Two senior Republican senators criticize Tillerson comments on Russia

[webfact]

Two senior Republican senators criticize Tillerson comments on Russia

By Valerie Volcovici

 

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson makes a speech during the opening ceremony of the 22nd World Petroleum Congress in Istanbul, Turkey, July 9, 2017. REUTERS/Murad Sezer

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two senior Republican U.S. senators criticized Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Sunday for saying that Russia may have the "right approach" on Syria and for what they called his lack of focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

"His statements about Syria really disturb me. No, (Russian President Vladimir) Putin does not have it right when it comes to Syria," Senator Lindsey Graham said.

 

In separate television interviews, Graham and Senator John McCain, prominent Republican foreign policy voices, took aim at Tillerson's remarks last week that Russia may have "got the right approach" and the United States the wrong approach to Syria.

 

Russia has backed President Bashar al-Assad in Syria's civil war, while the United States supports rebel groups trying to overthrow him.

 

McCain told CBS' "Face the Nation" that he "sometimes" regretted backing Tillerson's nomination by Republican President Donald Trump and that his comments on Russia being "right" on Syria made him emotional and upset.

 

"I know what the slaughter has been like. I know that the Russians knew that Bashar Assad was going to use chemical weapons. And to say that maybe we've got the wrong approach?" he said.

 

Both senators backed the nomination of Tillerson in January, even while expressing concern about his dealings with Russia when he was chief executive of ExxonMobil.

 

Graham, who visited Afghanistan and Pakistan last week with McCain, accused Tillerson of being "AWOL" on the two countries and failing to fill key State Department posts.

 

"I am so worried about the State Department,” Graham said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

 

A State Department official responded to the criticism of Tillerson by saying that a U.S.-Russian-brokered ceasefire for southwest Syria was an example of what the secretary had described as the potential to coordinate with Russia, in spite of unresolved differences, "to produce stability and serve our mutual security interests."

 

The official, who did not want to be identified, also said the State Department was taking an active role in a review of Afghanistan and Pakistan policy and continued to work with the White House on nominations.

 

Since the exit of most foreign troops in 2014, Afghanistan’s U.S.-backed government has lost ground to a Taliban insurgency in a war that kills and maims thousands of civilians each year.

 

(Reporting by Valerie Volcovici; Additional reporting by Arsghad Mohammed and David Brunnstrom; Editing by Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-07-10

[keith101]

Everyone knows about his connections with Russia and Putin so why are they surprised about his statements .

[Thakkar]

Look, what's the point of meddling in American elections if you can't get your installed guys to agree to your approach?

 

2016 is anchient history. Time to move forward.

 

Americans better learn to speak Russian.

 

T

[zaphod reborn]

Tillerson has one job - to get the Rosneft oil deal done which is the quid pro quo owed by Trump to Putin for fixing the 2016 election. 

[boomerangutang]

Why is it always big news when a Republican congress person says something sensible?

 

Oh, I know, it's because 99% of the time, Republicans are backing the Dufus in Chief, so it's a big deal when they do the right thing.   Trump and Republicans set the bar so low, it takes a cockroach to walk under it.

[ilostmypassword]

Well, this does show the confusion of the Trump administration. On the one hand, they denounce Iran as being the #1 terrorist threat, but on the other the Sec. of State is now saying Russia might have the right approach. I guess it boils down to what you think is the bigger threat. If it's ISIS, Al-Qaeda and fellow travelers, then the Russians approach is the correct one. If it's the Iranians and its Shia allies, then Russia approach is the wrong one.

[boomerangutang]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, this does show the confusion of the Trump administration. On the one hand, they denounce Iran as being the #1 terrorist threat, but on the other the Sec. of State is now saying Russia might have the right approach. I guess it boils down to what you think is the bigger threat. If it's ISIS, Al-Qaeda and fellow travelers, then the Russians approach is the correct one. If it's the Iranians and its Shia allies, then Russia approach is the wrong one.

One thing's for sure, Trump is a crappy choice for being in charge of US foreign affairs.

