Your public rejection of the C.I.A., and by extension the rest of
the country’s intelligence community, over the assessment that Russia
interfered in our presidential election is not only an unprecedented
political challenge for our national security establishment — it is a
danger to the nation.
Do you have any idea why they feel so ashamed? I do!
Should I remain in bed, leave my country or fight against the dragon?
( see also the story by Wolfgang Hampel, ' Betty MacDonald: Nothing more to say ' )
The series begins with Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle and continues with Mrs.
Piggle-Wiggle's Magic, Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle's farm and Hello, Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle.
None of the books
can be considered novels, but episodic problems with children and their
exasperated parents in Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle's neighbourhood, and the
always winning solution provided by Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle.
Unlike
that book, Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle uses no magic for her cures; the farm
itself does the most good: fresh air, animals, and responsibility are
what children seem to really need.
Especially Betty MacDonald's youngest sister Alison Bard Burnett had a
perfect memory and told very funny stories about the original Mrs.
Piggle-Wiggle Stories.
Which one is your favourite Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle book?
We are very interested in your favourite Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle cure. Send us a mail, please and you might win several of our new Betty MacDonald fan club items.
Our next Betty MacDonald fan club project is a collection of these unique dedications.
If you
share your dedication from your Betty MacDonald - and Mary Bard Jensen
collection you might be the winner of our new Betty MacDonald fan club
items.
Thank you so much in advance for your support.
Thank you so much for sending us your favourite Betty MacDonald quote.
Thank you so much for sharing this witty memories with us.
Wolfgang Hampel's literary event Vita Magica
is very fascinating because he is going to include Betty MacDonald,
other members of the Bard family and Betty MacDonald fan club honor
members.
I agree with Betty in this very witty Betty MacDonald story Betty MacDonald: Nothing more to say by Wolfgang Hampel.
I
can't imagine to live in a country with him as so-called elected
President although there are very good reasons to remain there to fight
against these brainless politics.
WHEN I wrote
in August 2016, in this newspaper, that Donald J. Trump’s character
traits posed a national security threat, I didn’t imagine that the first
manifestation of that dynamic could play out with the very organization
where I spent the first 33 years of my career, the Central Intelligence
Agency.
President-elect
Trump’s public rejection of the C.I.A., and by extension the rest of
the country’s intelligence community, over the assessment that Russia
interfered in our presidential election is not only an unprecedented
political challenge for our national security establishment — it is a
danger to the nation.
Don't miss these very interesting articles below, please.
Lately,
it appears Trump has gone back into the field to drag in a whole new
bunch of State contenders.
My favorite is Representative Dana
Rohrabacher of California, a person you have probably never heard of
even though he’s been in Congress since the 1980s and is currently head
of the prestigious Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia and Emerging Threats.
Don't miss the very interesting articles below, please.
I think the future dinosaur flatulence will be the behaviour of 'Pussy' and his very strange government.
Poor World! Poor America!
The most difficult case in Mrs.Piggle-Wiggle's career
Hello 'Pussy', this is Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle.
You
took calls from foreign leaders on unsecured phone lines, without
consultung the State Department. We have to change your silly behaviour
with a new Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle cure. I know you are the most difficult
case in my career - but we have to try everything.......................
Betty MacDonald was sitting on her egg-shaped cloud and listened to a rather strange guy.
He said to his friends: So sorry to keep you waiting. Very complicated business! Very complicated!
Betty said: Obviously much too complicated for you old toupee!
Besides him ( by the way the First Lady's place ) his 10 year old son was bored to death and listened to this 'exciting' victory speech.
The old man could be his great-grandfather.
The
boy was very tired and thought: I don't know what this old guy is
talking about. Come on and finish it, please. I'd like to go to bed. Dear 'great-grandfather' continued and praised the Democratic candidate.
He always called her the most corrupt person ever and repeated it over and over again in the fashion of a Tibetan prayer wheel.
She is so corrupt. She is so corrupt. Do you know how corrupt she is?
Betty MacDonald couldn't believe it when he said: She
has worked very long and very hard over a long period of time, and we
owe her a major debt of gratitude for her service to our country.
Afterwards old toupee praised his parents, wife, children, siblings and friends.
He asked the same question like a parrot all the time: Where are you? Where are you? Where are you? I know you are here!
Betty MacDonald answered: No Pussy they are not! They left the country.
They immigrated to Canada
because they are very much afraid of the future in the U.S.A. with you
as their leader like the majority of all so-called more or less normal
citizens.
This
is incredible! I'll You get what you pay/vote for and Trump is the
epitome of this ideology. America I won't feel bad for you because you
don't need my sympathy for what's coming but I am genuinely scared for
you. 'Forgive them lord for they know not who they do' or maybe they do
but just don't care about their future generations who will suffer for
this long after the culprits have passed away.
Wise guy, North Pole, Svalbard And Jan Mayen, 9 minutes ago
Is the USA like North Korea where you can't trust other politicians?
That's it.
Put Ivanka in! Put Ivanka in! Put my whole family and friends in! ' What about Putin?
