Posted on 12/01/2016 7:33:42 PM PST by kevcol
The Senate Armed Services chair vowed to help move Mattis through the upper chamber's confirmation process. McCain, who will chair Mattis's confirmation hearing, told the Washington Examiner that he would write the bill to grant Mattis a waiver of the seven-year rule.
Not all lawmakers agreed on that Thursday night. Sen. Kristen Gillibrand, D-N.Y., a former Hillary Clinton supporter, said she is against changing that rule in order to accommodate Mattis.
"While I respect Gen Mattis's service, I oppose a waiver-civilian control of our military is a fundamental principle of American democracy," Gillibrand tweeted.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Since I learned, today, that the Constitution doesn’t mention the cabinet, I think Congress should pass a law that will say that, as soon as a military member is discharged from active duty, he or she may be in a cabinet. Someone who was discharged a week ago knows more about the current military needs, compared to someone who was discharged seven years ago, since some military rules and problems might have changed, within the last seven years.
Thanks for your good work!
Of course. I never said (nor thought) he couldn't.
According to those who wrote it, the law maintains the established tradition of civilian control o the military.
“Now we hear again the echoes of our past: a general falls to his knees in the hard snow of Valley Forge; a lonely President paces the darkened halls, and ponders his struggle to preserve the Union; the men of the Alamo call out encouragement to each other; a settler pushes west and sings a song, and the song echoes out forever and fills the unknowing air.”
Ronald R. Reagan
2nd Inaugural Address
This fraud, who once interned for Republican Al D’Amato, ran as a conservative democrat (aka “unicorn”) for the House. Once appointed to the Senate, she showed her true liberal colors.
NUTS..
Doesn’t Sen. Kristen Gillibrand, D-N.Y. yet realize that we now live in a new era.
The American people no longer accept pu$$y whipping in politics. Both Hillary Clinton and Fox News’ Megyn Kelley found that out THE HARD WAY!
If Gillibrand does not start being a real representative of the people, she will not be re-elected. She keeps getting tangled up in her own sexual issues on straight vote issues
involving nominations. Surely she does not believe her party’s own propaganda?
I hope the Dems keep it up. Their Congressional foot print will just keep getting smaller and smaller.Love it!
that’s wrong on levels that I never imagined before.
Thank you.
We here in upstate NY call her:
Gigglebrat
A protege of Chuck U. Schumer
I hope this is the case. It would be nice to see the sodomites and those in favor of reducing standards rolled back.
[the waiver isn’t required, because the infringement upon the president’s authority to nominate whomever he chooses is almost certainly unconstitutional]
True. Though I know the democrat communist pols like her will kick and scream against any who love God, family, and country and Constitutional liberties and prohibitions, I am happy that the sometimes rino McCain is doing the right thing this time.
[Democrats seems to be brain-damaged in understanding reality.]
Dem reality is Peter Pan land and they love their little exclusive and evil reality of lies and deception.
I do not believe that democrats like manly generals who know how and bravely prosecute war to protect peoples from evil.
They want a lesbian liberal general who knows how to prosecute war against American people who would live at peace under conservative and Christian principles. The lesbian left hates all men and especially white men, the few exceptions prove the rule.
Mattis isn’t a neocon, is he? I only ask because I’ve read media reports that he favors war with Iran, something I believe Trump would oppose. Also, with the rumored nominations of Bolton and Newt (yes, I realize the irony of me questioning this one), he seems to be picking foreign policy hardliners, many who have expressed antagonism towards Russia.
What do my fellow FReepers think is at play here? Is Trump abandoning his noninterventionist foreign policy (except for his pledge to destroy ISIS), or does he just want opposing views to his own on his team, to challenge him? Is that his management style? Some of you may not like my example (Democrats would flip out), but JFK seemed to have that management style, but also got to the point where he just didn’t trust his advisors and did what he thought was right, in spite of them.
I think Reagan is an excellent example of this as well with the “Evil Empire” speech, though I think we missed a historic chance of cooperation, and only antagonized and humiliated Russia by the actions of Bush I and Clinton. I blame them both for the rise of Putin, much as historians blame the treaty of Versailles for Hitler.
I just don’t want him getting terrible advice in regards to Russia (who we may finally have a chance to establish rapport with) and other hot spots. I hope Trump stays his own man, with the populist, noninterventionist streak.
I wish he would nominate someone like Pat Buchanan, or others of the same caliber and mindset, to push back against the hawks, and give opposing views.
Putin may not be the ideal guy to work with (and we can’t blindly trust him), but he isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, and he and Trump did signal a willingness to begin again.
Honestly, the threat of miscalculation and accidental nuclear war is one of the largest, untalked about threats facing both of our countries (and mankind), so I will be glad to see any form of new cooperation between the two of our nations, as long as Putin is not naive enough to run roughshod over our NATO allies (although, quite frankly, allowing some of these buffer nations to join was a mistake and a clear betrayal of HW Bush’s promise not to by Clinton and his neolib/neocon advisors).
I also think The Donald should lift sanctions against Russia over Crimea. I honestly believe the Ukraine debacle was caused by Hillary and Obama’s efforts to overthrow an elected government, and Crimea was Putin pushing back. Honestly, Russia has a much more compelling claim to Crimea than Ukraine to begin with, and everyone knows it, with the Peninsula being “given” to Ukraine as a mere symbolic gesture by Kruschev to begin with. It was a strategic mistake by Russia not to reclaim it, when they allowed the Soviet Union to disband at the end of the Cold War, which created this unnecessary hotspot.
What do you guys think? I hope to get some serious, thoughtful replies on this.
Also, I promise I am not a Kremlin apologist or Guccifer 2.0, so help me Mother Ru- err... God.
I hope not. That would be the wrong move. We have the most powerful, awe inspiring military in the world. Changing the name of one department would be meaningless. Also, besides the call to eliminate ISIS, Trump presented himself as no fan of our decade and a half “War on Terror.” That would be Hillary.
Probably a lot better idea than allowing someone who has been a lobbyist for Defense contractors or foreign governments for the past 7 years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.