(05-21-2017 06:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump and co having a pretty good, and uneventful trip overseas so far. Looks like the Saudis are willing to work with him and it looks like someone on team Trump was able to convince him to stay on script. I did find two things interesting.
One was that, after Trump and the Republican party's fascination with the use of the term "radical Islam" (or Obama's lack of its use), team Trump followed suit. Also, Trump did a little bow to the king (?) during the medal ceremony, and the world did not come tumbling down.
Maybe this is new Trump?

He leaned over to let the much shorter King put a medal over his head. He didn't go 90 degrees like his predecessor.

I am not sure what the left wants him to do about "radical Isalm". Do they want him to say it or not? I think they would find a reason to criticize either way. Personally, I am happy he is using some good judgement in what to say and where to say it.

Jonathan Carl on ABC News (on This Week with George Stephanopolous) this morning said The King met Trump at the plane, a gesture of respect he never extended to Obama. Both Karl and Roger Zelazny (CNN. State of the Union with Jake Tapper)) said there was lots of signs of welcome there, including billboards with Trump's image on them and (I think) an image of Trump played on the side of the hotel.

(05-21-2017 09:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 06:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump and co having a pretty good, and uneventful trip overseas so far. Looks like the Saudis are willing to work with him and it looks like someone on team Trump was able to convince him to stay on script. I did find two things interesting.
One was that, after Trump and the Republican party's fascination with the use of the term "radical Islam" (or Obama's lack of its use), team Trump followed suit. Also, Trump did a little bow to the king (?) during the medal ceremony, and the world did not come tumbling down.
Maybe this is new Trump?

He leaned over to let the much shorter King put a medal over his head. He didn't go 90 degrees like his predecessor.

I am not sure what the left wants him to do about "radical Isalm". Do they want him to say it or not? I think they would find a reason to criticize either way. Personally, I am happy he is using some good judgement in what to say and where to say it.

Jonathan Carl on ABC News (on This Week with George Stephanopolous) this morning said The King met Trump at the plane, a gesture of respect he never extended to Obama. Both Karl and Roger Zelazny (CNN. State of the Union with Jake Tapper)) said there was lots of signs of welcome there, including billboards with Trump's image on them and (I think) an image of Trump played on the side of the hotel.

Oh, I'm happy he avoided the term radical Islam. It was not inline with his, or his supporters, way of looking at the terrorist threats in the Middle East, but well inline with the best approach for actually discussing the challenges there. That line had become such a totem for Right that I wasn't pleasantly surprised he decided to avoid its use (not sure why you thought otherwise). I think those on the left after generally happy as well. Speaking for myself, I would rather someone use their head, regardless of how hypocritical it is, than be stubborn and risk angering and insulting a huge swath of people.

And, this is silly, but watch the video again, Trump does a little bow after having the medal put around his neck. The only reason I bring this up is because of how stupid it was that obama got dinged for it and the fact that I saw a Fox article that mentioned how Trump didn't bow when he met the King, but then he didn't so during the medal ceremony. The fact that there was the Fox article in the first place is laughable.

But like I said, it looks like the Saudis are willing to work with trump, despite all of his bluster on the campaign trail and before that. They can be a powerful ally in the Middle East.

(05-21-2017 10:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 09:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 06:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump and co having a pretty good, and uneventful trip overseas so far. Looks like the Saudis are willing to work with him and it looks like someone on team Trump was able to convince him to stay on script. I did find two things interesting.
One was that, after Trump and the Republican party's fascination with the use of the term "radical Islam" (or Obama's lack of its use), team Trump followed suit. Also, Trump did a little bow to the king (?) during the medal ceremony, and the world did not come tumbling down.
Maybe this is new Trump?

He leaned over to let the much shorter King put a medal over his head. He didn't go 90 degrees like his predecessor.

I am not sure what the left wants him to do about "radical Isalm". Do they want him to say it or not? I think they would find a reason to criticize either way. Personally, I am happy he is using some good judgement in what to say and where to say it.