Or the leaders from China and North Korea?
Wouldn't it be a great idea to put them in too?
What about very intelligent and qualified Sarah Palin?
In 2006, Palin obtained a passport[88] and in 2007 traveled for the first time outside of North America on a trip to Kuwait. There she visited the Khabari Alawazem Crossing at the Kuwait–Iraq border and met with members of the Alaska National Guard at several bases.[89] On her return journey she visited injured soldiers in Germany.[90] That's the reason why very intelligent and brilliant Sarah Palin knows the World very well. Sarah and ' Pussygate ' will rule America and the World - what a couple.
Wolfgang
Hampel's Betty MacDonald and Ma and Pa Kettle biography and Betty
MacDonald interviews have fans in 40 countries. I'm one of their many devoted fans.
Many Betty MacDonald - and Wolfgang Hampel fans are very interested in a Wolfgang Hampel CD and DVD with his
very funny poems and stories.
We are going to publish new Betty MacDonald essays on Betty MacDonald's gardens and nature in Washington State. Tell us the names of this mysterious couple please and you can win a very new Betty MacDonald documentary.
The series premiered on September 3,
1951, the same day as "Search for Tomorrow," and ended on August 1,
1952.
Although it did well in the ratings, it had difficulty
attracting a steady sponsor. This episode features Betty Lynn (later
known for her work on "The Andy Griffith Show") as Betty MacDonald, John
Craven as Bob MacDonald, Doris Rich as Ma Kettle, and Frank Twedell as
Pa Kettle.
Betty MacDonald fan club exhibition will be fascinating with the international book editions and letters by Betty MacDonald. I can't wait to see the new Betty MacDonald documentary.
This article has been updated to reflect news developments.
WHEN I wrote
in August 2016, in this newspaper, that Donald J. Trump’s character
traits posed a national security threat, I didn’t imagine that the first
manifestation of that dynamic could play out with the very organization
where I spent the first 33 years of my career, the Central Intelligence
Agency.
President-elect
Trump’s public rejection of the C.I.A., and by extension the rest of
the country’s intelligence community, over the assessment that Russia
interfered in our presidential election is not only an unprecedented
political challenge for our national security establishment — it is a
danger to the nation.
While
Mr. Trump’s statement on Friday that he had a constructive meeting with
senior intelligence officials on the Russian hacking issue was a step
in the right direction, his disparagement of American intelligence
officers over the last few months is likely to cause significant damage
to the C.I.A.
Mr.
Trump has questioned the agency’s competence — repeatedly asking, often
via Twitter, how we can trust the organization that incorrectly judged
that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (criticism that, in
my mind, is unfair for an agency that has changed dramatically in the
last 15 years). But he has also accused the agency of being biased and
political, implying, in comments to The Times,
that the C.I.A. manufactured its Russia analysis to undercut him. Mr.
Trump, in essence, said that the agency’s officers were dishonorable. To
the men and women of the C.I.A., sworn to protect the nation, this was a
gut punch.
Mr.
Trump’s behavior will weaken the agency, an organization that has never
been more relevant to our nation’s security. The key national security
issues of the day — terrorism; proliferation; cyberespionage, crime and
war; and the challenges to the global order posed by Russia, Iran and
China — all require first-rate intelligence for a commander in chief to
understand them, settle on a policy and carry it out.
Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter
Every
weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the
Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.
How
will President Trump know whether the Iranians are living up to their
commitment not to produce a nuclear weapon without good intelligence?
How will he know how close North Korea is to mating a nuclear weapon to a
long-range missile and detonating it over American soil? How will he
know whether the Islamic State or Al Qaeda is plotting another
9/11-style attack?
The
president-elect’s rhetoric will undermine the effectiveness of the
C.I.A. in two key ways. First, expect a wave of resignations. Attrition
at the C.I.A., which has been remarkably low since Sept. 11, 2001, will
skyrocket. The primary motivator for some of our smartest minds to go to
work at the C.I.A. is to make a difference to national security, to
play a role in keeping the country safe. All of the sacrifices — from
the long hours, polygraph tests, unfair media criticism, not to mention
the real dangers to life and limb — are worth it, if you are making a
difference.
If
the president rejects out of hand the C.I.A.’s work, or introduces
uncertainty by praising it one day only to lambaste it on Twitter that
afternoon, many officers will vote with their feet. These officers
cannot be easily replaced. It takes years of training and, more
important, on-the-job experience to create a highly capable case
officer, analyst, scientist, engineer or support officer. It would take
at least a decade to recover from a surge in resignations.
There
is precedent for this. When President Jimmy Carter’s C.I.A. director,
Stansfield Turner, made it clear that, in his view, technology was
making human intelligence obsolete, hundreds of officers departed. He
then fired hundreds of others who questioned his approach; it took years
for the agency to return to its pre-Turner strength. The Trump
resignations could make the Turner departures pale by comparison.
