“They Just Blabbermouth It”: British Police Cut Off Sharing Intelligence With Trump Administration on Manchester Bombing [UPDATED]

loose-lips-sink-shipsWe previously discussed the alarming breach of an intelligence sharing agreement with the U.K. after U.S. officials released details given to them from British intelligence on the Manchester bombing, including the identity of the bomber.  Now, British police have stopped sharing information with U.S. authorities after a series of leaks to American media.  In the meantime, after Trump’s rational odd denial that he mentioned Israel in his giving highly classified intelligence to the Russians, Israel has acknowledged it was indeed their intelligence and they had to implement a “fix” and “clarify” their position with the U.S. on intelligence sharing after Trump’s disclosure. Update:  Trump denounced the leaking of the information.   Some have noted that the statement was rather belated and others have noted that it is equally ironic (given Trump’s personal disclosure of the highly classified Israeli intelligence to the Russians).  Nevertheless, Trump is right to call for the FBI to investigate the leaking of the shared intelligence.

U.K. officials were irate that the Trump Administration leaked the information, which they deemed as harmful to their investigation and effort to arrest suspected associates of the bomber.  Both the Prime Minister and the Greater Manchester Police were described as “furious” with the leak.  The Prime Minister has made it known that the breach is so serious that she intends to personally raise the issue with President Trump.

As I previously discussed, this intelligence sharing agreements are absolutely vital to national security for the United States and, after President Trump’s bizarre disclosure of human intelligence from Israel to the Russians, the Manchester leak has further eroded confidence in our professionalism and reliability.

Top British and Belgian intelligence officials have made known their distrust and dissatisfaction to American intelligence officials.  One former British intelligence chief described American officials as simply “blurting it out . . . for their own personal aggrandizement quite often.”  He added that  “They just blabbermouth it.”

This is the response to one of our closest allies in the world.  While apologists for the Administration have again dismissed the concerns, this (and the Israeli disclosure) is a serious and dangerous breach for this country.  I have grown increasingly weary of apologists and critics on both sides who put their political agendas ahead of this country’s obvious interests.  Violation of shared intelligence agreements is a very big deal that should concern all citizens regardless of their political affiliations.

In the meantime, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman (while reaffirming the close relationship with the US) confirmed that Trump’s disclosure to the Russians was not done with their approval and that Israel altered its understanding of intelligence sharing with the U.S.  He said that Trump’s disclosure forced them to do a “spot repair” and “What we had to clarify with our friends in the United States, we did. We did our checks.”

This is more than politics. It is a pattern of gross negligence that threatens our national security.  Moreover, after demanding investigations of leaks, the Trump Administration is relatively silent in calling for such an investigation of a violation of an intelligence sharing agreement.  This latest scandal deserves a congressional investigation to determine how such a breach could have occurred.

136 thoughts on ““They Just Blabbermouth It”: British Police Cut Off Sharing Intelligence With Trump Administration on Manchester Bombing [UPDATED]”

  1. “Former president Barack Obama and his wife Michelle are galavanting around Europe, and it’s no coincidence that their sightseeing jaunt coincides with Donald Trump’s first international trip as president.

    Here’s why: Every year, the G7 holds its big meeting, bringing together the leaders of the United State, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and Canada. The host nation rotates each year, with the next host announced at the conclusion of each meeting. This year Italy has the honors. We’ve known that for a year.

    Guess where the Obamas picked to “vacation” — at the exact time that Trump was meeting Pope Benedict in the Vatican and heading to Sicily for the G7? Yup. Italy.

    Now, when George W. Bush left office on January 20, 2009, he made a simple pledge — he wouldn’t be weighing in on every little thing his successor said or did. I had one of the last interviews with Bush in the White House, and he told me then, in his country-boy Texan way, that the job is plenty hard enough without some guy who’s already done it mouthing off every two minutes. So he faded into the background, moved back to his home, and kept his mouth shut.

    But Obama loves the limelight and doesn’t know anything but politics. Sure, he was a terrible president (when your signature policy implodes just a few years after its enacted, you failed), but he lived and breathed politics. Instead of accomplishing great things for America — and leading, as a leader does — Obama blamed Republicans, including Bush for several years, for all of his failings as president. His strategy was to divide America and consolidate power from a small, but vocal, minority, which he successfully did for eight years.

