Bob Woodward's new book FEAR

[GMDino]

(09-05-2018, 01:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the book: I have no doubt that most of it is based on truth.

As to the Mattis back and forth.

To believe Mattis' side you have to trust one person: GEN Mattis

To believe Woodward's side you have to trust 2 people: Woodward and the anonymous source.

...and your own eyes.

[Belsnickel]

Yeah, I don't see it as a stretch that Mattis was lying when he denied saying those things. I think saying those things is in character and I think that Mattis enjoys his role and the power that comes with it. Any other POTUS and he would have a tighter leash. Do we really expect him to come out and go "yeah, I said that. It's true. So what?"

[*bfine32*]

(09-05-2018, 01:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: ...and your own eyes.

I had no idea you saw GEN Mattis utter the words.

[NATI BENGALS]

(09-05-2018, 11:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which means you think Mattis is lying.  Sorry, not buying that.  If it was anyone else in the admin I'd be on the same page with you, but I don't buy Mattis making such a complete lie in such a public fashion.

IMO. Would Mattis lie to prevent America from looking like it is being ran by a shithead?

Yes.

Does he care more about his country's credibility or his own? His country. All day everyday

[GMDino]

(09-05-2018, 01:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I had no idea you saw GEN Mattis utter the words.

I saw Trump being a moron.  

[Yojimbo]

Equating a military career to being ethically infallible, I could point to dozens and dozens of times throughout history that showed being a soldier does not equate to having ethics, but I’ll just point out one of the most recent cases, Gen. Petreus.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-05-2018, 03:40 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: Equating a military career to being ethically infallible, I could point to dozens and dozens of times throughout history that showed being a soldier does not equate to having ethics, but I’ll just point out one of the most recent cases, Gen. Petreus.

He wasn't saying military=ethics.  

[*bfine32*]

(09-05-2018, 03:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: I saw Trump being a moron.  

Yelp, no one ever accused you of saying it. An anonymous source accused Mattis of saying it and now some are saying Mattis is lying . What happened to all that morale outrage you had in the Irene thread about disrespecting Soldiers?

[*bfine32*]

(09-05-2018, 03:40 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: Equating a military career to being ethically infallible, I could point to dozens and dozens of times throughout history that showed being a soldier does not equate to having ethics, but I’ll just point out one of the most recent cases, Gen. Petreus.

But apparently journalists and anonymous sources, are some things we can consider t o be ethically infallible and it's only because of one reason.

Those keeping score don't like Trump

[GMDino]

(09-05-2018, 04:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yelp, no one ever accused you of saying it. An anonymous source accused Mattis of saying it and now some are saying Mattis is lying . What happened to all that morale outrage you had in the Irene thread about disrespecting Soldiers?

Go argue with the Tillman family and the McCain family for awhile.

[ballsofsteel]

Can't general Mattis sue Woodward for libel if he didn't say those things? Wouldn't Woodward have to have proof?

[*bfine32*]

(09-05-2018, 04:54 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Can't general Mattis sue Woodward for libel if he didn't say those things? Wouldn't Woodward have to have proof?

I suppose he could if it could be proven that the statement hurts Mattis' reputation. IMO the statement does not, now those calling him a liar....

[ballsofsteel]

Maybe this is why Mattis denied he said those things to keep Trump in office as opposed to the alternative. Be afraid, very afraid.
Keep Trump in office!

http://www.mediafire.com/file/pglm214cqgf2i2k/The_Shadow_President_-_Michael_D%2527Antonio.epub/file

[Belsnickel]

(09-05-2018, 04:54 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Can't general Mattis sue Woodward for libel if he didn't say those things? Wouldn't Woodward have to have proof?

Public figure requires a high bar of proof that the person printing it knew it was false and did it maliciously.

[Yojimbo]

(09-05-2018, 04:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But apparently journalists and anonymous sources, are some things we can consider t o be ethically infallible and it's only because of one reason.

Those keeping score don't like Trump

Not at all, I just wouldn’t use Mattis’ career as a reason to trust him. Can say that about just about anybody.

I’m not taking sides in the Woodward/Mattis who is lying debate because it is literally he said/ he said unless something is recorded.

[*bfine32*]

(09-05-2018, 06:29 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: Not at all, I just wouldn’t use Mattis’ career as a reason to trust him. Can say that about just about anybody.

I’m not taking sides in the Woodward/Mattis who is lying debate because it is literally he said/ he said unless something is recorded.

..and in many he said/she said you have to rely on credibility of the source.

Answer two questions to obtain your answer:

How credible is GEN Mattis?

How credible in anonymous source?

[fredtoast]

(09-05-2018, 04:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But apparently journalists and anonymous sources, are some things we can consider t o be ethically infallible and it's only because of one reason.

Those keeping score don't like Trump

Right, just "one reason".

Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that Trump has repeatedly attacked Sessions in public. 

Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that Trump has repeatedly shown his love for grade school level insults.

Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that trump has repeatedly been shown to be a liar.

Couldn't have anything to do with Woodward's career and track record of reliable reporting.

Nope, there is only ONE REASON, the mainstream media just hates Donald Trump for no reason. 

[Belsnickel]

I'm guessing the timing of this is not coincidental: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

Quote:President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

I would know. I am one of them.

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.

The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.

The result is a two-track presidency.

Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.

Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.

On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.

The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.

Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.

We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.

There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.

What do y'all think of this?

I know that many will cheer at this, if true, because according to this senior official they are keeping us away from disaster. I admit, the fact that our country maintains a steady path is one that I am happy with. However, I take issue with non-elected officials subverting the will of the elected one. Whether you voted for Trump or not, whether you like him, or whether you think he is a loathsome toad, this is an undermining of our democracy. It is not the responsibility of the bureaucrats to serve this function. It is the responsibility of Congress and the judiciary to check the Executive when they go off the rails.

I mentioned in the Kavanaugh thread that policy gets made up and down the ladder, which is 100% true. But those policies are created to carry out the policies of the elected officials. When the bureaucrats are creating policy that is counter to what the elected official orders, we are in a constitutional crisis.

I put this here because this op-ed piece says some of the same things that come out in the book, and this is a big issue.

[fredtoast]

(09-05-2018, 06:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ..and in many he said/she said you have to rely on credibility of the source.

Answer two questions to obtain your answer:

How credible is GEN Mattis?

How credible in anonymous source?

Actually you are allowed to look at lots of other facts to determine who is lying.

I don't know how you can judge the credibility of the source when you don't know who it is. Woodward broke the Watergate story on information from anonymous sources, so I guess you believe Nixon is innocent also, right?

Mattis would lie to protect his boss if he felt is was necessary to protect the United States.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-05-2018, 07:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm guessing the timing of this is not coincidental: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html


What do y'all think of this?

I know that many will cheer at this, if true, because according to this senior official they are keeping us away from disaster. I admit, the fact that our country maintains a steady path is one that I am happy with. However, I take issue with non-elected officials subverting the will of the elected one. Whether you voted for Trump or not, whether you like him, or whether you think he is a loathsome toad, this is an undermining of our democracy. It is not the responsibility of the bureaucrats to serve this function. It is the responsibility of Congress and the judiciary to check the Executive when they go off the rails.

I mentioned in the Kavanaugh thread that policy gets made up and down the ladder, which is 100% true. But those policies are created to carry out the policies of the elected officials. When the bureaucrats are creating policy that is counter to what the elected official orders, we are in a constitutional crisis.

I put this here because this op-ed piece says some of the same things that come out in the book, and this is a big issue.

Are they subverting him or steering him? It doesn’t seem like he says do one thing and they do another.