The
president-elect’s rejection of the agency will weaken it in a second
way. American intelligence agencies do not work alone; we rely on strong
ties to parallel organizations in countless countries. Why would a
foreign intelligence service take the C.I.A. seriously (and share
important information with it) when the American president doesn’t? A
strong relationship between the C.I.A. and the president is a key
incentive for other intelligence services to work with Langley. Take
that away, and our foreign relationships — which are absolutely critical
in the global fight against terror, proliferation, you name it — will
suffer.
And
why would a foreign agent take extraordinary risks to spy for the
United States if his or her information is not valued? Knowing their
information is making its way to the president is an important motivator
for spies. Would the modern-day Adolf Tolkachev, the C.I.A.’s most
important agent within the Soviet Union — who was executed as a spy in
1986 — sign on to work for Donald Trump? I doubt it. The potential loss
of critical information could be extraordinary.
Mr.
Trump’s attacks on the agency surprised me, but they shouldn’t have. It
is not a coincidence that Mr. Trump, who has never let facts get in the
way of his opinion, would fight with the organization whose very reason
for existence is to put facts on the table. He will have similar fights
with other government agencies, and our country will suffer for it.
Until 2016, US politics, with its two major parties and billion
dollar elections, seemed impenetrable. The Kremlin’s foreign media arms,
RT and Sputnik, attracted small US audiences, and only fringe parties heeded the Kremlin’s siren call. Almost 60 percent of Americans consider Russia an unfriendly power. Despite these facts, Russia played a major role from the start to
finish of the 2016 campaign. Trump campaign officials, who had consulted
for Russian-friendly clients, were forced to withdraw, while Clinton’s
top campaign officials with similar ties
were left alone. Trump’s campaign comments about Putin, NATO, and ISIS
opened him to charges of pro-Russian leanings. Few took notice of RT’s 2013 revelation
of Clinton’s private email account that reinforced her reputation for
dishonesty two years later. WikiLeaks’s release of thousands of damaging
DNC, Podesta, and other private accounts starting in June left Hillary
with the weak defense that “the Russians did it; pay no attention.”
Recommended by Forbes
With the shocking election of Trump, some Democrats now blame Russian intervention for the upset. A cooperative media has concluded, as the New York Times
put it, that “Russian hacking was meant to help elect Mr. Trump.” The
political establishment has thus concluded that the Russian state hacked
the emails to elect Trump, who will cancel sanctions, weaken NATO, and
betray Ukraine. Per this line of thinking, Russia’s intervention thus invalidates Trump’s presidency. Trump’s unexpected 2016 election was a monumental
intelligence/media/political failure that deserves serious non-partisan
investigation of the following open questions: Did Putin order the hacks? Putin has repeatedly denied ordering any cyber-attack on US politics. He maintains
that “the complexity of modern hackers made it ‘extremely difficult’ to
definitively say who was responsible for the leak, and suggested that
they can disguise their activities and ‘leave their mark,’ or even the
mark of others." Putin is a known liar; so we should not take his word
seriously, but we should listen to what he says. In past “black “operations, Putin has maintained space between
himself and the actual perpetrators to disguise his involvement. The
Anna Politovskaya and Boris Nemtsov murders involved complicated layers
of sub-contractors, hired killers, Chechen clans, and Russian
underworld. The Russian mercenaries fighting in east Ukraine were
purportedly paid by a Russian oligarch, not the Kremlin. The London judge in the Litvinenko polonium poisoning could only conclude that Putin was a “likely” defendant because a murder in a foreign country would have to be approved “at the highest levels.” Obama invoked the same logic in justifying
new sanctions for Russian hacking: "Not much happens in Russia without
Vladimir Putin…. this happened at the highest levels of the Russian
government." A CNN assessment,
based on intelligence leaks, claims that “the use of the advanced tools
suggests Russian President Vladimir Putin was involved in the hacks….
But neither of the sources said they knew of specific intelligence that
directly ties Putin to the attack.” The likely result of a serious investigation would be a strong
suspicion that Putin ordered the hacks because such operations “require
high-level approval.” The Kremlin will continue to invoke “plausible
deniability,” and we may have to increasingly take action in the absence
of certainty of guilt. Who carried out the cyber attacks? After the DNC hack, a cyber firm (Crowdstrike) was hired by the
Democratic National Committee to investigate. Crowdstrike promptly assigned blame to two cyber organizations purportedly associated with Russian intelligence. According to the released FBI-DHS Grizzly Steppe report
“two different RIS [Russian Intelligence Service] actors participated
in the intrusion into a U.S. political party.” They used simple
spearphishing and then extracted material with a high level of
sophistication. Notably, the FBI-DHS report asserts that Russian
intelligence cast a broad net of 1000 targets. Another hacker (or
hacking organization), calling itself Guccifer 2, with suspected ties to
Russian intelligence, claimed that it hacked the DNC and Clinton
Foundation and turned the material over to WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks itself
has denied that it obtained the material from Russia but from a disgruntled insider. We need more detailed intelligence reports to determine whether multiple cyber-attackers are claiming the same hack. The US intelligence community, according to leaks, appears convinced
that Russian governmental agencies are behind the hacks because of their
sophistication. At least one tech company claims
that the hackers used outdated codes that are widely available for
download. Another unanswered question, therefore, is why such
sophisticated hackers left traces to identify them almost immediately?