    It’s sad, but Obama doesn’t know how to simply go away (loser Democrats are like that — America has twice told Hillary Clinton they just weren’t interested, and yet she refuses to just disappear. Al Gore and John Kerry, both of whom served this nation and deserve our gratitude, also just won’t let us all move on)….

    ….But Obama has had his turn. It didn’t work out that well. America decided to go a completely different direction, rejecting a continuation of his policies through Hillary and opting for change — real change.

    It’d be nice if Obama could see that. And it’d be the height of humility for Obama to realize that and simply fade away.

    Yet you know that’ll never happen, because, unlike George W. Bush, he’s simply got no class.”


  2. Oky1, I don’t want to cramp your free speech style(nor HRCs), but when I use somewhat salty language my postings get yanked.

    1. “Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire”
      by Chalmers Johnson

      “The term “blowback,” invented by the CIA, refers to the unintended results of American actions abroad. In this incisive and controversial book, Chalmers Johnson lays out in vivid detail the dangers faced by our overextended empire, which insists on projecting its military power to every corner of the earth and using American capital and markets to force global economic integration on its own terms. From a case of rape by U.S. servicemen in Okinawa to our role in Asia’s financial crisis, from our early support for Saddam Hussein to our conduct in the Balkans, Johnson reveals the ways in which our misguided policies are planting the seeds of future disaster.”

      Mickey2829 said, “we have to thank wapo,the nyt and the wsj for putting American lives at risk.”

      Yes — in the sense that they’re not publishing information that all Americans need to know.

      1. >”in the sense that they’re not publishing information that all Americans need to know.”<

        That's because they are too busy publishing FAKE NEWS!!

  3. Is there anything, anything at all that Trump can do that would wake you people up that this idiot is dangerous? In 2 weeks this idiot has proven beyond any doubt that he is way over his head and harming this country. Of course, if Obama or Hillary did any of the very same things you all would be yelling LOCK THEM UP……..

    1. Fishy:
      Sure lots of things he could do to prove unfitness: release a terrorist early and then hold a parade for him in NYC, ignore military provocations by Iran and China, bow to foreign princes, put America last in foreign negotiations, undermine the police, stir up racial hatred, throw open borders to our enemies, and on and on. Remind you of anyone? Not Trump.

      1. Ignoring whatever that curtsey/bow thing Trump did in Saudi Arabia, did you really suggest that Trump hasn’t stirred up racial hatred?

        1. Would you agree that Obama stirred up racial hatred during his eight years?

          1. I would say that his existence stirred up a racial hatred in those that already had it. That combined with a right wing media who constantly saw and promoted things that were not there. I started to say never in his eight years did he advocate policies that were detrimental to anyone based on race but that wouldn’t be true. During his first year in office as part of the stimulus package to revive the economy his policies further promoted mass incarceration which was an attack on Blacks and Hispanics. I think his strong desire to appear impartial led him to advocate less for the Black community than he did for the LGBT for example. He actually did harm to HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities). I think because he both didn’t truly understand their current role and didn’t want to ever appear to be leaning toward black causes. I think because he wouldn’t accept and use the term American Exceptionalism in the was others wanted him to that was equivalent with White Exceptionalism it fueled some fires. He advocated American Exceptionalism often but had the nerve to say other countries likely felt they were exceptional as well. So to answer your question, no Obama didn’t stir it up but he became a focal point for the frustrations of those who would never accept him as President.

            1. Obama didn’t stir it up? Okay, then we will disagree on that one. He sure did stir it up. Let me count the ways. Not going to list them all here, but it is a long list.

              I believe Trump will do more to help the black community in his four years than Obama never did in eight years. Obama pursued leftist policies that were soundly rejected by voters. But he continues to hide behind the excuse that it was because of his race.

              Trump is about finding policies that work, fixing things, solving problems. Community organizers like Obama are all about stirring up and agitating. This is all Obama knows. Obama spent eight years giving speeches and lecturing us all. That is not leadership. This is just one piece of why he was one of the most divisive and polarizing presidents we’ve ever had. His race was a part of it. His inability to lead along with his own personal failings and shortcomings that have nothing to do with race make up the rest of it.

