Kekkosen kohdalla menettely ei poikennut mitenkään muista Itä-Euroopan valtioiden toimintamallista kun oli kyse johtajista, vaikkakin Suomi poikkesi muista siinä että saitte pitää suhtellisen vapaat vaalit ja yksityisen omistuksen, Hallitusta ja Presidenttiä ette sitten saaneetkaan itse valita, ettekä myöskään saaneet valita sotilaallista asemaannekaan.
Tänä päivänä vihervasemmistoliberaalit puhuvat arvoista ja lehdistön vapaudesta mutta johtajat näyttävät toimivan samoin kuin parhaaseen Neuvostoaikaan juopotellen ja muutenkin sekoillen ja lehdistö ei löydä mitään näistä negatiivistä, päinvastoin ylistyslaulu kaikuu.
Kuten Neuvostoliitossakin on heillä vihollinen jota pitää haukkua kaikin keinoin, Suomessa se punaviherliberaalien vihollinen on Perussuomalaiset ja EUssa oikeistopopulistit ja meillä Presidentti Trump.
Kuten Neuvotoliitossakin näitä vihollisia vastaan käytiin propagandasotaa kaikilla rintamilla, lehdistössä, televisiossa, uutta tähän on saatu vain some ja siihen koko elämänsä nykyajan kansanvihollisten nujertamiseen pyhittäneet somesoturit jotka päivystävät yötäpäivää ja käyvät taistelua kuten 60-70 luvun Maolaiset ja Stalinistit, yhtä päissään ja silmittömän vihan opastamana ja lopputulos on täsmälleen sama.
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10838398Yhdysvaltain virkaa tekevä puolustusministeri Patrick Shanahan jättää tehtävänsä.
Shanahania ei koskaan ehditty nimittää varsinaiseksi puolustusministeriksi, sillä senaatti ei ollut vahvistanut nimitystä.
Presidentti Donald Trump kertoo, että päätöksen vetäytyä nimitysprosessista teki Shanahan itse. Presidentin mukaan päätöksen taustalla on Shanahanin halu omistaa aikaa perheelleen.
Yhdysvaltalaistiedotusvälineissä on julkaistu viime päivinä paljastuksia Shanahanin perheessä tapahtuneista pahoinpitelytapauksista.
Presidentti Trump kiitti Shanahania tämän tekemästä erinomaisesta työstä ja kertoi nimittävänsä seuraavaksi virkaa tekeväksi puolustusministeriksi nykyisen maavoimaministerin Mark Esperin.
Shanahan ehti toimia virkaa tekevänä puolustusministerinä tammikuusta lähtien. Hän oli ennen uraansa valtionhallinnossa työskennellyt johtotehtävissä lentokonevalmistaja Boeingilla.
https://thinkprogress.org/cbpp-study-federal-poverty-line-millions-lose-benefits-health-care-food-stamp-84bc85eb273d/A new study released Tuesday shows just how insidious the Trump administration’s proposal to change the way the federal government measures poverty actually is. In short: millions could lose health and food benefits.
By way of background, in May, Trump’s budget agency sought public comment on updating the inflation rate used by the Census Bureau to determine the poverty line and estimate who’s poor. This technical change matters a lot because the federal poverty line is used to determine who’s eligible for government benefits like Medicaid, food stamps, and other assistance programs.
The administration floated a lot of options to replace what’s known as the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which is what the government currently uses to estimate the federal poverty line. But given the administration’s desire to slash benefits, as made clear over the years in proposed budgets and bills, it is likely to use a measurement that would redefine poverty in a way that cuts federal assistance to millions of low-income Americans.
No älä oo tommonen...Hyvän kirjoituksen nosto joka lisää laudan "aktiivien" ylikirjoitusintoa
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/world/middleeast/iran-us-drone.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=HomepagePresident Trump approved military strikes against Iran in retaliation for downing an American surveillance drone, but pulled back from launching them on Thursday night after a day of escalating tensions.
As late as 7 p.m., military and diplomatic officials were expecting a strike, after intense discussions and debate at the White House among the president’s top national security officials and congressional leaders, according to multiple senior administration officials involved in or briefed on the deliberations.
Officials said the president had initially approved attacks on a handful of Iranian targets, like radar and missile batteries.
The operation was underway in its early stages when it was called off, a senior administration official said. Planes were in the air and ships were in position, but no missiles had been fired when word came to stand down, the official said.
The abrupt reversal put a halt to what would have been the president’s third military action against targets in the Middle East. Mr. Trump had struck twice at targets in Syria, in 2017 and 2018.
It was not clear whether Mr. Trump simply changed his mind on the strikes or whether the administration altered course because of logistics or strategy. It was also not clear whether the attacks might still go forward.