[SOUTHERNSTAR]

The 2016 election will keep the dim witted busy for the next 50 years, while all the important stuff goes pass them unnoticed. The same happened with JFK and 911. These events are used to distract people that thinks in 30 second time bits. In 2020 the US will still be the US with all its problems and Russia will still be Russia will all its problems. The US will still elect its president in its own wacky way and the Russians will still be wacky in their ways. Calm down and focus on the important things in life and dont allow the puppetmasters to distract you with their side shows.

Edited July 10, 2017 by SOUTHERNSTAR

[spidermike007]

2 hours ago, zaphod reborn said:

Tillerson has one job - to get the Rosneft oil deal done which is the quid pro quo owed by Trump to Putin for fixing the 2016 election. 

 

Maybe. But he does have a second job too. He is trying to make his boss look like considerably less of a reckless goon, than he is. And he is trying to avoid letting that goon sabotage nearly every relationship we have developed over the past several decades, with his severe recklessness, and his unbelievably dumb decision to cut the budget of the state department, which in reality, is a national security issue. This man is a living, ticking time bomb. 

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

One thing's for sure, Trump is a crappy choice for being in charge of US foreign affairs.

 

Their performance over the last several decades on foreign affairs isn't exactly outstanding.

 

Who said "things can't get any worse"? Always room for movement down.

[pkspeaker]

Russia DOES have the right approach to Syria.  Everyone knows this 'chemical weapons' crap is a lie, just like it was a lie in 2003-Iraq.  It's just an excuse for the US to attack secular ME governments and turn these countries into fragmented islamic feifdoms with no real state there.  Bashar Assad is the legitimate president of Syria and he isn't going anywhere.  The US just supports these alqueda mercenary scumbags so they can create endless death & chaos in that country; If the US would leave and stop paying mercenaries than the war could be brought to a conclusion.

[kamahele]

27 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

Russia DOES have the right approach to Syria.  Everyone knows this 'chemical weapons' crap is a lie, just like it was a lie in 2003-Iraq.  It's just an excuse for the US to attack secular ME governments and turn these countries into fragmented islamic feifdoms with no real state there.  Bashar Assad is the legitimate president of Syria and he isn't going anywhere.  The US just supports these alqueda mercenary scumbags so they can create endless death & chaos in that country; If the US would leave and stop paying mercenaries than the war could be brought to a conclusion.

Are you serious? I mean, I'm not a fan of involvement in Syria but your reasoning that Assad is the legitimate presidents seems a bit off. Why, because he inherited his dictator title from his dad?

[dunroaming]

8 minutes ago, kamahele said:

Are you serious? I mean, I'm not a fan of involvement in Syria but your reasoning that Assad is the legitimate presidents seems a bit off. Why, because he inherited his dictator title from his dad?

 

pkspeaker is just winding everyone up.  He doesn't believe any of that rubbish, he is just stirring the pot to get a response.

[sgracer]

Tillerson is correct.

 

Graham and McCain are a couple of old dinosaurs that didn't learn anything from Iraq & Libya

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, pkspeaker said:

Russia DOES have the right approach to Syria.  Everyone knows this 'chemical weapons' crap is a lie, just like it was a lie in 2003-Iraq.  It's just an excuse for the US to attack secular ME governments and turn these countries into fragmented islamic feifdoms with no real state there.  Bashar Assad is the legitimate president of Syria and he isn't going anywhere.  The US just supports these alqueda mercenary scumbags so they can create endless death & chaos in that country; If the US would leave and stop paying mercenaries than the war could be brought to a conclusion.

I think what's more relevant is how many people get killed or maimed than how it's done.  In that respect, Syria's conduct is far from unusual in this region.

[metisdead]

A troll post has been removed as well as a reply. 

[retarius]

Graham and McCain....two old warmongers who need to be put out to pasture. Pair of idiots.

