The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
Red Dreams said:
that is not the point though.
Click to expand...

So what is? That the adversaries of Assad are largely radical (surprise, surprise)? That Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar do whatever the US tells them too (they wish)? That she says that maybe people are criticizing 3 generals in cabinet as a form of discrimination? (huh?)
 
The US is funding the very terrorists which we are officially conducting campaigns against in Iraq. This must be a concern if true.

She has introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists Act on Dec 8th.

https://gabbard.house.gov/news/pres...introduces-legislation-stop-arming-terrorists

The American people should have oversight through Congress about what any agency does from taxpayer funding.

Her defending generals is her opinion. Obama has appointed generals too. In any case all these appointments will go through the Senate gauntlet.
 
Red Dreams said:
If she is talking about illegal acts, she would not be in trouble legally. But as we know Americans Can be murdered by their own agencies.

EDIT: When I said 'finish' I meant killed.
Click to expand...

Yes she would. Discussing classified info is punishable by a lengthy prison sentence. Not saying she did, but if she did she would be toast.
 
Red Dreams said:
what is your defination of classified info?

She would not have brought this up if it had Congressional oversight.
Click to expand...

Information that is classified. You have to have a security clearance in order to have access to it, which typically involves being 'read on' to access it and a legal clearance to safeguard it under penalty of prison sentence if you don't.
 
Red Dreams said:
The US is funding the very terrorists which we are officially conducting campaigns against in Iraq. This must be a concern if true.

She has introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists Act on Dec 8th.

https://gabbard.house.gov/news/pres...introduces-legislation-stop-arming-terrorists

The American people should have oversight through Congress about what any agency does from taxpayer funding.

Her defending generals is her opinion. Obama has appointed generals too. In any case all these appointments will go through the Senate gauntlet.
Click to expand...

This is pointless posturing. She's a congresswoman, on the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees too! Exactly the bodies that control the kitty. Just apparently most of her colleagues on the committee don't seem to agree with her that they are funding the wrong people (and I'm not making a claim on how close to AQ the groups funded are or aren't, but clearly her colleagues seem to believe they are worth funding).

Plus, its ridiculous to hear from someone on the Foreign Affairs committee that the US somehow has complete discretion of what Saudi Arabia does. Newsflash: the world is more complex than 'US says, they do'.
 
MarceloFalcon said:
This is pointless posturing. She's a congresswoman, on the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees too! Exactly the bodies that control the kitty. Just apparently most of her colleagues on the committee don't seem to agree with her that they are funding the wrong people (and I'm not making a claim on how close to AQ the groups funded are or aren't, but clearly her colleagues seem to believe they are worth funding).

Plus, its ridiculous to hear from someone on the Foreign Affairs committee that the US somehow has complete discretion of what Saudi Arabia does. Newsflash: the world is more complex than 'US says, they do'.
Click to expand...

She strikes me as a complete lightweight - an ambitious millennial Congresswoman who is willing to do whatever it takes to get into the spotlight to advance her political ambitions. Whether that's butting heads with Wasserman-Schulz, meeting with Drumpf, appearing on the Wolf Blitzer show three times a week, or pretending she's some sort of foreign policy expert because she did a tour in Iraq.
 
Raoul said:
Information that is classified. You have to have a security clearance in order to have access to it, which typically involves being 'read on' to access it and a legal clearance to safeguard it under penalty of prison sentence if you don't.
Click to expand...

I'm certain she is wise enough to know this.

She has done 2 tours of duty in Iraq and is a major in the Hawaii National guard. She certainly is entitled to voice her opinion about the appointment of generals.

Btw Newsflash ;) We are a Democracy...or at least we claim to be. There is such a thing as accountability and oversight. There is nothing complex in that.
 
Raoul said:
She strikes me as a complete lightweight - an ambitious millennial Congresswoman who is willing to do whatever it takes to get into the spotlight to advance her political ambitions. Whether that's butting heads with Wasserman-Schulz, meeting with Drumpf, appearing on the Wolf Blitzer show three times a week, or pretending she's some sort of foreign policy expert because she did a tour in Iraq.
Click to expand...

I definitely caught the lightweight. You're on the right committees but need to try to pass a law on this, rather than influence it from the inside? Lacking clout.
 
Red Dreams said:
I'm certain she is wise enough to know this.

She has done 2 tours of duty in Iraq and is a major in the Hawaii National guard. She certainly is entitled to voice her opinion about the appointment of generals.

Btw Newsflash ;) We are a Democracy...or at least we claim to be. There is such a thing as accountability and oversight. There is nothing complex in that.
Click to expand...