Could this, as cautioned
by Rolling Stone’s “Something About This Russian Story Stinks,” turn
out to be a historic intelligence failure: “The problem with this story
is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a
highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the
relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up.” Was the motive to elect Donald Trump? To be true, reports
of “incontrovertible evidence” that Putin wanted Trump elected require
that our spies know Putin’s innermost thoughts. If so, they know more
than all of Russia. What would have been Putin’s primary motive? As I have written on numerous occasions, WikiLeaks was a godsend for
Putin to “show corruption in American politics.” The Kremlin media has
regaled the Russian public with the US press’s own accounts of a rigged
election, conspiracies against Bernie Sanders, of Soros, Goldman Sachs,
and the Saudi princes determining the election outcome, the cozy
relationship between the Clinton campaign and the press, and the
Clintons growing rich from their political connections. Putin could now
ask: Who gives these Clintons the right to criticize me and my
elections? What more revenge against Hillary Clinton could Putin ask
for? The use by Russian media of WikiLeaks for domestic consumption makes a
very strong case that Putin wanted the hacked emails to bolster his
tenuous hold on domestic power. The impact on the US election was
secondary. Would Putin have seriously thought he could help elect Trump? As noted
by none other than Henry Kissinger, Putin, like everyone else, would
have expected a Clinton victory, perhaps even a landslide, based on the
polls. For Putin “to antagonize the president-to-be by getting into an
open support of the opponent doesn’t make any sense to me. They were
hacking, but the use they allegedly made of this hacking eludes me.” The
answer to Kissinger’s question: The hacking was meant for a domestic
audience. Would Putin have preferred a Clinton or a Trump? A victorious Clinton
would offer Putin hostile predictability, but her base would restrain
her from an aggressive military and foreign policy. Trump would be
unpredictable, would build up US armed forces, and have to make strong
deals to meet his electoral promises. Even worse for Putin, Trump would promote US energy development and drive down the energy prices on which Putin’s Petrostate rests. Trump’s election spoils Putin’s narrative Russian propagandists, fully expecting a Clinton victory, played up
Trump as the Don Quixote candidate – a shining knight fighting against
all odds -- about to be rolled over by the crooked American political
establishment. The unanticipated consequence of his surprise victory,
therefore, is an unwelcome affirmation of American democracy for the
Russian people. Not only did Putin’s rubber-stamp parliament celebrate Trump’s victory. Ordinary Russians used the occasion to take a drunken holiday. Russia's enemy lost and Russia's "friend" won. The 2016 election shows Russians that, in America, a candidate can
come out of nowhere – a David to slay the Goliath of crooked American
politics. This is contrary to Putin’s narrative of a decadent, greedy,
and aggressive US establishment that uses its political monopoly to cut
down a Trump-like candidacy. This is the last message Putin wants
delivered to the Russian people with his own carefully-orchestrated
election scheduled for 2018. Trump’s election leaves Putin with a choice. He can use his
propaganda to turn Trump into a monster on par with George Bush, Barack
Obama and Hillary Clinton or he can use the brief window of a positive
US presidential figure to explore whether there are real opportunities
to repair US-Russian relations. Putin must decide whether his regime can
survive without the US as enemy number one. The WikiLeaks release of Clinton-camp emails has readied an
indifferent America for a serious discussion of the worldwide threat of
Russian aggression through both soft and hard power. Unfortunately,
politicians on both sides of the aisle seem intent on turning such an
investigation into a political football from which we learn nothing,
while Putin's nuclear saber rattling makes such a study even more urgent.
Trump’s War on the Intelligence Community Is All About Ego
Donald
Trump has long resorted to Twitter as a forum for childish feuds. It
was on Twitter that he famously taunted comedian Jon Stewart for having a
stage name (which led Stewart to respond with a meme that Trump’s
original name was Fuckface Von Clownstick,
which set off even more angry Trump tweets). Despite now being
president-elect, Trump has continued to use social media to attack his
foes, which include not just foreign countries (as when he berated
China for “one-sided trade” and not helping to contain North Korea) but
the government agencies he’s going to have to work with in order to
protect the American people. On Friday, Trump is scheduled to meet
with heads of the intelligence community, who will brief him on their
findings about Russian interference in the election. But he has already
made clear this week that he doesn’t really want to hear what they have
to say.
What’s notable about these tweets isn’t just that
Trump is, rather suspiciously, disputing a briefing he hasn’t yet heard.
He’s also making a false claim: The briefing wasn’t delayed, having
always been scheduled for Friday.Still, that’s par for
the course when it comes to Trump’s tweets. But now we’re learning that
his feud with the intelligence community goes beyond Twitter. TheWall Street Journal reported
Wednesday that Trump believes the nation’s top spy agency, the Office
of the Director of National Intelligence, has become “bloated” and
“politicized.” Trump and his advisors are “also working on a plan to
restructure the Central Intelligence Agency, cutting back on staffing at
its Virginia headquarters and pushing more people out into field posts
around the world.” An anonymous source close to the Trump transition
told the Journal, “The view from the Trump team is the
intelligence world has become completely politicized. They all need to
be slimmed down. The focus will be on restructuring the agencies and how
they interact.”