[Thaidream]

I will always respect McCain for his Vietnam service and being held as a POW for 5 years.  However, he and  Graham are wrong on Syria.  America and Russia need to co-operate to bring the war to an end and stop the massive refugee exodus that threatens Europe.  Sometimes, the US needs to allow another power to take the lead in settling an issue when it is in the Us national interest.  The Russians are willing and able to do this in Syria. Let them spend their money and their human resources as opposed to America doing it.  Assad is a side issue- he will eventually fall on his own and be replaced by another . Syria has very little strategic interest to the US other than destroying ISIS which is also what the Russians want.

[sirineou]

1 hour ago, dunroaming said:

 

pkspeaker is just winding everyone up.  He doesn't believe any of that rubbish, he is just stirring the pot to get a response.

pkspeaker might not believe any of that but it does not necessarily make it untrue.

We are doing to Syria what we have done to Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq .

   Is the life of the people there any better now than it was before? Will it get better any time soon?

How many years have we being improving the lives of people in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Isn't that what's important? Improving peoples lives? 

or is it something else?

I suspect that most of as if not all of as will be long dead and buried before life in Syria is as good as it was before we helped them.

 

 

[Thaidream]

Situation is very complicated and it looks as if America will be in Afghanistan for a lot longer as more troops are on the way. It is not even about helping the local population. America fears Radical Islam and is willing to spend the money to try and keep it at bay in these countries. Frankly, I wish that America would depart leaving the policing up to the Arab World- as they have much more to fear from Radical Islam as their  governments would fall under a caliphate. America needs to concentrate more on its domestic problems- like Healthcare; Immigration Reform and Tax Reform.  Unfortunately, The Trump Administration is putting billions more into the military budget , funding it all off the backs of the middle class and poor. This policy is laying the seeds for the next American Revolution.

 

[jobwolf]

It is not about wanting to fill these positions.

Many candidates refused to take up these positions because they do not agree with present politics.

At least some got the balls to say no and stay away from a deepening disaster.

 

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

pkspeaker might not believe any of that but it does not necessarily make it untrue.

We are doing to Syria what we have done to Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq .

   Is the life of the people there any better now than it was before? Will it get better any time soon?

How many years have we being improving the lives of people in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Isn't that what's important? Improving peoples lives? 

or is it something else?

I suspect that most of as if not all of as will be long dead and buried before life in Syria is as good as it was before we helped them.

 

 

 

Russia and Iran are way more invested and involved in Syria. Most posters focus solely on the US. Go figure.

[Thaidream]

As long as they destroy ISIS that solves the issue for Ameerica.  As far as I am concerned Syria has always been in the Russian sphere of influence- let them have the place and let their money and human resources be used up.

 

 

[dunroaming]

20 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

As long as they destroy ISIS that solves the issue for Ameerica.  As far as I am concerned Syria has always been in the Russian sphere of influence- let them have the place and let their money and human resources be used up.

 

 

I think that ISIS is being defeated in their heartland which is a good thing.  That should diminish their training camps.  However there will still be the cells and lone wolves spread across the world and they are going to be harder to wedel out.

[boomerangutang]

Regardless of which side you're on, the M.East conflicts are a conduit for US arms to flow into the M.East.  That makes US arms manufacturers happy.  And if rich Republicans are happy, so too are Trump and Tillerson.

 

How many billions in arms sales to the Saudis recently?  50 billion?  60 billion?   And that's just a small fraction of US arms which are being funneled to nearly every other faction there.   Today's freedom fighters (in Syria or wherever) will be tomorrow's radical insurgents.  

[boomerangutang]

2 hours ago, Thaidream said:

As long as they destroy ISIS that solves the issue for Ameerica.  As far as I am concerned Syria has always been in the Russian sphere of influence- let them have the place and let their money and human resources be used up.

I too would like to see ISIS snuffed out.  Yet, it's like trying to keep weeds down in an abandoned lot.  Maybe you can kill one type of weed, but a hundred other types will always be popping up to take their places.  Since before the Hittites, the Middle East has been a steady series of internecine wars, and it's not going to change, even in our great great grandchildren's lifetimes.