              1. Going to work so it will be a while before I respond. In 127 days he and Jeff Sessions have already damaged the black community. I, unlike you will actually provide a list instead of assuring that one exists.

              2. I’b be curious to hear about any policy of Trump’s that does the things you claim, for black people or anybody? The Healthcare bill which was Congresses and not his, takes healthcare away from 23 million people, will cause dramatic rate increases for those with pre-existing conditions and by the 10th year will bring down premiums vs. Obamacare for those still able to get healthcare by about 4%.Of course this will affect poor and middle-class white people more than blacks but it certainly doesn’t help people.
                Jeff Sessions just arbitrarily called for going with maximum sentences for minor drug crimes which will reignite hyper mass incarceration. While drug use has been relatively constant across races. Arrests and policing are focused on minority communities so his help to black people consists of throwing them in jail more and for longer terms.
                He has promised basically no Federal oversight of local police departments so that local departments can whitewash shootings not called for and never look twice when the now rote, “I was in fear for my life” is invoked. He tried to undo consent decree’s where local police and communities have reached agreements on new directions.
                He want’s to bring back and spread across the nation, “Stop & Frisk.” He has the least diverse Cabinet in recent history. He’s cutting programs that serve the poor and middle-class and advocating a huge transfer of wealth to the rich through his tax policies.
                Which Trump policies exactly will benefit black people?

                1. What did Obama do for the black community? What did his policies do to help anyone? Obamacare helped those with preexisting conditions, but not many others. Placing more Americans on welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, etc is not my idea of helping if this is considered a longterm solution. Blacks have been loyally voting Democrat for decades and have little to show for it IMO. Trump is not an idealogue, and may end up governing as more of a centrist Democrat which is what really scares Dems. If Trump succeeds I believe his policies will ultimately help the black community and working class Americans. School choice will help families, bringing companies back from overseas will create more jobs, revitalization of our cities will create jobs and safer communities, our inner cities are in desperate need of law enforcement rather than enduring higher crime due to the Ferguson effect, enforcing immigration laws and reducing illegal immigration helps wages for lower level jobs, keeping drugs out of the country, going after drug dealers helps all kinds of families, health insurance is yet to be seen — there are many new models that may still come to the forefront to replace the old models we’ve been operating under. The people who “lose coverage” are most likely those who will no longer be forced by mandate to purchase insurance they don’t want or need. Trump is also looking to push through an infrastructure bill that will create jobs and opportunities. I think it is worth giving Trump a shot to see what he is able to do. The Dems and the establishment are working overtime to discredit him because if he succeeds, there goes the Dem’s base.

                  Also, every day that Hillary Clinton is NOT in the White House is a good day for America. No doubt about it. I just saw some of her Wellesley commencement address and she coughed and choked her way through it. The woman is sick. She certainly makes me sick. All those who actually supported her, truly are sick-o-phants I will never ever understand. America dodged a bullet. Now Trump gets four years to show us what he can do. And I think he will do some good. Hillary needs to go back to the woods and Obama needs to show some class and stay out of the limelight and let Trump have his shot. That’s the bottom line for me.

                  1. You talked a lot about campaign promises (many of which he contradicted sometimes in the same speech) as opposed to actual policies. Again, I ask you to point to a specific policy that helps anyone but the rich? I don’t need a whole list, you could start with your best example and we can go from there. Reinstating mass incarceration is an actual policy. His budget proposals are proposed policies. Taking 24/23 million people off healthcare is a result from proposed policy. Threatening to defund HBCUs is proposed policy. Implementing and expanding stop & frisk is a proposed policy. Dismantling consent decree’s between cities and their police forces is his policy.
                    Announcing he saved millions of jobs based on previously announced decisions is not really bringing jobs home. The expansion of Medicaid really did provide healthcare to millions. Establishing essential services helps people like me that get my insurance thru their employer. Taking funds from public schools to give to for profit charters with no accreditation is not a benefit. Support for voter suppression is not a plus to black people. Don’t tell me Trump will be “great for the blacks.” Show me what he’s done.