As
president, Trump would be perfectly within his rights to question
findings by the intelligence community and restructure it to suit his
needs. He also wouldn’t be the first president to feud with the
intelligence community—at his own risk. “No president has ever taken on
the CIA and come out looking good,” an unnamed White House official told the Journal. This is perhaps too sweeping a judgement, but there is definitely a troubled history. John
F. Kennedy, angered by the failure of the Bay of Pig invasion and
inadequate information during the Cuban Missile Crisis, was preparing a
wholesale revamping of the CIA in the months before his assassination.
Jimmy Carter came to office during a time when the CIA was widely
discredited by revelations of its involvement in overseas
assassinations, and he pushed for the agency to do less covert
operations and focus on providing analysis. Carter explicitly condemned
the “CIA’s role in plotting murder and other crimes.” Carter would
change his policies in the tail-end of his presidency, when he found
that CIA covert actions were necessary to respond to the Iranian
Revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Kennedy and
Carter fought the CIA on policy grounds. But Trump’s feud has a much
more personal cast—in part because it springs from questions about the
legitimacy of his presidential victory, and in part because Trump tends
to invest every dispute with narcissistic rage. In this way, Trump is
closer to Richard Nixon, whose fight with the CIA was entangled with his
wounded ego and insatiable pride. Nixon used to refer to the CIA as “those clowns out at Langley.” As historian Rhodri Jeffreys-Jones wrote in the book The CIA and American Democracy, “Neurotic
personal feelings underlay that bias [against the CIA]. For example, he
was unable to justify his assertion that the Agency conspired against
him in the 1960 election. He also clung to a similar, largely irrational
suspicion that the American social elite was pitted against him.”
Resentful and fearful of the CIA, Nixon tried to ensnare the agency in
his corruption, at one point trying to set it up to take the fall for
the Watergate break-in. He wanted the CIA to tell the FBI to lay off the
investigation because it had national security implications. CIA head
Richard Helms refused to let the agency be a scapegoat.
Nixon
is a revealing parallel to Trump. Both can be seen as maestros of
resentment with a populist anger fuelled by a sense that snooty experts
are looking down on them. Unappeasable in their rancor, both men adopted
a stance of reflexive hostility toward the professionals who administer
the state. This anti-professionalism
is very different in spirit from attempts to reform the intelligence
community as pursued by Kennedy or Carter. The goal of
anti-professionalism is not just to get the bureaucracy to work better,
but to subdue it, to bring in under the command of the president so that
it lacks the independence to offer analysis that displeases the leader.
On CNN on Wednesday, former CIA official Philip Mudd said
Trump “can question the intelligence. He cannot humiliate the people
who have offered their lives to collect that intelligence.” The word
“humiliate” is key. The president-elect, as always on Twitter, is
playing a game of dominance, asserting his alpha-male right to rule. The
problem is that a humiliated intelligence community will also be a
hobbled one, much more likely to tell the president what he wants to
hear and not offer the critical analysis that informs good
decision-making. Such an intelligence community might also seek a more
receptive audience, in the form of leaks to the press, and then Trump
himself would be the humiliated one.
sh golf courses.” Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for the
president-elect, denied that the two had discussed the subject, only for Trump to later confirm that the topic had, in fact, come up in their conversation.
* This entry originally misstated that Trump intervened at Turnberry, his other golf course in Scotland. We regret the error.
Those Indian Business Partners It didn’t take long after the election for President-elect Trump to be seen in public with international business partners. According to a November 19 article in The New York Times,
Trump took a break from his transition schedule to meet with three
Indian real-estate executives who are currently building a Trump-branded
apartment complex in Mumbai. According to both Trump and the Indian
businessmen, the meeting was essentially congratulatory in nature; a picture posted by one of the executives on Twitter shows
the four men smiling broadly and giving a thumbs-up to the camera.
However, that the meeting happened in the first place suggests that
Trump does not currently have any qualms about forestalling official
state business for personal business. On top of that, the meeting
raises questions in the blind-trust realm as well. The president-elect
himself was not the only member of his family there; two Facebook photos
show that Ivanka and Eric Trump both attended the meeting as well.
Their presence serves as a reminder that their father seems so far
uninterested in maintaining even the nominal separation between himself
and his assets that he repeatedly said he would create during the
campaign. Back to table of contents That Envoy From the Philippines One
leader with whom Trump already has an advantage over President Obama is
Rodrigo Duterte, the similarly brash president of the Philippines.