Jonathan Carl on ABC News (on This Week with George Stephanopolous) this morning said The King met Trump at the plane, a gesture of respect he never extended to Obama. Both Karl and Roger Zelazny (CNN. State of the Union with Jake Tapper)) said there was lots of signs of welcome there, including billboards with Trump's image on them and (I think) an image of Trump played on the side of the hotel.

Oh, I'm happy he avoided the term radical Islam. It was not inline with his, or his supporters, way of looking at the terrorist threats in the Middle East, but well inline with the best approach for actually discussing the challenges there. That line had become such a totem for Right that I wasn't pleasantly surprised he decided to avoid its use (not sure why you thought otherwise). I think those on the left after generally happy as well. Speaking for myself, I would rather someone use their head, regardless of how hypocritical it is, than be stubborn and risk angering and insulting a huge swath of people.

And, this is silly, but watch the video again, Trump does a little bow after having the medal put around his neck. The only reason I bring this up is because of how stupid it was that obama got dinged for it and the fact that I saw a Fox article that mentioned how Trump didn't bow when he met the King, but then he didn't so during the medal ceremony. The fact that there was the Fox article in the first place is laughable.

But like I said, it looks like the Saudis are willing to work with trump, despite all of his bluster on the campaign trail and before that. They can be a powerful ally in the Middle East.

I guess people will see what they want to see in the video. I wonder how tall the King is. Trump is 6'2', same height as Obama.

There are times and places to properly use the words "radical Islam". In the heart of Saudi Arabia on a state trip is probably no the best place for that. Of course, not using those words opens him up to cries of "hypocrisy" from the left. I'm glad he chose diplomacy over appeasing his critics. I understand from reports today on CNN he made a well worded speech that was well received.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/21/politics/t...ranscript/

(05-21-2017 11:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 10:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 09:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 06:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump and co having a pretty good, and uneventful trip overseas so far. Looks like the Saudis are willing to work with him and it looks like someone on team Trump was able to convince him to stay on script. I did find two things interesting.
One was that, after Trump and the Republican party's fascination with the use of the term "radical Islam" (or Obama's lack of its use), team Trump followed suit. Also, Trump did a little bow to the king (?) during the medal ceremony, and the world did not come tumbling down.
Maybe this is new Trump?

He leaned over to let the much shorter King put a medal over his head. He didn't go 90 degrees like his predecessor.

I am not sure what the left wants him to do about "radical Isalm". Do they want him to say it or not? I think they would find a reason to criticize either way. Personally, I am happy he is using some good judgement in what to say and where to say it.

Jonathan Carl on ABC News (on This Week with George Stephanopolous) this morning said The King met Trump at the plane, a gesture of respect he never extended to Obama. Both Karl and Roger Zelazny (CNN. State of the Union with Jake Tapper)) said there was lots of signs of welcome there, including billboards with Trump's image on them and (I think) an image of Trump played on the side of the hotel.

Oh, I'm happy he avoided the term radical Islam. It was not inline with his, or his supporters, way of looking at the terrorist threats in the Middle East, but well inline with the best approach for actually discussing the challenges there. That line had become such a totem for Right that I wasn't pleasantly surprised he decided to avoid its use (not sure why you thought otherwise). I think those on the left after generally happy as well. Speaking for myself, I would rather someone use their head, regardless of how hypocritical it is, than be stubborn and risk angering and insulting a huge swath of people.

And, this is silly, but watch the video again, Trump does a little bow after having the medal put around his neck. The only reason I bring this up is because of how stupid it was that obama got dinged for it and the fact that I saw a Fox article that mentioned how Trump didn't bow when he met the King, but then he didn't so during the medal ceremony. The fact that there was the Fox article in the first place is laughable.

But like I said, it looks like the Saudis are willing to work with trump, despite all of his bluster on the campaign trail and before that. They can be a powerful ally in the Middle East.