            2. eib,
              After reviewing the blog link you provided me yesterday, I wouldn’t have expected your answer to be any different. The point is your writing reflects a person that views the world through the lens of race first. Of course you’re not alone with that worldview but it does insert a bias for everything else. You are also intelligent and articulate in your writing. As a result, some readers might not recognize your bias, but it’s there. You and issac are much alike in this regard, issac is just not as restrained as you are.

              1. Olly, I would ask you to consider the possibility that I view the world through the perspective of history which includes race. If you took a good look at my blog the majority of posts don’t reference race at all.

                I do submit that a knowledge of American and World history provides a basis from which one can be aware that race is often a factor in many things although one would never learn that from a Texas school book or a North Carolina Republican.
                Although I could go on about several topics. I’ll choose voter suppression as one where I confess I see it through race because history tells me it is so. Right now in Texas and North Carolina, Federal courts have found that gerrymandered districts were specifically drawn to limit the impact of racial minorities.The argument which the Republicans in each case hope will prevail is that while yes they did lump most minorities in a limited number of districts to limit their overall impact. It was really just partisan politics and the racial impact while true was not the intent. Why would either reason be acceptable in a Democracy? There are several means of limiting minority votes which have operated under different names throughout history with racial intent. Let me say that I don’t have a great problem with laws requiring a Voter ID, if the ID is provided free with little inconvenience. If it’s not free it’s an unconstitutional poll tax. If it’s free but like Alabama tried, it’s only available one day a week, M-F during hours when people typically work at one location in the county, only in heavily black counties. Guess what? It’s racially targeted.
                In North Carolina, they moved polling locations away from minority population centers, provided less polling locations and voter machines in urban areas. Same in Florida.
                There is no instance where a Republican state passed a Voter ID law where it wasn’t accompanied by several other laws having nothing to do with identification that restrict minority votes.
                Some would call it privilege to have the ability to see nothing through the lens of race because the laws were always written with them in mind. I know that word disturbs some but you will not likely ever be confronted by stop & frisk laws or be required to held until you can prove your citizenship if there is any reason to suspect you are in the country illegally. Jeff Sessions has already issued orders to unilaterally bring back mass incarceration. In a country where drug use among races is relatively constant yet arrests are highly skewed towards minorities suggest something to me that you might miss.
                I don’t claim not to have a bias. I also try very hard to limit my arguments to true and verifiable things. It is also impossible to miss the true feelings of many on the Internet (including this blog) when given the opportunity to speak anonymously without repercussions.
                So back to Obama, I would be in the camp that while I disagree with some things found that he tried to hard to please a segment of the population that was never going to accept him because of what not who he was. He went out of his way to try to present multiple sides and not demonstrate racial bias.So I don’t think he “stirred up” racial hatred, I say he revealed it.

                1. I would ask you to consider the possibility that I view the world through the perspective of history which includes race.

                  History includes everything, with race being just one element of it. I used to view history strictly as dates and events. That’s what I needed to get through my public education and graduate. I was never taught how to think, I was taught what to think. That was 40 years ago. Today, and after about 10 years of regular study I view history and current events through the lens of equality and natural rights. I’m sure that doesn’t surprise many here. I also agree with the self-evident truths in the DoI that the purpose for government is to secure our natural rights equally. I could go on, but instead I will reference Frederic Bastiat’s The Law to give you an understanding of my worldview. http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

                  In this age of the administrative state, our government exceeds its original purpose. We are no longer a constitutional republic, we are a weaponized, utilitarian democracy. It’s why elections have consequences. If that weren’t so, then you wouldn’t have the minority in a panic when they lose control of government. No better proof of this fact is with the following quote: Elections matter. I won; you lost. Deal with it. Compliments of President Barack Obama

                  1. Another quote, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
                    I enjoyed reading most of Bastiat’s “The Law.”. It reminded me of the paper I wrote in college about the Dual Economy of France to get through Senior Seminar (Economics Major). I submit to you that the Declaration of Independence and The Law may have deemed “natural rights” as a thing but never considered blacks as deserving natural rights. At that time blacks had no rights in America at all, if they had any in France they were forgotten by WW I when they conscripted over 200,000 Africans to work in their factories and fight their wars.

                    1. I submit to you that the Declaration of Independence and The Law may have deemed “natural rights” as a thing but never considered blacks as deserving natural rights.