Asked about the plans for a strike and the decision to hold back, the White House declined to comment, as did Pentagon officials. No government officials asked The New York Times to withhold the article.
The retaliation plan was intended as a response to the shooting down of the unmanned, $130 million surveillance drone, which was struck Thursday morning by an Iranian surface-to-air missile, according to a senior administration official who was briefed on the military planning and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential plans.
The strike was set to take place just before dawn Friday in Iran to minimize risk to the Iranian military and civilians.
But military officials received word a short time later that the strike was off, at least temporarily.
The possibility of a retaliatory strike hung over Washington for much of the day. Officials in both countries traded accusations about the location of the drone when it was destroyed by a surface-to-air missile launched from the Iranian coast along the Gulf of Oman.
Mr. Trump’s national security advisers split about whether to respond militarily. Senior administration officials said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; John R. Bolton, the national security adviser; and Gina Haspel, the C.I.A. director, had favored a military response. But top Pentagon officials cautioned that such an action could result in a spiraling escalation with risks for American forces in the region.
Congressional leaders were briefed by administration officials in the Situation Room.
The destruction of the drone underscored the already tense relations between the two countries after Mr. Trump’s recent accusations that Iran is to blame for explosions last week that damaged oil tankers traveling through the strait, the vital waterway for much of the world’s oil. Iran has denied that accusation.
Iran’s announcement this week that it would soon breach one of the key limits it had agreed to in a 2015 pact intended to limit its nuclear program has also fueled tensions. Mr. Trump, who pulled the United States out of the 2015 pact, has vowed that he will not allow Tehran to build a nuclear weapon.
On Thursday, Mr. Trump insisted that the United States’ unmanned surveillance aircraft was flying over international waters when it was taken down by an Iranian missile.
“This drone was in international waters, clearly,” the president told reporters on Thursday afternoon at the White House as he began a meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada. “We have it all documented. It’s documented scientifically, not just words.”
Asked what would come next, Mr. Trump said, “Let’s see what happens.”
Iran’s government fiercely disputed the president’s characterization, insisting that the American drone had strayed into Iranian airspace. Iran released GPS coordinates that put the drone eight miles off the country’s coast, inside the 12 nautical miles from the shore that Iran claims as its territorial waters.
Majid Takht-Ravanchi, Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, wrote in a letter to the Security Council that the drone ignored repeated radio warnings before it was downed. He said that Tehran “does not seek war” but “is determined to vigorously defend its land, sea and air.”
Congressional Democrats emerged from the president’s classified briefing in the Situation Room and urged Mr. Trump to de-escalate the situation. They called on the president to seek congressional authorization before taking any military action.
“This is a dangerous situation,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. “We are dealing with a country that is a bad actor in the region. We have no illusions about Iran in terms of their ballistic missile transfers, about who they support in the region and the rest.”
Iran’s destruction of the drone appeared to provide a boost for officials inside the Trump administration who have long argued for a more confrontational approach to Iran, including the possibility of military actions that could punish the regime for its support of terrorism and other destabilizing behavior in the region.
But in his public appearance, Mr. Trump initially seemed to be looking for a way to avoid a potentially serious military crisis. Instead of directly accusing the leaders of Iran, Mr. Trump said someone “loose and stupid” in Iran was responsible for shooting down the drone.
The president said he suspected it was some individual in Iran who “made a big mistake,” even as Iran had taken responsibility for the strike and asserted that the high-altitude American drone was operating over Iranian air space, which American officials denied.
Mr. Trump said the episode would have been far more serious if the aircraft had been a piloted vehicle, and not a drone. It made “a big, big difference” that an American pilot was not threatened, he told reporters.
Last year, Mr. Trump pulled the United States out of the 2015 nuclear pact with Iran, over the objections of China, Russia and American allies in Europe. He has also imposed punishing economic sanctions on Iran, trying to cut off its already limited access to international trade, including oil sales.
Iran has warned of serious consequences if Europe does not find a way around those sanctions, though it has denied involvement in the attacks on tankers near the vital Strait of Hormuz. On Monday, Iran said it would soon stop abiding by a central component of the nuclear deal, the limit on how much enriched uranium it is allowed to stockpile.
Both Washington and Tehran said the downing of the drone occurred at 4:05 a.m. Thursday in Iran, or 7:35 p.m. Wednesday in Washington. The drone “was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile system while operating in international airspace over the Strait of Hormuz,” the United States Central Command said in a statement. “This was an unprovoked attack on a U.S. surveillance asset in international airspace.”
Iran’s ability to target and destroy the high-altitude American drone, which was developed to evade the very surface-to-air missiles used to bring it down, surprised some Defense Department officials, who interpreted it as a show of how difficult Tehran can make things for the United States as it deploys more troops and steps up surveillance in the region.