I guess people will see what they want to see in the video. I wonder how tall the King is. Trump is 6'2', same height as Obama.

There are times and places to properly use the words "radical Islam". In the heart of Saudi Arabia on a state trip is probably no the best place for that. Of course, not using those words opens him up to cries of "hypocrisy" from the left. I'm glad he chose diplomacy over appeasing his critics. I understand from reports today on CNN he made a well worded speech that was well received.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/21/politics/t...ranscript/

Actually, choosing the words he did, DID appease his critics, as the critics said he shouldn't use the term "radical Islam" to begin with.

My comment is less about Trump, and more about the fact that his base was (rightfully) left in the cold on this trip because their strange fascination with the previous admins decision to avoid the term was not as crazy as they thought it was.

Trump's first stop on this trip has been a breathe of fresh air. And it is the first time he has actually gone in public and, IMO, acted presidential and not either divisive or childish - you'll see I'm not knocking him or critiquing him in these posts. For example, I have no problem if he did bow - I find it hilarious that others did for Obama and now some are trying to say he didn't (because guess what, it doesn't matter).

(05-21-2017 11:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 11:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 10:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 09:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 06:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump and co having a pretty good, and uneventful trip overseas so far. Looks like the Saudis are willing to work with him and it looks like someone on team Trump was able to convince him to stay on script. I did find two things interesting.
One was that, after Trump and the Republican party's fascination with the use of the term "radical Islam" (or Obama's lack of its use), team Trump followed suit. Also, Trump did a little bow to the king (?) during the medal ceremony, and the world did not come tumbling down.
Maybe this is new Trump?

He leaned over to let the much shorter King put a medal over his head. He didn't go 90 degrees like his predecessor.

I am not sure what the left wants him to do about "radical Isalm". Do they want him to say it or not? I think they would find a reason to criticize either way. Personally, I am happy he is using some good judgement in what to say and where to say it.

Jonathan Carl on ABC News (on This Week with George Stephanopolous) this morning said The King met Trump at the plane, a gesture of respect he never extended to Obama. Both Karl and Roger Zelazny (CNN. State of the Union with Jake Tapper)) said there was lots of signs of welcome there, including billboards with Trump's image on them and (I think) an image of Trump played on the side of the hotel.

Oh, I'm happy he avoided the term radical Islam. It was not inline with his, or his supporters, way of looking at the terrorist threats in the Middle East, but well inline with the best approach for actually discussing the challenges there. That line had become such a totem for Right that I wasn't pleasantly surprised he decided to avoid its use (not sure why you thought otherwise). I think those on the left after generally happy as well. Speaking for myself, I would rather someone use their head, regardless of how hypocritical it is, than be stubborn and risk angering and insulting a huge swath of people.

And, this is silly, but watch the video again, Trump does a little bow after having the medal put around his neck. The only reason I bring this up is because of how stupid it was that obama got dinged for it and the fact that I saw a Fox article that mentioned how Trump didn't bow when he met the King, but then he didn't so during the medal ceremony. The fact that there was the Fox article in the first place is laughable.

But like I said, it looks like the Saudis are willing to work with trump, despite all of his bluster on the campaign trail and before that. They can be a powerful ally in the Middle East.

I guess people will see what they want to see in the video. I wonder how tall the King is. Trump is 6'2', same height as Obama.

There are times and places to properly use the words "radical Islam". In the heart of Saudi Arabia on a state trip is probably no the best place for that. Of course, not using those words opens him up to cries of "hypocrisy" from the left. I'm glad he chose diplomacy over appeasing his critics. I understand from reports today on CNN he made a well worded speech that was well received.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/21/politics/t...ranscript/

Actually, choosing the words he did, DID appease his critics, as the critics said he shouldn't use the term "radical Islam" to begin with.

My comment is less about Trump, and more about the fact that his base was (rightfully) left in the cold on this trip because their strange fascination with the previous admins decision to avoid the term was not as crazy as they thought it was.