Duterte, who has threatened to “break up with America,” told Obama to “go to hell,” and called the president a “son of a whore,” expressed admiration for Trump, noting that, among other similarities, they both enjoy swearing. Duterte’s affinity for Trump apparently goes beyond vulgar word choice. Late in October, Duterte appointed a longtime business associate of Trump’s as a special envoy to the United States,
an announcement that became public shortly after the election. This
appointment in particular raises questions because it is just as open to
exploitation by Duterte as it is to Trump, as the Filipino president
could intend to use his new envoy’s relationship with Trump to
strengthen the Philippines’ hand. Whichever side the appointment does
eventually benefit, however, the situation is nevertheless fraught with
conflicts between the three men’s personal and political interests.
President-elect Donald Trump, with his wife Melania, speaks
with reporters at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla., on Dec. 31. (AP
Photo/Evan Vucci)
Boston Herald|Jan 02, 2017
President-elect Donald Trump is warning that he knows "things
other people don't know" about claims that the Russian government was
behind the hacking of political groups during the U.S. presidential
election, and is promising to spill the beans "Tuesday or Wednesday." Trump, who has refused to acknowledge U.S. intelligence assessments
that determined the hacking was directed by the highest levels in the
Russian government, said he's been skeptical because he wants U.S.
intelligence officials to be 100 percent sure. "I just want them to be sure because it's a pretty serious charge,"
Trump told reporters in an impromptu New Year's Eve press conference. "If you look at weapons of mass destruction, it was a disaster, and
they were wrong," he said. "So I want them to be sure. I think it's
unfortunate if they don't know. I know a lot about hacking, and hacking
is a very hard thing to prove. So it could be somebody else." "I also know things other people don't know," Trump added. "So they cannot be sure of this situation." When a reporter asked Trump what he knew about the hacking situation,
Trump said: "You'll find out Tuesday or Wednesday," with no explanation
for the delay. His comments were made at Trump's Palm Beach estate. The president-elect has said he plans to meet with intelligence officials in coming days to learn more about the allegations. Trump, who says "no computer is safe" when it comes to keeping
information private, said, "if you have something really important,
write it out and have it delivered by courier, the old-fashioned way." President Obama ordered sanctions on Russian spy agencies last week,
closed two Russian compounds and expelled 35 diplomats the U.S. said
were really spies. The Russian government has denied the allegations.
"Trump is not behaving as a President who will become master of the White House in a month"
China’s state media has again questioned the leadership qualities of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, gleefully highlighting the misspelling of the word unprecedented in a tweet he sent responding to the seizure of an American underwater drone by the Chinese navy on Thursday.“China steals United States Navy research drone in international
waters – rips it of water and take it to China in unpresidented [sic]
act,” Trump tweeted, before deleting and reposting the message with the correct spelling of unprecedented.He took again to Twitter to add: “We should tell China that we don’t want the drone they stole back.- let them keep it!”Both Washington and Beijing have sought to downplay the spat in
official channels. On Saturday, China agreed to return the device, which
was taken 57 miles northwest of the Philippine port of Subic Bay. China
says the unmanned reconnaissance vehicle, which was apparently
collecting unclassified scientific data, was seized to maintain the
safety of passing vessels.“China resolutely opposes these [reconnaissance] activities,” Chinese Defense Ministry spokesperson Yang Yujun said, according to Chinese state newswire Xinhua.On Sunday, the Chinese Communist Party–linked Global Times newspaper questioned Trump’s response in an editorial and highlighted his misspelling in the headline: “‘Unpresidented’ Trump adds fuel to fire.” “He seemed emotionally upset, but no one knows what he wanted to
say,” read the article. “Trump is not behaving as a President who will
become master of the White House in a month.” During his campaign, Trump repeated accused
China of currency manipulation and stealing American jobs, and vowed to
slap 45% tariffs of Chinese imports. Since his election victory, Trump
has further infuriated the Beijing leadership by accepting a phone call
from the President of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen — breaking almost four
decades of diplomatic protocol that saw no direct contact between
American and Taiwanese leaders. Beijing claims sovereignty over the self-governing island of 23 million and has vowed to retake it by force should Taipei ever declare independence. When Beijing lodged a formal complaint about Trump’s phone conversation, Trump said that American acknowledgement of China’s position that Taiwan is part of “one China” was up for negotiation. “Since [Trump] has not taken office, China has kept a calm attitude toward his provocative remarks,” read the Global Times editorial. “But if he treats China after assuming office in the same way as in his tweets, China will not exercise restraint.” Ordinary Chinese, however, are seeing the funny side of Trump’s
spelling error. “Dude, you would have failed the Chinese college English
exam,” posted one user on China’s Twitter-like microblog Weibo. “What if Trump just is pretending to be stupid?” posted another.
“Businessmen shouldn’t be this dumb, and Trump is successful in
business.” — With reporting by Zhang Chi / Beijing
Trump's
press secretary Sean Spicer went on national television to complain
that the American people are mocking Donald Trump and called on every
American to support the president-elect instead of mocking him.
