BREAKING: MATTIS OUT!

[HAnnA MArin County]

Mr. "Drain the Swamp" appoints a defense contractor to head the Pentagon. So on brand.

The tangerine tyrant could appoint Bernie Madoff to any Cabinet position and the Deplorables would hail it as the greatest pick ever. Sad!

[Joe Republic]

Mr. "Drain the Swamp" appoints a defense contractor to head the Pentagon. So on brand.

The tangerine tyrant could appoint Bernie Madoff to any Cabinet position and the Deplorables would hail it as the greatest pick ever. Sad!

https://youtu.be/u-w5wbu7GBE

[Fuzzy Bear]

Someone must have explained the letter to the idiot. 

https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/1076879687392083969

With all the media channels breaking-down and talking about "the letter," the Orange Buffoon couldn't take it anymore.
You see .... It's the narcissism in him.

If Mattis has the kind of disagreements he had with Trump that he said he had in his resignation letter, he should have quit right then, or not stated this in his letter (which he should have known would be circulated in the media).  The way Mattis has left office is not particularly good for America, but much of that part of the deal is Mattis' fault. 

More fundamentally, the issue is why people would accept a Cabinet position knowing their severe policy differences with the President appointing them.  Trump made clear his intent to ratchet down our foreign involvements when running for office; he specifically appealed to folks on this issue.   

As for "defeating ISIS":  Why is this so important?  Yes, they are scum, but opposed to who?  And if we "beat them", so what?  My main concern is keeping ISIS out of America.  "Fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here!"  Where's that sentiment from?  George W. Bush?  Dick Cheney?  Is that whose argument a number of folks here are picking up on?

Trump is correct to extricate us from foreign involvements where no vital American interests are threatened.  Syria is one example of this.  My hope is that he finds like-minded Cabinet Secretaries who won't seek to undermine HIS agenda.

[Beet]

There's a lot of things to go after Trump over, but not being hawkish or warmongering enough isn't one of them. I had a lot of respect for Mattis, despite some of his corruption issues (that don't get talked about) but I'm disappointed if he's really chosen to make his resignation over this. At this point, Henry Kissinger needs to croak so Washington can have another round of mournful glad-handling and self-congratulation over the security state, they didn't get enough with McCain, Herbert Walker, and now Mattis.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Someone must have explained the letter to the idiot. 

https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/1076879687392083969

With all the media channels breaking-down and talking about "the letter," the Orange Buffoon couldn't take it anymore.
You see .... It's the narcissism in him.

If Mattis has the kind of disagreements he had with Trump that he said he had in his resignation letter, he should have quit right then, or not stated this in his letter (which he should have known would be circulated in the media).  The way Mattis has left office is not particularly good for America, but much of that part of the deal is Mattis' fault. 

More fundamentally, the issue is why people would accept a Cabinet position knowing their severe policy differences with the President appointing them.  Trump made clear his intent to ratchet down our foreign involvements when running for office; he specifically appealed to folks on this issue.   

As for "defeating ISIS":  Why is this so important?  Yes, they are scum, but opposed to who?  And if we "beat them", so what?  My main concern is keeping ISIS out of America.  "Fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here!"  Where's that sentiment from?  George W. Bush?  Dick Cheney?  Is that whose argument a number of folks here are picking up on?

Trump is correct to extricate us from foreign involvements where no vital American interests are threatened.  Syria is one example of this.  My hope is that he finds like-minded Cabinet Secretaries who won't seek to undermine HIS agenda.

Your own narcissism is on full display here.  Keep bowing down to your orange idol that serves your ego so well!

[Calthrina950]

I do find it strange that many of the left-leaning posters on here are mourning Mattis's departure, and seem to have become neo-conservative war hawks in response to Trump.

[Sirius_]

RIP sanity.

[Dr. Arch]

I do find it strange that many of the left-leaning posters on here are mourning Mattis's departure, and seem to have become neo-conservative war hawks in response to Trump.