Trump's first stop on this trip has been a breathe of fresh air. And it is the first time he has actually gone in public and, IMO, acted presidential and not either divisive or childish - you'll see I'm not knocking him or critiquing him in these posts. For example, I have no problem if he did bow - I find it hilarious that others did for Obama and now some are trying to say he didn't (because guess what, it doesn't matter).

I guess it was the same bow that Olympic medal winners give their presenters, especially the taller winners. You want to call it a bow, go ahead. As you say, it really doesn't matter. I just don't think it is the same as this

The thing about Obama's insistance in not using the phrase "Islamic terrorism" or "Radical Islam" is that it was an Administration wide ban ,and led to such travesties as the "workplace violence" of Nidal Hasan. I have no doubt Trump will continue to use the phrases in appropriate settings here in the US. It would appear Obama's fears of insulting all Muslims are baseless, if Trump's welcome in Saudi Arabia is any indication.

Not quite total avoidance

"During the speech to leaders of more than 50 Muslim-majority nations, the president did use terms such as "Islamist extremism" and "Islamist terror groups."

I am glad we are in agreement that it is a good trip so far.

(05-22-2017 07:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 11:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 11:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 10:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 09:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  He leaned over to let the much shorter King put a medal over his head. He didn't go 90 degrees like his predecessor.

I am not sure what the left wants him to do about "radical Isalm". Do they want him to say it or not? I think they would find a reason to criticize either way. Personally, I am happy he is using some good judgement in what to say and where to say it.

Jonathan Carl on ABC News (on This Week with George Stephanopolous) this morning said The King met Trump at the plane, a gesture of respect he never extended to Obama. Both Karl and Roger Zelazny (CNN. State of the Union with Jake Tapper)) said there was lots of signs of welcome there, including billboards with Trump's image on them and (I think) an image of Trump played on the side of the hotel.

Oh, I'm happy he avoided the term radical Islam. It was not inline with his, or his supporters, way of looking at the terrorist threats in the Middle East, but well inline with the best approach for actually discussing the challenges there. That line had become such a totem for Right that I wasn't pleasantly surprised he decided to avoid its use (not sure why you thought otherwise). I think those on the left after generally happy as well. Speaking for myself, I would rather someone use their head, regardless of how hypocritical it is, than be stubborn and risk angering and insulting a huge swath of people.

And, this is silly, but watch the video again, Trump does a little bow after having the medal put around his neck. The only reason I bring this up is because of how stupid it was that obama got dinged for it and the fact that I saw a Fox article that mentioned how Trump didn't bow when he met the King, but then he didn't so during the medal ceremony. The fact that there was the Fox article in the first place is laughable.

But like I said, it looks like the Saudis are willing to work with trump, despite all of his bluster on the campaign trail and before that. They can be a powerful ally in the Middle East.

I guess people will see what they want to see in the video. I wonder how tall the King is. Trump is 6'2', same height as Obama.

There are times and places to properly use the words "radical Islam". In the heart of Saudi Arabia on a state trip is probably no the best place for that. Of course, not using those words opens him up to cries of "hypocrisy" from the left. I'm glad he chose diplomacy over appeasing his critics. I understand from reports today on CNN he made a well worded speech that was well received.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/21/politics/t...ranscript/

Actually, choosing the words he did, DID appease his critics, as the critics said he shouldn't use the term "radical Islam" to begin with.

My comment is less about Trump, and more about the fact that his base was (rightfully) left in the cold on this trip because their strange fascination with the previous admins decision to avoid the term was not as crazy as they thought it was.

Trump's first stop on this trip has been a breathe of fresh air. And it is the first time he has actually gone in public and, IMO, acted presidential and not either divisive or childish - you'll see I'm not knocking him or critiquing him in these posts. For example, I have no problem if he did bow - I find it hilarious that others did for Obama and now some are trying to say he didn't (because guess what, it doesn't matter).

