The Trump Zelensky phone call and Mr. Schiff's impeachment hearing

The Dems hate Mr. Trump and from the moment of his election have called for his removal from office by the impeachment rather than the election process. And to this end they've continued to fish around for a suitable reason. It's sort of like the Alice in Wonderland scene in which the King of Hearts calls for the verdict first and then the evidence.

 

The most recent eruption was brought about by a "courageous" whistleblower, who however is not courageous enough to identify himself or submit to questioning, talking about Mr. Trump's traitorous behavior in a congratulatory phone call to Ukraine's newly elected president. Since then other Trump opponents have come forth who are familiar with the conversation and have reported similar impressions. However, their revelations are no longer necessary since the entire transcript of the call was declassified by Mr. Trump and is readily available to those who are interested to read for themselves.

 

It's hard to avoid the constant commentary about the significance of the phone call, but I'm almost ashamed to say that I never actually read the transcript until today. I'd recommend you do it and judge for yourself whether it's contents should call for impeachment. I don't. To me it's not even a close call. Here it is if you're interested. It takes less than 5 minutes to read:

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uyWKAGgHIqDEORgjOyo0uq7JOXzhxOQf/preview

 

On the contrary, it seems to me that Mr. Schiff should lose his office for the "parody" hoax of the phone call, just after the transcript had been released, that he read in his committee hearing. I happened to be listening to the hearing at the time and with most others was fooled into thinking he was reading the actual text until part way through it became obvious that it was a bizarre fantasy which sounded like a script from one of his movie producer friends. Judge for yourself:

 

Schiff, Sept. 26: It reads like a classic organized crime shakedown. Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates. We've been very good to your country, very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don't see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you though. And I'm going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it. On this and on that. I'm going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, I am going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States, my Attorney General Bill Barr. He's got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him. And I'm going to put you in touch with Rudy. You're going to love him. Trust me. You know what I'm asking. And so I'm only going to say this a few more times. In a few more ways. And by the way, don't call me again. I'll call you when you've done what I asked.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

The Syrian Pullout

It's hard to know what to make of the troop pullout in Syria. I discount automatically the uproar of the Democrats and the liberal media who reflexively oppose Mr. Trump whatever he does. After all, these are the people who fairly consistently oppose military action and restrict military funding as much as possible, and who supported President Obama's abrupt pullout of 10,000 troops from Iraq.

 

But the response from moderates and many prominent Trump supporters has also been negative. They predict that the U.S. will lose influence in the region, that ISIS may reconstitute, and that abandoning our help for our Kurdish allies against the Turks will not only cause them grief but will also serve as a sign of undependability to our other allies around the world.

 

But not all Republicans and conservatives oppose the move, and of course Mr. Trump has been forthcoming in his own defense of his decision. The action should be no surprise. Non-intervention in remote conflicts which have no direct impact on the U.S. was a major campaign promise and, in contrast to most other politicians, he has been relentless in his attention to fulfilling his promises. And in fact, for most ordinary citizens, avoiding such military action seems to be a worthy goal and how to go about it is the crux of the problem.

 

The resistance by some advisers to avoiding involvement in timeless Middle East conflicts has perplexed Mr. Trump. In fact for instance, the intention to pull out from Syria seems to have been the breaking point for General Mattis. Nevertheless, there seems to be a tendency for small conflicts to escalate uncontrollably. Korea started as a police action. Vietnam started with a small contingent of military advisors. Both started with the purpose of aiding small beleaguered countries and with only the most peripheral threat to our own interests. Both turned into major bloodbaths under Democrat administrations, generally the opponents of military ventures. Once in place there seems to be a tendency keep our military without end wherever they are involved. Here we still are in Germany and Japan 70 years after the end of WWII. So is that just a general reluctance to change from the status quo or is there truly unacceptable risk in leaving.

 

The Democrat's characterization of Mr. Trump as a fool is absurd. He is a disrupter which was a major reason that he was elected. He has obviously thought through the consequences of his actions relative to his goals, with the help of a great deal of intelligence to which we are not privy. I have listened to his arguments. The Kurds and the Turks have been at each other's throats for centuries. The Kurds have been our allies in the fight against ISIS, largely in their own interest as well. Are we thereby obligated to take on the task of supporting one component of this never-ending conflict? The Kurds are tribal and have often been at war with each other. Some of the Kurd groups actually have been using terrorism techniques in Turkey. On the other hand, the Turks, despite being a NATO member, must be restrained from their own terrorism and killing of civilians and economic and diplomatic constraints against them are being put in place. Turkey and Syria are in constant conflict over their border and the Kurds are now turning to Mr. Assad for protection which the President sees as a good thing.

 

So is the President making the same deadly mistake that President Obama did in abruptly leaving Iraq, or on the other hand is he trying to avoid the similarly deadly mistakes of President Bush in his involvement in Iraq. Clearly Trump and Obama are worlds apart. In stark contrast to Mr. Obama, Mr. Trump has made it his mission, also a campaign promise, of rebuilding the military so that it can be used effectively where appropriate. The primary reason for our involvement in the Syrian civil war to begin with was to pursue and disband the remnants of ISIS which has been accomplished, and Mr. Trump has stated his intention to watch them carefully from a short distance to intervene if they seem to be reconstituting.

 

For the outside observer with limited knowledge the situation is confusing but still of vital interest to all of us so we should be paying attention. For now, I'm trusting to the President's judgement. As he so often says, we'll see what happens.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10