                      I’ve read both many times and I don’t ever recall reading anything that said that. Please provide the evidence of that claim. As a matter of fact, using your logic, although we declared our independence, we were not yet independent of Great Britain. The DoI was declaring what should be, not what was. Very few people truly understand natural rights theory. One of the most common misunderstandings is the term unalienable (inalienable). This does not mean rights cannot be alienated. This means we retain the rights to them even though we may be forced from them. An individual might be held in chains and forced into slave labor; that does not mean that individual does not still have the right to be free. Bastiat talks about government legally taking property. Civil asset forfeiture would be an example of what Bastiat calls legal plunder. Life, liberty, property, equality are no different in the DofI or The Law. The fundamental principles are the same. The pursuit (vision) should always be that we can live in a society where the law provides equal protection of natural rights for everyone. If we got there, then that would truly be a more perfect union.

                2. Olly, when I said the Declaration of Independence never considered the “natural rights” of those of African heritage. I meant they were so far out of mind as to deserve no mention. The previous landowners did get a mention among the redresses to the King. “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.” Also not considered were women. As the Constitution later made clear. Few others beside land owning white males had rights at all. This was further clarified in Dred Scott V Sanford which explicitly stated African Americans had no rights. The Supreme Court later gave us Plessey V Ferguson, Korematsu V United States and has weakened every civil rights or voting rights act passed by Congress, most recently the Voting Rights Act of 1968. It would be nice if America had ever intended for “natural rights” to apply to all. Unfortunately it wasn’t then nor ever has been the case.

        2. I don’t think so. The A-As That i know aren’t telling me that. The only ones saying it are the perpetually aggrieved class who cross all skin color caregories. The A-As I know and represent are too busy working and raising their kids to be concerned about what a guy in Washington says. They are concerned more about jobs and healthcare but that isn’t liberal trendy at the moment.

              1. Spotty low unemployment…. Seems like Silicon Valley and California tech stocks are the ones that are benefitting the most. Some crummy fast food jobs constitute recovery in much of the country. See Carrier is slaying off.

                1. ” Some crummy fast food jobs constitute recovery in much of the country. ”

                  The concept ‘hollowing out of the job market’ is controversial. But the concept refers to process in which the growth in jobs after a recession produce relatively more very high skilled jobs and relatively more very low skilled jobs, but relatively fewer middle skilled jobs that lead to the middle class.

                  That is what people are complaining about when they mention that the jobs are mostly in fields like fast food or retail, with low pay, significant limitations on advancement, and often without enough hours to qualify for benefits.

                  There was a time in this country that most anyone with enough discipline to get up and go to work could find a job that would eventually lead to the middle class with enough disposable income to send their children to college and plan for retirement.

                  Those days and middle class jobs are rapidly disappearing.

                  If anyone or any party wants to make America great again they are going to have to engage and deal with the decline of the middle class.

                  Platitudes about freedom and free markets don’t create millions of middle class jobs.

                2. The NYT has an oped supporting the food stamp program – which is off topic, here. But in that discussion they do bring up two interesting facts regarding the jobs being created.

                  The perception that job growth has produced too many low paying jobs is buttressed by this statement:

                  “That so many working households are eligible for food stamps reflects the prevalence of low wage jobs. In 2016, six of the 20 biggest occupations — mainly in retail, restaurants and home care — had median wages around poverty level for a family of three. Eight of the 10 jobs that are expected to add the most positions in the next decade pay poorly. “https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/opinion/trump-budget-food-stamps-wages.html?ref=opinion

                  Imagine that, in this great land of supposed opportunity 8 of the 10 occupations that are expected to add the most positions in the next decade pay poorly. And currently, 6 of the 20 biggest occupations pay wages close to the poverty level.

                  And politicians have the nerve to crow about creating job growth!

              2. What Trump policy was it exactly that led to low unemployment? Or was it a continuing trend long established by the previous administration. The roaring market I will give Trump some credit for. The market moves as much on perceptions as anything. Trump has promised windfalls to corporations and the rich. They’ll be excited unless he can’t deliver. Or gets Impeached.

