I was honored to deliver a letter from President Trump to President Vladimir Putin’s administration. The letter emphasized the importance of further engagement in various areas including countering terrorism, enhancing legislative dialogue and resuming cultural exchanges.— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) August 8, 2018
CNN: Rand Paul says he delivered Trump letter to Putin
Washington (CNN)Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul announced Wednesday that he delivered a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin from US President Donald Trump.
"I was honored to deliver a letter from President Trump to President Vladimir Putin's administration," Paul tweeted.
"The letter emphasized the importance of further engagement in various areas including countering terrorism, enhancing legislative dialogue and resuming cultural exchanges," Paul said.
Read more ....
More News On U.S. Senator Rand Delivering A Letter From President Trump To Russian President Putin
Senator Paul delivers letter from Trump to Putin -- Reuters
Trump writes a letter to Putin, delivered by Rand Paul, pushing for stronger dialogue and resumed 'cultural exchanges' -- CNBC
Rand Paul delivers letter from Trump to Putin -- Politico.eu
Kremlin Confirms Trump's Letter to Putin Handed Through Diplomatic Channels -- Sputnik
Rand Paul is right to talk to Russia -- Bonnie Kristian, The Hill
Rand Paul has suddenly emerged as one of Trump's biggest allies on Russia -- Business Insider
That guy is a simpleton. He often badmouths Trump and then votes for any and everything Trump wants. Then he hopes cooperation will end terrorism, ignoring all American intel that shows big time cyber attacks on American elections. and need I mention Putin's newest ally, Assad and Iran?
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteFred, you're right. The guy is a bit hard to figure.
Poor Putin. Has a new ally Assad. And his smashed cities and displaced population. That's some ally.
What's that old folk tale....The Syrian Tar Baby? Uncle Trump, if I remember correctly, wrote that. Any way....a ruble here, a ruble there. Pretty soon we're talking big rubles. All to have a naval base in a land that loathes infidels and paid for with a weakening economy and, it appears, a president to match.
I better put this one in the channel changers memory.
ReplyDeleteFred,
"He is a simpleton..." I disagree. What it suggests is a nuanced positions. He is voicing his displeasure in public with certain aspects of a policy but is still signing onto them. While I would actually prefer that the words and actions would be more consistent, sometimes, in life, we have to work within the confines of something we don't like to get the best deal for ourselves and/or those represent. This is what Senator Paul is doing here.
Having been on record publically as opposing a policy he is doing one of two things and perhaps a combination. 1.)He is sending a message to POTUS loud and clear that he opposes certain aspects of policies and that his support is not unconditional as a slavish servant and he reserves the right to not sign onto something in the future. Sometimes we have to pick our battles. The Senator is relatively conservative. Trump is a left of center politician. We would expect them to have disagreements. 2.)He is using his public displeasure as a negotiating tactic and is getting certain concessions before he signs that makes whatever he signed more beneficial or at least more palatable to those he represents.
The letter had to be delivered. There are areas the US is going to need to have constructive relations on even if we aren't "friends." It could not be delivered by any of Trump's most staunch supporters due to domestic US politics and very likely due to Russian politics as well. After all for Putin to receive a letter from a publically staunch supporter would have likely reflected badly on the Russian leader and hurt him domestically. By having someone who is not such a staunch Trump supporter deliver this solves this problem, Senator Paul is a patriot for doing it, and what you refer to as a "simpleton" is actually very clever diplomacy on the part of POTUS and his team.
Very respectfully, for someone who claims to be as credentialed as you and if as you say you have had top secret US intelligence clearance I am at times astonished at your inability to grasp the most basic concepts of international diplomacy. Perhaps the fact that you were able to obtain such clearances and certain Trump advisors have had trouble obtaining this tells us what we need to know about why US Intelligence is in such disarray right now. I recognized we had a problem with these people as far back as the late 1980s. Bitter fruits were served on 911 and the Iraq war.
I suppose the opposite of this is to refrain from insulting someone in public yet continuing the same policies and even stronger ones against them than the predecessor. This is the case with Trump's policies towards Russia. while the rhetoric may have been less hysterical, the actual policies have not changed in any meaningful way. In fact, they have probably become tougher. As such. Trump is definitely not a lackey of Putin. Of course in a world where the analysis is superficial the grasping of such basic concepts can be challenging.