I guess it was the same bow that Olympic medal winners give their presenters, especially the taller winners. You want to call it a bow, go ahead. As you say, it really doesn't matter. I just don't think it is the same as this

The thing about Obama's insistance in not using the phrase "Islamic terrorism" or "Radical Islam" is that it was an Administration wide ban ,and led to such travesties as the "workplace violence" of Nidal Hasan. I have no doubt Trump will continue to use the phrases in appropriate settings here in the US. It would appear Obama's fears of insulting all Muslims are baseless, if Trump's welcome in Saudi Arabia is any indication.

Not quite total avoidance

"During the speech to leaders of more than 50 Muslim-majority nations, the president did use terms such as "Islamist extremism" and "Islamist terror groups."

I am glad we are in agreement that it is a good trip so far.

To your first comment - the fact that anyone even made a YouTube video of that moment is my point. It's hilarious that people cared that Obama bowed when he met the Saudi King and wrote articles like this: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/...to-do.html

And by the way, I'm not talking about Trump bending as he had the medal placed over his head, I'm talking about the little bow/cursty he did immediately afterwards.

And I think it would be poor form for Trump to go back and start using the phrase Islamic extremism as opposed to the carefully chosen Islamist extremism. The difference is subtle, but would be akin to saying right-wing extremism as opposed to Christian extremism. He will hopefully not regress to speaking without thinking about the consequences of his actions and using more incendiary language to fire up his fervent base.

And I don't think the Obama fears were baseless - epecially since they were primarily related to the propagation of terrorism and not having bad relations with the Saudis. I read a number of pieces that suggested the Saudis saw a weak president (from a approval %) who would be willing to work with them to get anything positive done, and a president who needed to be, in essence, coddled and fawned over. That if they did not roll out the red carpet, they would not be able to get anything done. And it looks like it worked. And that isn't a critique, just an analysis of the situation and why I think the Saudis did that.

Everyone was willing to play ball. Even is it was a weird, glowing ball.

Saudis Welcome Trump’s Rebuff of Obama’s Mideast Views

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/19/middleeast...ump-visit/

(05-21-2017 06:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Trump and co having a pretty good, and uneventful trip overseas so far. Looks like the Saudis are willing to work with him and it looks like someone on team Trump was able to convince him to stay on script. I did find two things interesting.
One was that, after Trump and the Republican party's fascination with the use of the term "radical Islam" (or Obama's lack of its use), team Trump followed suit. Also, Trump did a little bow to the king (?) during the medal ceremony, and the world did not come tumbling down.
Maybe this is new Trump?

Yeah, it's odd. I thought Trump, Cruz, et al. had told us that if only Obama would utter the magic words "radical Islam" terrorism would be defeated. Well, other than right-wing and white supremicist terrorism. But that's not *real* terrorism, anyway.

no more than the rioters these days would be commonly termed left wing rioters

(05-22-2017 11:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  no more than the rioters these days would be commonly termed left wing rioters

And that is a perfect example of why radical Islamic terrorism is a counter productive statement. It includes too many people who have nothing to do with terrorism, just as left wing rioters covers too many people. Or how people got all upset about the deplorables comment.

Language is powerful.

(05-22-2017 09:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 11:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  no more than the rioters these days would be commonly termed left wing rioters

And that is a perfect example of why radical Islamic terrorism is a counter productive statement. It includes too many people who have nothing to do with terrorism, just as left wing rioters covers too many people. Or how people got all upset about the deplorables comment.

Language is powerful.

The word 'deplorables' did not bother me nearly as much as the underlying attitude. Heck, my sister could call me deplorable and it wouldn't mean a thing. My friend can call me a redneck and all is OK. The attitude is the thing.

So, after Trump sharing intel with the Russians, cluelessly confirming that it was from Israel in a meeting with the Israeli PM, we have the UK halting some intelligence sharing with us.

*The UK!*

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/25/europe/man...index.html

But Hillary's emails!