                  1. I’m just following the publicly released information from the various investigations. Trump is either complicit or oblivious. His own statements/actions towards Russia suggest one more than the other. Da or Nyet?

                    1. Trump is a blowhard but has no reason to curry favor with the Russians. I’ve seen no evidence of any crime so no reason to suspect anything except a hostile press bound and determined to undermine his Presidency.

    2. Yes, FishWings– regarding Obama, Hillary and their nefarious cohorts, you are correct. We have been yelling “LOCK THEM UP” until our faces are blue. What have we gotten for our efforts? A HOARSE VOICE!

  4. Where, oh where, is that little Dutch boy who plugged the leak in the dike? We surely need him now!

  5. Squeeky:

    Let’s have another interminable Congressional investigation and make more windfalls for former government lawyers!! FWIW, I think Congressional investigations are partisan picnics (and utter bullshark) where everyone gets to sit around and complain about the mosquitoes (i.e., the other side). Personally, I like the Cadillac of investigations, the Grand Jury, or nothing at all.

  6. On a related note. So the USA dropped a “small” 250lb bomb on an apt in Iraq, which bomb apparently ignited an ISIL bomb, which subsequently killed/incinerated about 100 innocent Iraqi citizens (at the time Snowden released his docs, the US admitted killing SIXTY SIX THOUSAND INNOCENT IRAQI CIVILIAN NON-COMBATANTS (surely they intentionally counted only about 1/10th the actual number of 660k, and we’ve surely murdered many hundreds of thousands innocent since that time…that’s OK, it’s all to make the world safe for democracy, just like WWs 1 and 2).

    So, picture this scenario. Imagine you are a 22 year old male Muslim in Iraq. You are one of a minority of Muslims who does not want to kill every single American walking the earth, you are a rare moderate, and you see the good and bad in both the Israeli/US/Western methods and you admit some Muslim methods are just as bad.

    But now, the US and its western allies just recently dropped a bomb that murdered your entire family of innocent civilian non-combatants, your father, mother, siblings, and maybe a few cousins, aunts, and uncles. What do you suspect might have happened to your prior “moderate” thinking?

    Do you think, if someone gave you the opportunity to incinerate every single American walking the earth, to turn the entire USA into glass, do you think you might consider doing it? Is it not your duty as the surviving family member? How can it not be your sworn oath?

    Yes, you’d not even think twice for one second. You’d do it immediately, even if it cost you your own life, you’d do it happily, with glee, with joy, and exultation. You would do it ONE THOUSAND TIMES IN ONE DAY. YOU’D DO IT FOR INFINITY.

    Americans deny “moral equivalency.” Americans believe that no matter what America does, any and every single American sin does not count against America nor Americans, because we do so much good for the world, that our sins can not ever count against us. Such Americans live by the doctrine that it is a failed equation that judges US actions on the same scale as any other nation.

    You can deny moral equivalency all day every day. It never changes the reality that the rest of the world rates the USA as the #1 greatest threat to world peace of all nations on earth, for the reasons I describe above.

    1. Joseph Jones:

      Bravo and so perfectly suited to the prevailing mindset. I also think Doolittle should have flown over Tokyo and dropped tea bags, rice cakes and those little cookies with happy sayings on them, too. God forbid they could get mad at us for getting miffed over a little thing like 9-11 … er … Pearl Harbor. Do you cower alone at home thinking about all the justifications our enemies can dream up or are you more of a public self-flagellating, sack-cloth and ashes kinda guy?

      1. Mespo,……
        We did not have the superior moralists around in 1942 to lecture us about how it should never have been launched.
        Due to the likelihood of civilian casualties.
        We didn’t have the internet back then, either, so the morally superior did not have the same forum to pin every WWII civilian casualty on the U.S.

              1. Sorry to disappoint you but I remain quite calm.

                So do depart…

        1. Tnash,
          While I agree that the internet provides a huge platform for opposition that was not available in WWII, there were some dissenting voices.

          Dr. Suess actually had political cartoons regarding appeasement, etc:

          Lindbergh was outspoken, apparently, and caught Suess’ ire:


          The media also self-censored which images the published to not damage the reputation of the military or be too graphic. A picture of a dead German soldier with playing cards tossed on him by American soldiers was not published because it reflected poorly on them, for example.