Roger,
ReplyDeleteThe Syrian war never made much sense, especially not from the point of view of our involvement. It's hard to believe that the Naval base was that important. Of course our "allies" were questionable at best. Maybe this is why the Russian involvement, calculating the new boss of Syria would be worse than the old one even assuming the incompetent, Al Qaeda/ISIS loving allies we chose could have even run a government at all or maybe this Syrian Naval base really is that important.
I predicted at the very start that Assad would win. Russia would not allow him to fall and such efforts as Assad must go ran counter to our interests and were not achievable anyway. On this, I was proven right. Had we simply stayed out 1.)Assad likely wins handily in a matter of a few months, 2.)no Iranian and Russian direct involvement as it is not necessary, 3.)Iran and their allies are not on Israel's border to the extent they are now as it would not have been necessary, 4.)With more fighting the Syrian, Iranian, Russian, and allied forces are now more battle hardened and will be tougher opponents in the future, and 5.)Our Syrian "allies" while mostly crushed could reconstitute based upon the training they got from this extended conflict and end up posing a threat to us. After all these weren't good allies to begin with.
At least these are the predictions of what would have happened had we simply stayed out of this. Since we chose to get involved, it cannot be "known" definitively what would have happened. Perhaps the rebels are able to put a better fight. At least in this case, we wouldn't have further strained relations with Russia and diplomacy would have a much better chance to succeed. This clearly has not been a good outcome for Israel.
The outcome of stupid decisions is generally bad outcomes. This one will likely go down as one of the dumbest. Now it is up to a new president and his team to clean up the mess.
No one can trump Trump for insulting public figures unless those figures are despots
ReplyDeleteNice that he sets forth for Russia the same day that Congress imposes new sanctions on Russia for chemical weapons attack in Gt Britain...
ReplyDeleteFred,
ReplyDeleteThe best way to understand Trump is as a counterpuncher. He seldom if ever throws the first punch, however, when he responds to an attack the results often prove devastating for the attacker. If certain public figures don't like being insulted, perhaps they should refrain from starting the fights in the first place. I forget which commentator it was but he did aptly point out that the media has a penchant for dishing it out, when the target of their vicious and cruel attacks responds, they don't take it so well. If one cannot take it, I would suggest don't dish it out!!
Now as for how we act to despots, we discussed this on the other thread. Either you weren't paying attention or you forgot. I will remind you. We need the assistance of powerful leaders in a number of areas. Dressing them down in public is not only not helpful but has essentially no upside. Huge downside risk, no upside potential = DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT!! As was discussed, the Canadian PM got himself in a wee bit of trouble and may have caused his country a big headache by such stupidity. When there are disputes as there will be, it is generally best to address such things privately.
As an experienced business person and negotiator, POTUS will understand such things. As for the Canadian PM, he is young and inexperienced. Perhaps he will learn. As for you, I don't know why you seem unable to grasp such basic concepts of interpersonal relationships especially those with powerful and influential people.
Fred,
ReplyDeleteI noticed this to about the new sanctions. The Secretary of State signed off on these. This is further proof that under Trump policy has not changed any, if at all, towards Russia.
The evidence put forth to date to support Russian involvement in this has been pretty much non existent and the rationale behind it is even more dubious. As I discussed at the time, the most logical candidates would be someone with knowledge of the compounds involved in Eastern Europe or some type of "resistance" or a rogue Russian agent acting independently of the government. I hope its not the latter as this would mean the Russians may have lost control of this. We didn't even bother to investigate or conduct any kind of rational analysis from the start!!
While plausible, its a bridge to far for me at this time to entertain the idea that "western" agents were behind this. Some simply MUST expand the new Cold War at ANY and ALL costs. Nevertheless I don't think we are behind it, useful idiots perhaps.
I can only hope that Mr. Pompeo and others have evidence for this other than US or western intelligence as a primary source. Other than western Europe I wouldn't expect help on sanctions. I think others are going to require much more concrete evidence. This is especially the case when the accusations never made much sense anyway.