Trump’s press secretary Sean Spicer went on national television to
complain that the American people are mocking Donald Trump and called on
every American to support the president-elect instead of mocking him. Video of Trump press secretary Sean Spicer on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos:
Spicer was talking about Trump trying to take credit for jobs that
were already announced when he claimed that the American people are
mocking and undermining the president-elect:
So the idea is everyone wants to talk about the tweets he sent. But I
would actually focus on the action he’s getting. Donald Trump is not
president yet and he’s getting action, successes and wins, both abroad
and here at home.
Everything he does right now, he gets — he speaks for the head of
Sprint, gets 5,000 jobs moved from abroad. And everyone starts to mock
him. Oh, those jobs were already announced. They weren’t. The sales jobs
have been a previous announce. These jobs were coming from abroad to
America.
And instead of trying to mock him or undermine him, it’s
time that people started to give him credit for actually getting things
done.
Trump is mocked because he isn’t getting anything done. The
president-elect is taking credit for things that already happened, or
the accomplishments of others. For example, Trump took credit for the
good economic numbers in November despite the fact that the growing
economy has nothing to do with him because he is not yet the president.
Trump took credit for the horrible Carrier deal that Mike Pence
negotiated, and Trump is trying to pass off the Sprint job announcement,
which he had nothing to do with, as an accomplishment.”
President-elect Donald Trump’s Press Secretary was practically
begging America to stop making fun of the incoming president. Trump
isn’t going to find much popular support for his presidency because the
majority of voters did not support him. If Trump continues to act like a narcissistic and petty reality television star instead of a president, he is going to mocked. One can only imagine the howls of laughter from Republicans if
Obama’s press secretary would have gone on national television and
complained about the American people making fun of him. Trump isn’t even in office yet, but his team is demanding credit for
things that they have not done, which is exactly why the American people
will continue to mock the president-elect.
Trump's
press secretary Sean Spicer went on national television to complain
that the American people are mocking Donald Trump and called on every
American to…
politicususa.com|Von Jason Easley
Swiss CharrdI
do not recall people saying not to make fun of the Obama's the whole
family...and the Republicans blocking every move The President tried to
make.
Mike MitchellIt's like trying to not giggle in church. Impossible!
Donald Trump last night
praised Vladimir Putin as "very smart" for not engaging in a tit-for-tat
row with the US over the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats accused of
espionage. In a piece of high diplomatic theatre, the Russian president
defied expectations of a Cold War-style mutual expulsion and instead
met the Obama administration's sanctions with a show of magnanimity.
Chiding the outgoing
president for a provocation designed to undermine US-Russian relations,
Mr Putin chose instead to look forward to the incoming administration of
Mr Trump who has promised a re-set with Moscow.
"We
will not create problems for American diplomats. We will not expel
anyone," he said. “Furthermore, I invite all children of US diplomats
accredited in Russia to the Christmas and New Year tree in the Kremlin.”
He added: "Further steps
towards the restoration of Russian-American relations will be built on
the basis of the policy which the administration of President D. Trump
will carry out." Earlier Sergei Lavrov, the foreign minister, publically
recommend that Russia expel 35 US diplomats and close down two US
diplomatic compounds.
"Russia's foreign ministry... has requested that the Russian
president approve declaring as personae non gratae 31 employees of the
US embassy in Moscow and four diplomats from the US consulate in Saint
Petersburg," Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, said in
televised comments. The move would have amounted to a tit-for-tat response to American sanctions.
President Barack Obama's
said on Friday the US would expel 35 Russian diplomats and close down
two diplomatic compounds in New York and Maryland in retaliation for
Moscow directing hackers to interfere in the presidential elections. The announcement provoked fury in Moscow, where many officials attacked Mr Obama personally for the move. Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian prime minister, wrote on
Twitter that the current administration was "ending its term in
anti-Russian agony."
The foreign ministry called the decision a "crushing blow to the prestige of America and its leadership." Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman for the Russian foreign
ministry wrote on Facebook: "Today America and the American people have
been humiliated as their own President." The Russian Embassy in London called it "Cold War deja vu", and said the US "wanted to destroy" ties with Moscow.
The diplomatic officials
from the Russian embassy in Washington and its consulate in San
Francisco were deemed "persona non grata" and told to leave the country
within 72 hours. Mr Obama said the 35 expelled diplomats were "intelligence operatives". He also announced it was closing two compounds owned by the
Russian government, and used for intelligence operations, in New York
and Maryland, from noon on Friday. At the same time he ordered sanctions against Russia's GRU and FSB intelligence agencies, and six named Russian individuals. They included Lt Gen Korobov, head of the GRU, and three of
his deputies. The other two were Alexei Belan and Yevgeny Bogachev, two
Russians wanted by the FBI for cyber crimes for years. Also sanctioned were three computer companies alleged to have provided "material support" to the GRU.
The developments marked an unprecedented new low in US-Russian relations under Mr Obama's presidency. Mr Obama accused Russia of "aggressive harassment" and said
"all Americans should be alarmed by Russia's actions". He said hacking
"could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian
government". Mr Obama said: "These actions follow repeated private and
public warnings that we have issued to the Russian government, and are a
necessary and appropriate response to efforts to harm US interests in
violation of established international norms of behaviour. Such
activities have consequences."
