic of soft power was. You criticized it misguidedly as being weakness. I just gave an example of a nation that is hardly a pushover, that uses it very successfully.

Ah, OK, I'm following you now. As for them being a pushover, I think the US could literally crush them militarily and economically if push came to shove but are hoping they will use this "soft power" more aggressively on North Korea (which doesn't seem to be the case at the moment)

They are either stalling or it truly is a weakness.