Latest StoriesRSS

select from:

E.g., 12/5/2019
E.g., 12/5/2019

Why Trump's position on Afghanistan suddenly seems incoherent

12/02/19 10:51AM

For months, the basic contours of an agreement between the United States and the Taliban in Afghanistan were in place: American troops would withdraw, and in exchange, the Taliban would provide counterterrorism assurances. (Afghanistan's government was excluded from the process.)

In September, however, Donald Trump abandoned the talks -- for reasons he struggled to explain -- after his plan to bring Taliban leaders to Camp David around the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks turned into a political fiasco.

On Thanksgiving, the president made a surprise trip to Afghanistan and announced that the negotiations he ended were now back on. And while that was certainly a major development, Trump added a strange twist, demanding a cease-fire that hadn't been part of the Trump administration's position.  As the New York Times reported, this had the effect of confusing practically everyone:

Despite a sense of relief at the prospect of resuming talks to end the 18-year conflict, Western diplomats and Taliban leaders were scrambling to figure out whether Mr. Trump had suddenly moved the goal posts for negotiations.

They were particularly confused by his remarks, made during an unannounced Thanksgiving visit to Afghanistan, that the United States was once again meeting with the Taliban to discuss a deal, but that "we're saying it has to be a cease-fire."

Demanding a cease-fire would amount to a big shift in the American position and require a significant new concession from the Taliban -- one that the Americans have little leverage to extract.

After a bilateral meeting with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, Trump declared, "The Taliban wants to make a deal. And we're meeting with them, and we're saying it has to be a ceasefire. They didn't want to do a ceasefire, but now they do want to do a ceasefire, I believe. And it will probably work out that way. And we'll see what happens. But we've made tremendous progress."

No one had any idea what he was talking about, and the idea that the Taliban "wants to do a ceasefire" appears to have been made up entirely.

read more

Ukrainian president slams Trump decision to delay military aid

12/02/19 10:11AM

Donald Trump this morning turned to Twitter to announce what the president described as "breaking news." According to the Republican's missive, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky "has just again announced that President Trump has done nothing wrong with respect to Ukraine and our interactions or calls."

The American added, "If the Radical Left Democrats were sane, which they are not, it would be case over!"

I was all set to explain, once again, that Zelensky's assessments of Trump's misdeeds aren't altogether relevant to the impeachment inquiry. After all, it's not as if the Ukrainian leader is in a position to publicly condemn Trump as guilty -- especially with a Republican-led Senate unlikely to remove the American president from office.

But then I read Zelensky's interview with a group of international journalists, including a reporter from Time magazine, and it quickly became obvious that the Ukrainian president did not say what Trump claimed he said.

Q: When did you first sense that there was a connection between Trump's decision to block military aid to Ukraine this summer and the two investigations that Trump and his allies were asking for? Can you clarify this issue of the quid pro quo?

ZELENSKY: Look, I never talked to the President from the position of a quid pro quo. That's not my thing. … I don't want us to look like beggars. But you have to understand. We're at war. If you're our strategic partner, then you can't go blocking anything for us. I think that's just about fairness. It's not about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying.

Far from exonerating Trump, that sounded like the Ukrainian president was criticizing Trump for withholding U.S. military aid for our vulnerable ally.

read more

GOP's Kennedy, hoping to aid Trump, keeps echoing Russian propaganda

12/02/19 09:20AM

On multiple occasions, U.S. officials have explained to elected policymakers the dangers of promoting Russian disinformation. In fact, the New York Times reported two weeks ago that American intelligence professionals have informed senators and their aides that Russia has engaged in a lengthy campaign "to essentially frame" Ukraine for Russia's 2016 election attack.

As regular readers know, it was against this backdrop that Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) appeared on Fox News last weekend, insisting that Ukraine may have been responsible for the Russian attack, apparently indifferent to the fact that he was helping disseminate a bogus Kremlin message.

The Louisiana Republican soon after walked back his comments, at least a little, though he continued to argue that there's "a lot of evidence" that Ukraine "did try to interfere" in our elections -- which, again, is exactly the kind of propaganda Moscow wants American politicians to repeat.