Lt. Gen. Joseph Guastella, the Air Force commander for the Central Command region in the Middle East, said the attack could have endangered “innocent civilians,” even though officials at Central Command continued to assert that the drone was over international waters. He said that the closest that the drone got to the Iranian coast was 21 miles.
Late Thursday, the Defense Department released additional imagery in an email to support its case that the drone never entered Iranian airspace. But the department incorrectly called the flight path of the drone the location of the shooting down and offered little context for an image that appeared to be the drone exploding in midair.
It was the latest attempt by the Pentagon to try to prove that Iran has been the aggressor in a series of international incidents.
Iran’s foreign affairs minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said in a post on Twitter that he gave what he said were precise coordinates for where the American drone was targeted.
“At 00:14 US drone took off from UAE in stealth mode & violated Iranian airspace,” he said in a tweet that included coordinates that he said were near Kouh-e Mobarak. “We’ve retrieved sections of the US military drone in OUR territorial waters where it was shot down.”
Mr. Trump’s comments on Thursday afternoon in the Oval Office reflected the longstanding tension between the president’s desire to be seen as tough on the world stage and his campaign promise to make sure that the United States did not get tangled in more foreign wars.
The president has embraced a reputation as someone who punches back when he is challenged. Only months into his tenure, Mr. Trump launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at an air base in Syria after a chemical weapon attack.
But he has often talked about ending American involvement in long-running conflicts abroad, describing his “America First” agenda as having little room for being the world’s police force. In a tweet in January, he said he hoped that “Endless Wars, especially those which are fought out of judgement mistakes” would “eventually come to a glorious end!”
According to Iranian news media, a foreign minister spokesman there said that flying a drone into Iranian airspace was an “aggressive and provocative” move by the United States.
Hossein Salami, the commander in chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, said crossing the country’s border was “our red line,” the semiofficial Mehr news agency reported.
“We are not going to get engaged in a war with any country, but we are fully prepared for war,” Mr. Salami said at a military ceremony in Sanandaj, Iran, according to a translation from Press TV, a state-run news outlet. “Today’s incident was a clear sign of this precise message, so we are continuing our resistance.”
Iranian news media said the drone had flown over Iranian territory unauthorized, and reported that it had been shot down in the Hormozgan Province, along the country’s southern coast on the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.
Both the United States and Iran identified the aircraft as an RQ-4 Global Hawk, a surveillance drone made by Northrop Grumman.
“This was a show of force — their equivalent of an inside pitch,” said Derek Chollet, a former assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs during the Obama administration, speaking of Iran’s decision to shoot down the drone.
James G. Stavridis, who retired as a four-star admiral after serving as the supreme allied commander at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, warned that the two countries were in a dangerous game that could quickly spiral out of control. He described Iran’s downing of the drone, which costs about $130 million, as a “logical albeit highly dangerous escalatory move by Iran.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/trumps-air-strike-cancellation-worse-obamas-red-line/592303/President Donald Trump reversed himself, calling off the attack against Iran already under way to retaliate against the destruction of a U.S. drone operating in international airspace. Having warned, “If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran,” but then balking when his bluff was called, Trump has now shown himself just as willing as President Barack Obama was to make empty threats that damage American credibility.
Trump has actually done much worse than Obama did with his “red line” comment, since Obama didn’t commence operations only to then send a panicked message through an emissary assuring Iran’s leaders that he wanted negotiations instead, or publicly downplay the nature of the threat. Trump did both of these things, after providing with Congress “very strong and compelling evidence” that Iran had sabotaged two tankers in international waters. And he contradicted public, factual reports made by the military command.
The architect of this successful Iranian policy is the head of the Quds Force, Qassem Soleimani. As Michael Weiss describes him, Soleimani “is seen as the one man who outsmarted three U.S. presidents, using their own myopic policies to his farsighted advantage, starting with the invasion of Iraq, continuing onto the failure to confront Assad, and culminating in the fixation on ISIS as the sole security challenge in the neighborhood.”
Soleimani must be incredulous over his victory. In the past several weeks, Iran has attacked two tankers in the Gulf of Oman; fired missiles six times at U.S. bases in Iraq; helped Houthi rebels in Yemen fire rockets at Saudi civilian airports, killing 23 civilians; and now caused a major disruption to commerce by proving that the skies over the gulf are unsafe for passage.
It’s difficult to determine whether Iran accurately anticipated that Trump would prove unwilling to use military force in retaliation (a power move) or lashed out because the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” sanctions are domestically destabilizing the regime (an outgrowth of weakness).
The Beirut-based journalist Alex Rowell argues that “the Iranians are very astute readers of the region, and also understand Washington better, frankly, than many Washington pundits.” But it doesn’t take carefully calibrated sensibilities to bet that a president who balked on his threats against North Korea, who obviously wants to disengage from the wars the U.S. is fighting, who has left unchecked Iran’s use of Hezbollah and other proxy forces to save the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and who, in the midst of a crisis over tanker attacks, claimed, “We just don’t want them to have nuclear weapons,” wouldn’t risk a war with Iran.