That is not it at all. Nobody has to be a war hawk to bemoan an incompetent military decision regardless of whether the end result is desirable. Moreover, it gets worse given that Mattis was clearly the one keeping policy decisions of this nature at least somewhat sane and stable; regardless of whether most disagreed with it, the alternative is likely far worse.

[Calthrina950]

I do find it strange that many of the left-leaning posters on here are mourning Mattis's departure, and seem to have become neo-conservative war hawks in response to Trump.

That is not it at all. Nobody has to be a war hawk to bemoan an incompetent military decision regardless of whether the end result is desirable. Moreover, it gets worse given that Mattis was clearly the one keeping policy decisions of this nature at least somewhat sane and stable; regardless of whether most disagreed with it, the alternative is likely far worse.

I'm not one who is in support of Mattis's departure either. I've made my belief, clear before, about how Mattis has been one of the better members of Trump's cabinet. And I would not have withdrawn from Syria in as hasty a manner as Trump. However, I have observed that many on here seem to be adopting whatever position will put them in opposition to Trump, even if they align with those who they have had little respect for in the past.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Someone must have explained the letter to the idiot. 

https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/1076879687392083969

With all the media channels breaking-down and talking about "the letter," the Orange Buffoon couldn't take it anymore.
You see .... It's the narcissism in him.

If Mattis has the kind of disagreements he had with Trump that he said he had in his resignation letter, he should have quit right then, or not stated this in his letter (which he should have known would be circulated in the media).  The way Mattis has left office is not particularly good for America, but much of that part of the deal is Mattis' fault. 

More fundamentally, the issue is why people would accept a Cabinet position knowing their severe policy differences with the President appointing them.  Trump made clear his intent to ratchet down our foreign involvements when running for office; he specifically appealed to folks on this issue.   

As for "defeating ISIS":  Why is this so important?  Yes, they are scum, but opposed to who?  And if we "beat them", so what?  My main concern is keeping ISIS out of America.  "Fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here!"  Where's that sentiment from?  George W. Bush?  Dick Cheney?  Is that whose argument a number of folks here are picking up on?

Trump is correct to extricate us from foreign involvements where no vital American interests are threatened.  Syria is one example of this.  My hope is that he finds like-minded Cabinet Secretaries who won't seek to undermine HIS agenda.

Your own narcissism is on full display here.  Keep bowing down to your orange idol that serves your ego so well!

Why the need for a personal attack over a post that is all about public policy?

That's a question.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I do find it strange that many of the left-leaning posters on here are mourning Mattis's departure, and seem to have become neo-conservative war hawks in response to Trump.

That is not it at all. Nobody has to be a war hawk to bemoan an incompetent military decision regardless of whether the end result is desirable. Moreover, it gets worse given that Mattis was clearly the one keeping policy decisions of this nature at least somewhat sane and stable; regardless of whether most disagreed with it, the alternative is likely far worse.

Which begs the question, why have the GOP kept in office a Constitution-violating crook with the mentality of a spoiled brat, who needs to be kept restrained from grievously harming national security by a General nickenamed "Mad Dog"?

[Kodak]

I do find it strange that many of the left-leaning posters on here are mourning Mattis's departure, and seem to have become neo-conservative war hawks in response to Trump.

That is not it at all. Nobody has to be a war hawk to bemoan an incompetent military decision regardless of whether the end result is desirable. Moreover, it gets worse given that Mattis was clearly the one keeping policy decisions of this nature at least somewhat sane and stable; regardless of whether most disagreed with it, the alternative is likely far worse.

I'm not one who is in support of Mattis's departure either. I've made my belief, clear before, about how Mattis has been one of the better members of Trump's cabinet. And I would not have withdrawn from Syria in as hasty a manner as Trump. However, I have observed that many on here seem to be adopting whatever position will put them in opposition to Trump, even if they align with those who they have had little respect for in the past.