          Just some interesting tidbits I thought you’d find interesting.

          1. Prairie Rose,…
            Thanks for the Dr. Suess cartoons.
            I knew that Lindbergh was a prominent voice in the large American isolationist segment, but I never knew that Dr. Suess was involved in the debate, and that he targeted Lindbergh.
            ( Lindbergh may have been more than a “typical isolationist, in that he seemed to have admiration for the Nazis).
            Up until the Vietnam War, there was, as you point out, strict censorship of the press in the coverage of wars.
            Once the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, the isolationist movement virtually disappeared.
            I think that the mindset of America was far different back then, and after Dec. 7 there was very little expressed opposition to America’s involvement in the war.
            Had there been a “21st Century Mindset” in December 1941, I think there would have been a sizable minority of Americans wringing their hands and wondering what we had done to anger the Japanese.

      2. Thank you for confirming the validity of my post. You ignored my scenario as described. Readers must presume your omission is solely because what I typed is 100% consistent with the facts.

        Further: please list anything going on in Syria unrelated directly to our presence there, which is a direct threat to American security.

        Are you among the traitorous Americans who state that America is safer since the US beheaded our former ally Saddam Hussein? Are Americans safer since HRC and Jesus Obama had their “moderate Islamists” anal rape and behead Gadaffi, immediately turning Libya into an ISIS hell hole, inundating Europe with about a half million Islamist “refugees,” many of whom are prime terrorist aged Islamo-fascist terrorists?

        I suggest you and other readers who think WW2 was a success check the 50M or so Russians and Europeans who died directly because of the way the West split up Europe. Read Buchanan’s book on Churchill and Hitler, which explains how both WW1 and 2 were avoidable, how they directly lead to the current demise of the Western world and the world in general.

        Was WW2 a success for the 100M or so persons who died directly and indirectly because of it? Was it worth the cost?

        You apparently call Marine Major Smedley Butler a liar, then the USA’s all time most decorated Marine. I side with Smedley. If you are a loved one considers jointing the military, read what Smedley had to say on the subject before you sign your name.

        1. Joseph Jones,….
          There ars numerous statements and questions in your post, and I don’t have time to respond to all of them.
          For example, reviewing the justification for America’s entry into WWII is not a one or two sentence endevour.
          And speculating what the world would look like (had the U.S. stayed out of WWII) involves wide-open and wide-ranging speculation that is virtually endless.
          A specific and usually unanswered question is “What is the alternative to assisting forces currently dislodging and defeating ISIS?”.
          As an example, the Obama administration could have stuck to its claim that it “ended the war in Iraq”, or that ISIS was a minor threat, a “JV Team”.
          So at that point, an isolationist view would be to let ISIS
          keep a third of Iraq as part of their caliphate, continue to expand areas under their control, and stay out of it.
          The alternative that the Obama administration implemented was to re-introduce a small number of U.S. special forces in Iraq to assist the Iraqis effort to retake ISIS-controlled territory.
          That policy has continued into the Trump administration.
          At the core of the the isolationists argument is that organizations like Al Queda and ISIS are simply a regional problem best dealt with by the countries most directly affected( mostly Middle Eastern counties), and that America should have a hands-off policy.
          I think a similar viewpoint was held re the domination of Afghanistan by the Taliban, and their complicity with their invited guests, al Queda.
          It could be viewed as a regional problem an ocean ( at least an ocean) away that did not warrant American military action.
          That view held through the first WTC bombing in 1993, the devastating Al Quada attacks on the two American embassies in Africa, the attack on the USS Cole, and the clear threat from Bin Laden that “good Muslims” should kill Americans.
          None of these events that I mentioned resulted in a significant American military response, but 9-11 was the final straw.
          I have yet to hear of a feasible alternative to a military response to an event like 9-11.
          But returning to the present, to the situation AS IT ACTUALLY EXISTS now, is it your view that all U.S. troops should be withdrawn from Iraq?
          That’s a specific policy question involving real decisions and real consequences.
          The U.S. has a specific policy, the isolationists object to that policy.
          So it is fair to ask “WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE”?