The president’s reprehensible behavior makes it virtually impossible for him to bring the country together, convince it that war is necessary, and, on the basis of that support, persuade America’s allies to join the fight. The president has mostly surrounded himself—with the notable exception of Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats—with people who, either by personality or because of the provisional nature of their Cabinet appointments, are disinclined to disagree with him.
In foreign policy, and Iran policy in particular, chaos rules. There appears to be no interagency process to vet alternative approaches or include the talent from departments in deliberations on policy. National Security Adviser John Bolton doesn’t serve either as an impartial adjudicator of the interagency or as an enforcer of the president’s views; instead, he advances his own strident policies, which the president publicly rebuts. The White House is populated by figures either unwilling to restrain the president’s erratic impulses or incapable of doing so. Max Boot is surely right that the most we can expect of this dysfunctional administration is “for Trump to veer, as he has with North Korea, from irresponsible saber-rattling to oleaginous appeasement.”
To be clear, Iran was destabilizing the region before the Trump administration, and the nuclear agreement did not attenuate Iran’s behavior. In fact, after the agreement was signed, Iran ramped up threats against freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, boosted efforts to use Shia militia as anti-American proxies in Iraq and as support for the Assad regime in Syria, and kept arming Houthi rebels in Yemen. Obama’s decision not to enforce his red line in Syria emboldened Iran further. But the lurching back and forth between “maximum pressure” policies and panicky pleas for negotiation is devastating to our ability to deter Iran. And not just Iran—America’s adversaries everywhere will detect the pattern of tough talk coupled with agitated appeals for negotiation.
The problem with the Trump administration’s policy on Iran isn’t that it won’t go to war. It’s that it keeps constructing policies that require the use of military force to achieve objectives, when the president has repeatedly made clear he’s unwilling to take that step. The administration points a gun, but won’t pull the trigger, and that will encourage other adversaries to challenge America in other theaters.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mueller-to-testify-to-congress-in-open-session-about-his-investigation/2019/06/25/dde8c95a-975b-11e9-916d-9c61607d8190_story.htmlFormer special counsel Robert S. Mueller III will testify to Congress in open session next month about his investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and possible obstruction of justice by President Trump.
The House Judiciary and Intelligence committees, in a late-night announcement Tuesday, said that “pursuant to a subpoena” Mueller has agreed to appear before both panels on July 17.
“Americans have demanded to hear directly from the special counsel so they can understand what he and his team examined, uncovered, and determined about Russia’s attack on our democracy, the Trump campaign’s acceptance and use of that help, and President Trump and his associates' obstruction of the investigation into that attack,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) in a statement. “We look forward to hearing his testimony, as do all Americans.”
The session comes as nearly 80 House Democrats have called for launching impeachment proceedings against Trump, arguing that he has ignored the Constitution that he took an oath to defend while repeatedly refusing to cooperate with congressional investigations.
Mueller’s testimony is certain to provide the headline-grabbing, made-for-cable television testimony that Democrats have been craving since the release of the 448-page, redacted report on April 18.
The rarely seen Mueller spoke briefly in May when he said that his office could neither clear nor accuse Trump of obstructing justice, leaving room for Congress to make a call where he would not and fueling impeachment demands among some Democrats.
It was his first public remarks on the case since he concluded his investigation. Mueller said that if his office “had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” and noted that the Constitution “requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”
Over the course of a two-year investigation, the special counsel charged 34 people, including 26 Russian nationals, and secured guilty pleas from seven, including several high-level Trump campaign and administration officials. The investigation concluded in March, and the following month the Justice Department released the office’s 448-page report documenting its work.
The report said investigators found insufficient evidence to show a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the election and reached no conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice — despite laying out a series of episodes of the president apparently seeking to stymie the investigation. Mueller’s team wrote that they were bound by Justice Department policy that forbids the indictment of a sitting president from deciding or alleging — even privately — that Trump had committed a crime.
Trump has dismissed Mueller’s investigation as a “witch hunt” or a politically motivated attacks from Democrats unwilling to accept his White House triumph.
The much anticipated news comes as Democrats grappled with whether to subpoena Mueller, who was reluctant to testify in public. They all believed he had a duty to the public to answer questions about the report, but how far they were willing to go to force him into the witness chair was another matter.
Oho, katos vaan. Suostuukohan vastaamaan kysymyksiinkin, toisin kuin Trumpin lakeijat jotka hokevat executive priviledgeä ihan riippumatta mitä kysytään.Robert Mueller suostui kongressin julkiseen kuulemiseen joka tapahtuu 17. heinäkuuta.