I see why you’re confused about this, so I’ll try to briefly explain this from an International Relations standpoint. In IR theory there’s been a longstanding division between liberals and realists. Liberals believe that in the long run, countries can form institutions and use their resources to prevent war and defend human rights. Realists believe that this just isn’t possible; war is inevitable and can only be held off by the presence of a hegemon that is too powerful for anyone to defeat.

Now, the two schools went back and forth during the Cold War, but from 1990 through 2010 liberal theory was dominant. During this time, especially after the Kosovo War, neoconservative theory was born within liberalsim, which is the belief that the causes of liberal institutions and human rights can be protected by foreign interventions. The idea of going to war to prevent war seems counterintuitive, especially in hindsight, and after the Iraq War it was largely discredited. In the 2010s, Obama also had a lot of liberal advisors, but realism saw a resergence after Libya and Syria.

Under both liberal and realist theory, withdrawing from Syria right now would still be detrimental to the United States, because it will

A. Do nothing to stop Syrian sovereignty from being violated by other countries, according to liberals
B. Leave the Kurds to a very bad fate and instability, according to liberals
C. Damage US power by losing one of our few allies in the middle east, according to realists

Furthermore, few people on the board ever opposed Mattis.

TL;DR no one’s being a hypocrite here and this is a logical reaction.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I do find it strange that many of the left-leaning posters on here are mourning Mattis's departure, and seem to have become neo-conservative war hawks in response to Trump.

That is not it at all. Nobody has to be a war hawk to bemoan an incompetent military decision regardless of whether the end result is desirable. Moreover, it gets worse given that Mattis was clearly the one keeping policy decisions of this nature at least somewhat sane and stable; regardless of whether most disagreed with it, the alternative is likely far worse.

I'm not one who is in support of Mattis's departure either. I've made my belief, clear before, about how Mattis has been one of the better members of Trump's cabinet. And I would not have withdrawn from Syria in as hasty a manner as Trump. However, I have observed that many on here seem to be adopting whatever position will put them in opposition to Trump, even if they align with those who they have had little respect for in the past.

Mattis is a competent person, an outrageous anomaly in Trump's cabinet. Having someone who I view as having integrity and loyalty to America over personal advancement is something which gives me comfort; even when I disagree with his decisions I believe he is making them with agreeable, understandable intentions. Trump's loyalists in the cabinet have zero loyalty to America. I'd infinitely prefer a loyal American I disagree with to a traitor of any variety.

Because there are degrees of bad. I've been kind of wondering if that's the disconnect here. Some things are more or less bad than other things. "People on an internet forum bully me about my reasoning" is less bad than "a political party allows mobsters to take over and dismantle the United States." It's actually several tiers less bad.

People aren't being hypocritical for wanting an adult they disagree with over a dictator fetishists' lackey. And even if some of them are being hypocritical it's less bad (and less important) than the President of the United States being a criminal.

I don't know why I'm bothering to write this.

Because Atlas needs more posts like this.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I do find it strange that many of the left-leaning posters on here are mourning Mattis's departure, and seem to have become neo-conservative war hawks in response to Trump.

That is not it at all. Nobody has to be a war hawk to bemoan an incompetent military decision regardless of whether the end result is desirable. Moreover, it gets worse given that Mattis was clearly the one keeping policy decisions of this nature at least somewhat sane and stable; regardless of whether most disagreed with it, the alternative is likely far worse.

I'm not one who is in support of Mattis's departure either. I've made my belief, clear before, about how Mattis has been one of the better members of Trump's cabinet. And I would not have withdrawn from Syria in as hasty a manner as Trump. However, I have observed that many on here seem to be adopting whatever position will put them in opposition to Trump, even if they align with those who they have had little respect for in the past.

Mattis is a competent person, an outrageous anomaly in Trump's cabinet. Having someone who I view as having integrity and loyalty to America over personal advancement is something which gives me comfort; even when I disagree with his decisions I believe he is making them with agreeable, understandable intentions. Trump's loyalists in the cabinet have zero loyalty to America. I'd infinitely prefer a loyal American I disagree with to a traitor of any variety.