[Trouble]

We have had the wrong approach for the last 8 years.  We should never have started supplying the rebels with weapons.  Taking a stand on the use of chemical weapons is one thing but taking sides in a rebellion is another.  By supplying weapons to the rebels we have created a general mess in the country, widened the fighting, and created a refugee problem. In most cases the US cannot even be sure that the rebels will be moderates at the conclusion of the fight. Sure they are helping with the fight on ISIS now but it is also well known that most of the various groups will fight each other for power if Assad falls.  Lindsey Graham and John McCain are war hawks that think that war is the only solution. What do they think the outcome will be if Assad falls?   I think Tillerson is correct in that Russia may just be on the side of this that will bring the fighting to and end. Assad will  still in power but the fighting will stop and sure there will be people in jail but their won't be another Islamic state to deal with.  The rebels we support today will be some of our enemies tomorrow. Defeat ISIS and let the Russians have their influence there.  It has been under Russian influence for decades anyway.  

[boomerangutang]

4 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

How many billions in arms sales to the Saudis recently?  50 billion?  60 billion? 

$110 billion.  I looked it up.

[Morch]

16 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Regardless of which side you're on, the M.East conflicts are a conduit for US arms to flow into the M.East.  That makes US arms manufacturers happy.  And if rich Republicans are happy, so too are Trump and Tillerson.

 

How many billions in arms sales to the Saudis recently?  50 billion?  60 billion?   And that's just a small fraction of US arms which are being funneled to nearly every other faction there.   Today's freedom fighters (in Syria or wherever) will be tomorrow's radical insurgents.  

 

What a load.

 

Democrat presidents approved weapons sales to a whole lot of countries, including the ME. The recent deal (more correctly a collection of letter of intent etc.) was cooked up during Obama's term. US arms manufacturers, and those workers making a living in this industry are not necessarily Republican, not necessarily all rich (workers, that is), and not all hail from Republican leaning states or support Republican political representatives.

 

And no, 50-60 billion would not be  "just a small fraction of US arms funneled to nearly every faction there". It is way out there by order of magnitude (if, and bears dwelling on this "if", all contracts will indeed be realized).

[Morch]

14 hours ago, Trouble said:

We have had the wrong approach for the last 8 years.  We should never have started supplying the rebels with weapons.  Taking a stand on the use of chemical weapons is one thing but taking sides in a rebellion is another.  By supplying weapons to the rebels we have created a general mess in the country, widened the fighting, and created a refugee problem. In most cases the US cannot even be sure that the rebels will be moderates at the conclusion of the fight. Sure they are helping with the fight on ISIS now but it is also well known that most of the various groups will fight each other for power if Assad falls.  Lindsey Graham and John McCain are war hawks that think that war is the only solution. What do they think the outcome will be if Assad falls?   I think Tillerson is correct in that Russia may just be on the side of this that will bring the fighting to and end. Assad will  still in power but the fighting will stop and sure there will be people in jail but their won't be another Islamic state to deal with.  The rebels we support today will be some of our enemies tomorrow. Defeat ISIS and let the Russians have their influence there.  It has been under Russian influence for decades anyway.  

 

The last 8 years? Arming and supporting such factions is pretty much a hallmark of US foreign policy for way longer than that. Syria is just the latest instance. Nice try making it an Obama thing. And yes, his administrations do bear responsibility for going along with the program, but saying that while ignoring the show was running long time before he came into office is off mark. The US, in general, does not have a good enough foreign policy on these matters.

 

I don't know that the US supporting (directly or indirectly) some factions made a crucial difference with regard to how the situation panned out. Doubt it can be reasonably pointed at as the main source of the Syria's troubles.

 

And agreed, the US does not (and did not ) have a realistic vision for a post-Assad Syria. One would have thought that the concept of instant democratization would be recognized as futile, given past experience.

 

Trouble with what Tillerson says is that one can never know it it's in sync with Trump's current tweeting thinking, and how much sway it holds. Letting the Russians handle things is not necessarily the best option, but it's not like the US got any other credible options. "Agreeing" for Russia to handle the situation is the least face loss move available.