Yes, Congress already does that. Is there any person in federal government more influential than an eventual congressman who has proper clout? This isn't lack of oversight, leaders and committee members get or can request briefings on any subject they wish. They get to influence and confirm nominations and promotions for most relevant individuals in the national security apparatus. The system is accounted. What is happening though is that Congress actually seems to agree with the funding going on.
 
Red Dreams said:
I'm certain she is wise enough to know this.

She has done 2 tours of duty in Iraq and is a major in the Hawaii National guard. She certainly is entitled to voice her opinion about the appointment of generals.

Btw Newsflash ;) We are a Democracy...or at least we claim to be. There is such a thing as accountability and oversight. There is nothing complex in that.
Click to expand...

There are separate organizations for accountability and oversight that deal with such issues. That doesn't mean individuals have the right to break the law.
 
Red Dreams said:
A 'lightweight' that went against a corrupt Wassermen-Schultz. ;)

Meeting with the President-Elect for the betterment of Americans is courageous.
Click to expand...

She played into Trump's publicity circus of wanting to be perceived as entertaining cabinet picks from all backgrounds.
 
Whilst Gabbard's grandstanding, the security services are saying this

 
Raoul said:
There are separate organizations for accountability and oversight that deal with such issues. That doesn't mean individuals have the right to break the law.
Click to expand...

Do you seriously think she has broken the law?

The Dems acused the GOP of not wanting to work with Obama. I see nothing wrong with a Democrat wanting to work with a Republican President so long as she has not compromised her prinicpals.
 
I want the US government to get to the bottom of the leaks if it was the Russians or any other foreign power. If it is Not proven that the leaks were manufactured, I'm interested in what actions will be taken about the leaks themselves.
 
Red Dreams said:
Do you seriously think she has broken the law?

The Dems acused the GOP of not wanting to work with Obama. I see nothing wrong with a Democrat wanting to work with a Republican President so long as she has not compromised her prinicpals.
Click to expand...

I've no clue. It just seems like an odd accusation for a random politician to make when she is the only one doing it at the moment.
 
Ubik said:
Whilst Gabbard's grandstanding, the security services are saying this

Click to expand...


I'm actually surprised that the media are finally exposing the obvious so late in the process. Of course it was the Russians as its their MO and only Putin has something substantial to gain by getting Trump into the WH.
 
BTW, Drumpf has rejected that the Russians were involved despite ducking out on nearly all his intelligence briefings so far.
 
Raoul said:
I've no clue. It just seems like an odd accusation for a random politician to make when she is the only one doing it at the moment.
Click to expand...

If she has manufactured this, she needs to be punished with the full force of the law. But if she is right about the CIA being used without Congressional oversight as she has said And her introduction of The Stop Arming Terrorist Act needs to be taken seriously.

That something seems odd is unimportant. Most politicians play the game. It is those who have courage that go against the system. As an American I do not want to see American troops sent to war against any group, while at the same time we are funding their compatriots.
 
Red Dreams said:
If she has manufactured this, she needs to be punished with the full force of the law. But if she is right about the CIA being used without Congressional oversight as she has said And her introduction of The Stop Arming Terrorist Act needs to be taken seriously.

That something seems odd is unimportant. Most politicians play the game. It is those who have courage that go against the system. As an American I do not want to see American troops sent to war against any group, while at the same time we are funding their compatriots.
Click to expand...

Even if she didn't manufacture it but still gave away some sort of privileged info to promote her new bill (which probably has a snowballs chance of passing in a GOP congress BTW), she should still be held accountable. Her career aggrandizement isn't more important than following the law.
 
Raoul said:
Even if she didn't manufacture it but still gave away some sort of privileged info to promote her new bill (which probably has a snowballs chance of passing in a GOP congress BTW), she should still be held accountable. Her career aggrandizement isn't more important than following the law.
Click to expand...

As I said, if she has leaked classified information, ie. she has spoken an Untruth. That the CIA are being used illegally in Syria, she is in deep trouble.

I see no reason why an Act that says Stop Arming Terrorists should not pass congress.

This is provocative no doubt. But it is time somebody did it.

American taxpayers funds have been used to take numerous lives around the world without their knowledge.
 
One thing that's really pissing me off in all this is that Europe's got a good chance to use Trumps incompetence to become the biggest world player but has instead chosen a path of infighting and instability. Useless bastards.
 
Silva said:
One thing that's really pissing me off in all this is that Europe's got a good chance to use Trumps incompetence to become the biggest world player but has instead chosen a path of infighting and instability. Useless bastards.
Click to expand...

Courtesy of Putin again by way of his support for the likes of LePen and Farage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.