Because there are degrees of bad. I've been kind of wondering if that's the disconnect here. Some things are more or less bad than other things. "People on an internet forum bully me about my reasoning" is less bad than "a political party allows mobsters to take over and dismantle the United States." It's actually several tiers less bad.

People aren't being hypocritical for wanting an adult they disagree with over a dictator fetishists' lackey. And even if some of them are being hypocritical it's less bad (and less important) than the President of the United States being a criminal.

I don't know why I'm bothering to write this.

I don't agree with your view of Trump, but from your point of view, your post is coherent.  That's not always the case on Atlas, and coherence is always a good thing.

I do agree with your assessment of Mattis.  He's not a political hack, or a lapdog ingratiating himself for a boost up his own career ladder.  What I will point out is that Trump has long made clear his view that he believes many of the foreign involvements America has gotten into are (A) not OUR fight (in that there is no defineable American interest at stake there), and (B) drain American resources.  Trump has made statements as to his own doctrine; he believes in building up a massive defense force in the hope that it will not need to be used, and his criteria for "need to intervene" is narrower than the average Republican politician.  Trump correctly saw the fact that there was no viable faction to support in Syria's Civil War in that none of the factions that could win had any loyalty to the West and that the factions that COULD win were all avowed enemies of America. 

If there's one thing I am, it's anti-intervention.  I opposed the Vietnam War, I opposed both Iraq Wars, I oppose our Afghanistan involvement, and I certainly oppose our meddling in Syria.  I opposed all of these involvements because there were no vital American interests at stake in any of this.  This is the focus for foreign policy Trump campaigned on, and the aspect of his candidacy I found most attractive. 

As much as I respect Mattis, I believe that it is time for a SecDef that will implement the policies of the President.  For those who view Trump as a buffoon and a Neanderthal, let's not forget that the definitive book on the path to our Vietnam nightmare was David Halberstram's The Best and the Brightest. 

[ProudModerate2]

I do find it strange that many of the left-leaning posters on here are mourning Mattis's departure, and seem to have become neo-conservative war hawks in response to Trump.

That is not it at all. Nobody has to be a war hawk to bemoan an incompetent military decision regardless of whether the end result is desirable. Moreover, it gets worse given that Mattis was clearly the one keeping policy decisions of this nature at least somewhat sane and stable; regardless of whether most disagreed with it, the alternative is likely far worse.

I'm not one who is in support of Mattis's departure either. I've made my belief, clear before, about how Mattis has been one of the better members of Trump's cabinet. And I would not have withdrawn from Syria in as hasty a manner as Trump. However, I have observed that many on here seem to be adopting whatever position will put them in opposition to Trump, even if they align with those who they have had little respect for in the past.

The point being made now about Mattis is that the Orange Buffon should have just let him retire at the date specified in the letter. Mattis made it clear that he had some left-over business in the Department that he wanted to make sure was handled properly.

But the Narcissist Clown couldn't be an adult about the situation. His ego and sensitive feelings were hurt, and instead he went down the childish path of cutting Mattis off early and unnecessarily, against the greater good of our nation's defense.

[Calthrina950]

I do find it strange that many of the left-leaning posters on here are mourning Mattis's departure, and seem to have become neo-conservative war hawks in response to Trump.

That is not it at all. Nobody has to be a war hawk to bemoan an incompetent military decision regardless of whether the end result is desirable. Moreover, it gets worse given that Mattis was clearly the one keeping policy decisions of this nature at least somewhat sane and stable; regardless of whether most disagreed with it, the alternative is likely far worse.

I'm not one who is in support of Mattis's departure either. I've made my belief, clear before, about how Mattis has been one of the better members of Trump's cabinet. And I would not have withdrawn from Syria in as hasty a manner as Trump. However, I have observed that many on here seem to be adopting whatever position will put them in opposition to Trump, even if they align with those who they have had little respect for in the past.