And this. Trump publicly scolding and lecturing our allies at NATO summit. Look at the reaction of the other leaders.

What's really dumb is his argument that they need a bigger military to combat terrorism, when it's really intelligence that is more important and he's doing everything he can to undermine intelligence sharing with our allies...

https://www.facebook.com/newsandguts/vid...758924333/

(05-25-2017 09:37 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  So, after Trump sharing intel with the Russians, cluelessly confirming that it was from Israel in a meeting with the Israeli PM, we have the UK halting some intelligence sharing with us.

*The UK!*

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/25/europe/man...index.html

But Hillary's emails!

I'm not sure how much that has to do with Trump's admin, but with leaks in general. So far, I haven't seen any indication that the leaks were related to Trump.

Much more concerning is that Trump told Duarte that there were two nuclear subs on the way to N. Korea, for no reason at all. As some security experts discussed, that admission could allow countries to basically test submarine detection technology with the knowledge that a sub IS out there somewhere.

(05-25-2017 11:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 09:37 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  So, after Trump sharing intel with the Russians, cluelessly confirming that it was from Israel in a meeting with the Israeli PM, we have the UK halting some intelligence sharing with us.

*The UK!*

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/25/europe/man...index.html

But Hillary's emails!

I'm not sure how much that has to do with Trump's admin, but with leaks in general. So far, I haven't seen any indication that the leaks were related to Trump.

Much more concerning is that Trump told Duarte that there were two nuclear subs on the way to N. Korea, for no reason at all. As some security experts discussed, that admission could allow countries to basically test submarine detection technology with the knowledge that a sub IS out there somewhere.

I had almost forgotten about that one already - it's honestly hard to keep up. And of course he told Duarte he was doing a "great job" with the war on drugs. Hopefully Sessions isn't getting any ideas from Duarte...

(05-25-2017 10:58 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  And this. Trump publicly scolding and lecturing our allies at NATO summit. Look at the reaction of the other leaders.

What's really dumb is his argument that they need a bigger military to combat terrorism, when it's really intelligence that is more important and he's doing everything he can to undermine intelligence sharing with our allies...

https://www.facebook.com/newsandguts/vid...758924333/

The other dumb thing about doing this is that it's arguably all false. My understanding is that countries have until 2024 to come into line with the 2% agreement. And that NATO payments are essentially prorated. We, as the largest, and the "Great Power" in the alliance pay more than Belgium. Go figure. So, by my understanding it's not like there are agreements where specific countries owed the US $X and have only paid us $Y. And even if that were true, you bring it up in the private meetings, not by publicly scolding the other leaders.

And here is trump literally shoving his way to the front and then doing some weird Il Duce thing.

https://www.facebook.com/nbcnightlynews/...594123689/

(05-25-2017 10:58 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  And this. Trump publicly scolding and lecturing our allies at NATO summit. Look at the reaction of the other leaders.

What's really dumb is his argument that they need a bigger military to combat terrorism, when it's really intelligence that is more important and he's doing everything he can to undermine intelligence sharing with our allies...

https://www.facebook.com/newsandguts/vid...758924333/

Not even sure what the point of briefing Trump on intelligence is anymore, he's just going to blab. That said, Theresa May needs to first worry about MI6's severe inadequacies as an intelligence agency (you know, since they had knowledge of the bomber prior to the attack and apparently assumed he was in Libya for three weeks on sightseeing trip).

I do applaud Trump for lambasting those morons (but agree with your point on a larger military not being necessary)...the French, Italians, Germans, etc. don't pay their fair share and haven't for a while. Step one in America ceasing to be the world police is making those lazy clowns pay up. Well that and not getting into / staying in wars that just propagate further hatred of the U.S. (thanks Bush and Obama!)

(05-25-2017 02:28 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 10:58 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  And this. Trump publicly scolding and lecturing our allies at NATO summit. Look at the reaction of the other leaders.