At a minimum given how this is being used and the extraordinary nature of the claim, extraordinary evidence will need to be presented. "Just trust us" or "because we said so" simply isn't good enough. This becomes an even bigger problem when factored in these sources don't exactly have good track records. More evidence will need to be presented. We will need a minimum access to all scientific analysis including sources and methods along with someway for the layperson to understand this. Otherwise this action cannot be supported at this time.
Due to experience the judgment of POTUS and his team would be trusted over that of the so called "experts," he has not acquired sufficient trust for such an action to be supportable without more information. Bottom line: he should oppose additional sanctions at this time. This becomes even more important when considering the NK situation and the Iran situation. Russian assistance is going to probably be needed in both areas. Imposing sanctions based upon a dubious analysis is not helpful.
ReplyDeleteThe use of these materials is not limited to this recent incident. There is a pattern of attacks over time on opponents of the regime. While not concrete proof this pattern and the targets speaks pretty clearly and goes back years if not a decade or more. In fact the assassination in Mexico decades ago fits the pattern of out of Russia retribution though the actors and reason were different that time.
Who else would take out opponents in such manner? And why just this genre of person?
I don't know why you brought up western agents as possible actors. There are so many incidents and the timeline is long enough that this sounds, in RR terms, like a siding off the mainline.
Agreed on Syria. Chaos and shifting loyalties even involving the Kurds say nightmare loud and clear. A frustrating unreliable bunch with a sales price tattooed on most foreheads. Let Putin deal with that mid east mess.
Roger,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply. I think each case would have to be examined individually. In the current case, tbe Russian government involvement appears to me to make no sense. With a diplomatic process ongoing at the time and the Russian government being closely scrutinized they lacked and still lack both motive and opportunity.
When investigating a crime we look at motive and opportunity. Those who lack either motive or opportunity are generally quickly dismissed as suspects barring extraordinary evidence. Extraordinary evidence has not been presented. As Such, the Russian government should have been dismissed as a,suspect right away. Then we have the rush to judgment before an investigation could have possibly been done making this whole thing look even worse. At best, this is bad optics.
Now who has motive and opportunity? 1 .)Eastern European elements from former Eastern Bloc or former Soviet Republics could have very easily copied the plans for this during the chaotic days when the Soviet Union was imploding. As a weapon this would have had great potential value to them. Also, they've been trying to undercut diplomacy and they're able to slip in and out easily. Motive and opportunity is in abundance. 2 )Rogue Russian agents who are disenfranchised with diplomacy. While there's motive here, opportunity is problematic here as security under Putin is likely very tight.
The reason I mention western agents is because anti-Russian hysteria has become like a cult religion for some. Adherents to such cults are capable of almost anything up to and including mass murde and mass suicides. I was careful to point out that I don't think they are behind this
Now after having watched the absolute thuggish performance of our state department today in announcing additional sanctions, I'm less confident western agents aren't behind this. We have an assertion made that is preposterous on its face that is going to require extraordinary evidence as extraordinary claims do. Such evidence is not being presented and the claim is being used as a rationale for ratcheting up tensions in Cold War 2. Were the stakes not so high I might not be as concerned. Add to this the people making the claims don't exactly have a good track record. Our government simply has to do better than "just trust us" or "because we said so."
ReplyDeleteI'm reminded of an incident in the Serbian war in the 1990s. As I recall, the head of NATO Javier Solana ordered British general Mike Jackson to bomb an airport the Russians had taken over. His response was classic and spot on when he disobeyed this order saying "I'm sorry I won't start the third world war for you."
I think a similar response is needed here. American patriots in the state department, intelligence, and elsewhere simply need to tell these people something like "you're asking us to do the equivelent of pour jet fuel on Cold War 2 and light a match. We're sorry we won't do this for you."
At the least evidence needs to be presented on why this needs to be done and it needs to be explained why the double agent and his daughter are worth this. Given the stakes, assuming they even have the evidence is going to be a very high bar. At present, I don't such a high bar has been met.
The best hope seems to be that cooler heads can somehow defuse the situation. POTUS has shown some degree of sanity. Perhaps Trump diplomacy can come through yet again.
In my last post I meant to reiterate I do NOT think western agents are behind this. Surely we have not sunk to such levels of depravity.
ReplyDelete