I see why you’re confused about this, so I’ll try to briefly explain this from an International Relations standpoint. In IR theory there’s been a longstanding division between liberals and realists. Liberals believe that in the long run, countries can form institutions and use their resources to prevent war and defend human rights. Realists believe that this just isn’t possible; war is inevitable and can only be held off by the presence of a hegemon that is too powerful for anyone to defeat.

Now, the two schools went back and forth during the Cold War, but from 1990 through 2010 liberal theory was dominant. During this time, especially after the Kosovo War, neoconservative theory was born within liberalsim, which is the belief that the causes of liberal institutions and human rights can be protected by foreign interventions. The idea of going to war to prevent war seems counterintuitive, especially in hindsight, and after the Iraq War it was largely discredited. In the 2010s, Obama also had a lot of liberal advisors, but realism saw a resergence after Libya and Syria.

Under both liberal and realist theory, withdrawing from Syria right now would still be detrimental to the United States, because it will

A. Do nothing to stop Syrian sovereignty from being violated by other countries, according to liberals
B. Leave the Kurds to a very bad fate and instability, according to liberals
C. Damage US power by losing one of our few allies in the middle east, according to realists

Furthermore, few people on the board ever opposed Mattis.

TL;DR no one’s being a hypocrite here and this is a logical reaction.

Your explanation seems reasonable, but I was referring, more so, to the traditional elements of "dovishness" that we've seen in the Democratic Party, and the corresponding opposition to foreign interventions, whether it be the Vietnam War or the Iraq War.  And many of the posters on here undoubtedly fit into that camp. Mattis, on his part, has been generally considered more of a hawkish figure, though he has exercised a moderating influence on the Administration.

[Nyvin]

Apparently Trump kicked Mattis out early (Jan 1st now) because Mattis was getting positive coverage on the media.   (IMO that's pathetic).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

RIP sanity.

"It's fun to shoot some people" - Mattis

That was sanity?

[Fargobison]

Apparently Trump kicked Mattis out early (Jan 1st now) because Mattis was getting positive coverage on the media.   (IMO that's pathetic).

What is pathetic is that Trump had to have one of his lackeys break the news to Mattis. The man made famous for firing people, is afraid to face Mad dog.

[Joe Republic]

Apparently Trump kicked Mattis out early (Jan 1st now) because Mattis was getting positive coverage on the media.   (IMO that's pathetic).

What is pathetic is that Trump had to have one of his lackeys break the news to Mattis. The man made famous for firing people, is afraid to face Mad dog.

Makes a change from just breaking the news via Twitter.  Tillerson was sitting on the can when he found out he'd been canned.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Apparently Trump kicked Mattis out early (Jan 1st now) because Mattis was getting positive coverage on the media.   (IMO that's pathetic).

What is pathetic is that Trump had to have one of his lackeys break the news to Mattis. The man made famous for firing people, is afraid to face Mad dog.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is how he got elected.


Dumb Dump isn't famous for firing people.

He's famous for playing a character on a TV show whose gimmick was firing people.

The Democrats should have run Martin Sheen.

[😥]

He was my favourite member of Trump cabinet

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Apparently Trump kicked Mattis out early (Jan 1st now) because Mattis was getting positive coverage on the media.   (IMO that's pathetic).

What is pathetic is that Trump had to have one of his lackeys break the news to Mattis. The man made famous for firing people, is afraid to face Mad dog.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is how he got elected.


Dumb Dump isn't famous for firing people.

He's famous for playing a character on a TV show whose gimmick was firing people.

The Democrats should have run Martin Sheen.

Yeah, Trump doesn't like firing people in person, just like his friend Giuliani, who divorced his wife via press conference.

[ProudModerate2]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

WATCH VIDEO HERE: https://youtu.be/pnmAv2ciWBc


For all of you that made previous comments in this thread, on predicting "that trump would eventually back-stab and talk sh*t" about Mattis .... well, you were right.
Who would have thought? (sarcasm) Shocking .... isn't it.

[RogueBeaver]

Webb being considered for permanent.