What's really dumb is his argument that they need a bigger military to combat terrorism, when it's really intelligence that is more important and he's doing everything he can to undermine intelligence sharing with our allies...

https://www.facebook.com/newsandguts/vid...758924333/

Not even sure what the point of briefing Trump on intelligence is anymore, he's just going to blab. That said, Theresa May needs to first worry about MI6's severe inadequacies as an intelligence agency (you know, since they had knowledge of the bomber prior to the attack and apparently assumed he was in Libya for three weeks on sightseeing trip).

I do applaud Trump for lambasting those morons (but agree with your point on a larger military not being necessary)...the French, Italians, Germans, etc. don't pay their fair share and haven't for a while. Step one in America ceasing to be the world police is making those lazy clowns pay up. Well that and not getting into / staying in wars that just propagate further hatred of the U.S. (thanks Bush and Obama!)

When you say pay up, what do you mean? (I ask this genuinely, as I've read contradictory things.) Are there unpaid invoices sitting on a desk somewhere? Is there a treaty agreement they are failing to fulfill? Or are people just saying the current agreement is tilted too much toward the US?

Another shoe dropped off the centipede - documents indicate that Kushner (during a meeting also attended by Flynn) tried to set up a secure line to communicate with the Kremlin using secure, Russian diplomatic facilities prior to the inauguration. This was likely gleaned from the collection of intelligence from Russian officials, per the WashPo. US officials do not believe this to be fake information that the Russians sometimes try to, in essence, feed to the US.

Quote: Jared Kushner and Russia’s ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between Trump’s transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring, according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports.

Ambassador Sergey Kislyak reported to his superiors in Moscow that Kushner, son-in-law and confidant to then-President-elect Trump, made the proposal during a meeting on Dec. 1 or 2 at Trump Tower, according to intercepts of Russian communications that were reviewed by U.S. officials. Kislyak said Kushner suggested using Russian diplomatic facilities in the United States for the communications.

The meeting also was attended by Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser...

It is common for senior advisers of a newly elected president to be in contact with foreign leaders and officials. But new administrations are generally cautious in their handling of interactions with Moscow, which U.S. intelligence agencies have accused of waging an unprecedented campaign to interfere in last year’s presidential race and help elect Trump.

Obama administration officials say members of the Trump transition team never approached them about arranging a secure communications channel with their Russian contacts, possibly because of concerns about leaks.

The State Department, the White House National Security Council and U.S. intelligence agencies all have the ability to set up secure communications channels with foreign leaders, though doing so for a transition team would be unusual.

(05-27-2017 02:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Another shoe dropped off the centipede - documents indicate that Kushner (during a meeting also attended by Flynn) tried to set up a secure line to communicate with the Kremlin using secure, Russian diplomatic facilities prior to the inauguration. This was likely gleaned from the collection of intelligence from Russian officials, per the WashPo. US officials do not believe this to be fake information that the Russians sometimes try to, in essence, feed to the US.

Quote:
Jared Kushner and Russia’s ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between Trump’s transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring, according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports.
Ambassador Sergey Kislyak reported to his superiors in Moscow that Kushner, son-in-law and confidant to then-President-elect Trump, made the proposal during a meeting on Dec. 1 or 2 at Trump Tower, according to intercepts of Russian communications that were reviewed by U.S. officials. Kislyak said Kushner suggested using Russian diplomatic facilities in the United States for the communications.
The meeting also was attended by Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser...
It is common for senior advisers of a newly elected president to be in contact with foreign leaders and officials. But new administrations are generally cautious in their handling of interactions with Moscow, which U.S. intelligence agencies have accused of waging an unprecedented campaign to interfere in last year’s presidential race and help elect Trump.
Obama administration officials say members of the Trump transition team never approached them about arranging a secure communications channel with their Russian contacts, possibly because of concerns about leaks.
The State Department, the White House National Security Council and U.S. intelligence agencies all have the ability to set up secure communications channels with foreign leaders, though doing so for a transition team would be unusual.

So what does this prove?