All of which set the stage for Kennedy's appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, where the conservative lawmaker told Chuck Todd, "I think both Russia and Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election." The Republican added that former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko "actively worked for Secretary Clinton."

It led the host to remind the senator of an important detail:

"You realize the only other person selling this argument outside the United States is this man, Vladimir Putin."

Todd added that senators were recently briefed on the importance of not saying what Kennedy had just said on the air: "[T]his is a Russian intelligence propaganda campaign in order to get people like you to say these things about Ukraine."

The Louisianan replied, "I was not briefed."

It's not enough to simply marvel at the lengths some Republicans will go to in order to shield Donald Trump from accountability. It's not enough to note that the bogus claims Kennedy has peddled are wrong. It's not enough to be gobsmacked by a sitting GOP senator's capacity for willful ignorance.

read more

Navy's Spencer: Trump has 'little understanding' of military service

12/02/19 08:40AM

Navy Secretary Richard Spencer prioritized military discipline, the rule of law, and the integrity of the Uniform Code of Military Justice system. Donald Trump did not. It led the latter to fire the former -- and offer some unfortunate presidential references to the "deep state."

But unlike so many of those who've been forced from their posts as a result of a Trump tantrum, Spencer isn't exiting the stage quietly. The former Navy secretary took some not-so-subtle jabs at the president in his departure letter -- explaining, for example, that the rule of law "is what sets us apart from our adversaries" -- which Spencer followed with an op-ed in the Washington Post, first published the day before Thanksgiving.

Spencer noted the president's interest in the case of Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL and accused war criminal, whom Trump took an unusual interest in as a result of conservative media, which turned Gallagher into a cause celebre. After explaining in his op-ed the process of the White House's intervention, Spencer noted that the president "has very little understanding of what it means to be in the military, to fight ethically or to be governed by a uniform set of rules and practices."

His op-ed concluded:

Our allies need to know that we remain a force for good, and to please bear with us as we move through this moment in time.

It was a rather brutal line, effectively signaling to the world that Trump's time will pass, and the United States will eventually reclaim its status as a responsible global superpower.

What's more, Spencer isn't the only one speaking out in stark terms about the president's reckless antics.

read more

White House balks at participating in this week's impeachment hearing

12/02/19 08:00AM

As the congressional impeachment inquiry shifts this week to the House Judiciary Committee, this appears to be the moment Donald Trump and his team have been waiting for. With the House Intelligence Committee having completed hearings as part of a lengthy fact-finding process, the Judiciary panel offers the president and his lawyers an opportunity to begin presenting a defense.

With this in mind, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) formally extended an invitation to the White House last week, urging the president to "stop complaining about the process" and begin participating in the impeachment proceedings. Nadler gave the White House a deadline of Dec. 6 to make its intentions known.

Last night, as NBC News reported, he received a response.

The White House said Sunday it will not participate in the House Judiciary Committee's first impeachment hearing on Wednesday but left open the possibility that it may take part in future proceedings.

In a letter to committee chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., White House Counsel Pat Cipollone called the hearing, which will explore the "historical and constitutional basis of impeachment," unfair.

Politico's report added, "The decision indicates that President Donald Trump has listened to his allies and some congressional Republicans who argued that a White House presence at the hearing would validate a process they have harangued as illegitimate and partisan."

Of course, Republicans have harangued that the process has been illegitimate and partisan because, in its preliminary stages, Team Trump wasn't able to testify or present a defense. Now that the president and his attorneys have been invited to participate directly in the process, they've effectively decided to boycott?

The one thing Team Trump said it wanted most -- a chance to participate and present a defense -- now appears to be the thing Team Trump won't accept.

read more

Abortion clinics face down myriad pressures to remain open

Abortion clinics face down myriad pressures to remain open

11/29/19 09:34PM

Rachel Maddow reports on the lengths to which abortion clinic operators like Julie Burkhart, founder and CEO of Trust Women, have to go to stay open to patients while dealing with hostility from protesters, state legislatures, and judiciaries, not to mention funding issues and the challenge of recruiting physicians who could be threatened by... watch

Pages