    2. Joseph Jones…..,
      -Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths vary wildly, and I have seen the “66,000 estimate” that you cite.
      Your claim that the U.S. “admitted killing SIXTY-SIX THOUSAND INNOCENT IRAQI CIVILIAN NON-COMBATANTS” appears to “credit” all civilian deaths caused by IEDs, Iraqi death squads, ISIS, etc. to U.S. military strikes.
      I doubt that you can substantiate your claim that the “the U.S. admitted” responsibilty for all of these deaths.
      The fact that you are eager to BELIEVE that all of these civilian deaths were caused by U.S. strikes, and make a claim that the U.S. “admitted” that it caused all of these casualties, does not make it true.
      If you have a source that supports your claim of such an “admission” by the U.S., cite it.

      1. The source of the “estimate” of 66k is your sacred USA funded CIA, as released in the Snowden docs. If you think the USA did not underestimate the # of innocent civilian non-combatants the USA murdered, then please explain why reporting the # is a federal crime?


        FYI: I heard with my own ears, about four years ago on NPR, a teacher at the US Naval College state that regardless how many innocent civilian non-combatants the USA kills, POTUS has absolutely no legal liability per US law.

        1. Joseph Jones,…
          Thanks for the link.
          I could not find a breakdown of the causes of the civilian deaths, and who caused those deaths.
          E.G., car bombings at marketplaces, suicide bombings, death squads targeting the “wrong” sect ( Sunni v. Shia), etc.
          I think that we both view the 66,000 figure re civilian deaths as just ONE estimate that’s cited.
          And that the true number is probably far higher.
          My original comment to you questioned your statement that the the U.S. has admitted killing 66,000 non-combatant Iraqis civilians.
          I haven’t found anything to verify your claim, either in your link from wikipedia, or anywhere else.
          If you can find a source that says the U.S. has stated that it has killed 66,000 Iraqi civilians, I would like to see it.

    3. The Abedis do not appear to be moderates, of any kind, if you check the arrests and information that is coming out… and yet happy enough to have a nice brick house in England and go back and forth at will to Libya, Syria, KSA, etc. and apparently make use of England but also cultivate extremist associations. And then Manchester. The deliberate killing of young white girls, mostly.

      Don’t come to the West and TAKE and then KILL. And I supported none of our wars. Let these big ferocious fighters, the Abedis, go attack a military base.

  7. Olly wrote: “Buried somewhere underneath the avalanche of partisan rhetoric in all of this is the rule of law. …We’ll have a constitutional republic in name only. ”

    It’s already “a constitutional republic in name only” — and “the rule of law” is an illusion, sadly. If there’s any hope, every American ought to be cheering for the right leak…

    “Jeremy Scahill & Glenn Greenwald: Criminalizing WikiLeaks is a Threat to Journalists Everywhere”


  8. Buried somewhere underneath the avalanche of partisan rhetoric in all of this is the rule of law. The myopia here is astonishing. We have people actively working to undermine this administration and they are putting at risk our national security to do so. Those applauding this not-so-silent coup fail to recognize what they are creating. It’s the leaking of classified intelligence information that is the root problem. And if those complicit are not prosecuted, then this becomes the new normal. We’ll have a constitutional republic in name only. We’ll have a democratic process to elect our government that has no meaning. Because the entire government and its “freely” elected leaders will be subservient to the ruling, unelected intelligence agencies.

    1. Yup, if Trump blabs our secrets all over the planet, to anyone he feels like, then no problem. But if someone else does — oh, the horror !

      1. Yup, if Trump blabs our secrets all over the planet, to anyone he feels like, then no problem.

        How exactly did he do this, as you claim?

        1. Jay,
          Perhaps you could hook up with Fishwings to explain exactly how Trump did whatever you believe he did.

          I’ll wait.

        1. 2010, prior to that the rich maintained sufficient control over the Congress, Courts and Presidency (also the rich) that it wasn’t required.Our process of coming up with “freely elected” officials weeds out those without enough money or connections so that power is still wielded by the same people regardless of Party.

          1. I was being facetious. The wealthy are still pulling the strings of government, always have and always will. The deep state, controlled by the IC, can and are doing the dirty work of protecting the political class (and the wealthy by proxy) from any threat to their creation. Trump is that threat and they are doing everything possible to undermine his efforts.

Comments are closed.