He added: "This is not
the sum total of our response to Russia’s aggressive activities. We will
continue to take a variety of actions at a time and place of our
choosing, some of which will not be publicised." A US official added: "By imposing costs on the Russian
diplomats in the United States, by denying them access to the two
facilities, we hope the Russian government reevaluates its own actions." It was understood that Russia's ambassador to the United States, Sergei Kislyak, will not be one of those expelled. It comes after the the CIA and FBI concluded that Russia was
responsible for hacking the Democratic Party and releasing embarrassing
emails with the intention of helping Mr Trump to win the White House.
Russia has repeatedly
denied the hacking accusations. A spokesman for Russia's Foreign
Ministry said: "If Washington really does take new hostile steps they
will be answered. "Any action against Russian diplomatic missions in the
US will immediately bounce back on US diplomats in Russia." Mr Trump said he would meet intelligence officials next week to hear evidence of the Russian hacking. He said: "It's time for our country to move on to bigger and better things. "Nevertheless, in the interest of our country and its great
people, I will meet with leaders of the intelligence community next week
in order to be updated on the facts of this situation."
Kellyanne Conway, one of
Mr Trump's top advisers, told CNN that Mr Trump stood by his claims
that it was unclear whether Russia carried out the hacks and insisted
that alleged Russian hacking was being used to try and delegitimise Mr
Trump's victory. The US State Department said the expelled diplomats had been
"acting in a manner inconsistent with their diplomatic or consular
status".
It also said the US
actions were a response to increased harassment of US diplomats in
Moscow over the last year. In 2001 the US expelled 50 Russian diplomats
from the country over accusations of spying. Russia responded in kind,
ordering 50 US diplomats to leave its own country. The Russian Embassy in London added in its 'lame duck' memed
tweet: "Everybody, including the American people, will be glad to see
the last of this hapless administration." According to one US official there are a total of about 100
Russian spies in the US, so about one third of them are being ejected.
The compound being
closed in Maryland is a sprawling coastal estate purchased by the Soviet
Union in the 1970s. It is listed as the summer retreat for the Russian
embassy but has been used for espionage, according to US officials. The Kremlin accused the US of an "aggressive foreign policy" and behaving "like a bull in a china shop". Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov said: "There is no
alternative here to the principle of reciprocity. We will deliver
significant discomfort to the US side in the same areas. "We consider this decision and these sanctions unjustified and illegal under international law."
US officials said they
were aware of reports that Moscow may have ordered the closure of the
Anglo-American School in the Russian capital - attended by many children
of diplomats - but they could not confirm those reports, said news
agency AFP. Maria Zakharova, the Russian foreign ministry's spokeswoman, denied reports about the school closure on Friday morning. Lisa Monaco, Mr Obama's homeland security adviser, said:
"These 35 individuals were basically collecting intelligence. They were
intelligence officers operating here and using these compounds for
intelligence collection. "We are expelling those 35 intelligence officers and their families and shutting down that intelligence collection activity." She added: "We are prepared for retaliatory steps the Russian government may take." The Russian Embassy in Washington said a plane was being sent from Moscow to pick up those who had been expelled.
A spokesman said: "For
diplomats and their families to leave the US an aircraft of the Rossiya
Special Flight Squadron will be sent to the US."
How could Russia respond? Vladimir Putin has ruled out direct retaliation for now, but
he also says Russia "reserves the right" to respond. Here are a number
of options he and his advisers could be considering.
Expel US diplomats. Sending American officials home would be
a traditional tit-for-tat response more or less in line with the rules
of international diplomacy. The Russians could up the ante by kicking
out Ambassador John Tefft (the US has said it is not expelling Russia's
ambassador), which would leave a key post for Donald Trump to fill when
he takes power on January 20.
Shut down US diplomatic compounds. The foreign ministry has denied
plans to close the American School in Moscow, which is popular with
expat families. However, it could close the Embassy holiday dacha at
Serebryany Bor on the Moscow outskirts.
Something else. Previous "asymmetric" responses to American
moves have included banning US citizens from adopting Russian
orphans and banning food imports from countries that sanctioned Russia
over its annexation of Crimea.
Do nothing. With Donald Trump entering the White House on January
20, the Kremlin could decide it is worth refraining from countermeasures
as a goodwill gesture to the new president. Instead it may confine
itself to insulting Tweets about Barack Obama.
Donald Trump: The Russian Poodle - by Nicholas Kristof
"Frankly,
it’s mystifying that Trump continues to defend Russia and Putin, even
as he excoriates everyone else, from C.I.A. officials to a local union
leader in Indiana. Let’s be clear: This was an attack on America, less
lethal than a missile but still profoundly damaging to our system. It’s
not that Trump and Putin were colluding to steal an election. But if the
C.I.A. is right, Russia apparently was trying to elect a president who
would be not a puppet exactly but perhaps something of a lap dog — a
Russian poodle. Now we come to the most reckless step of all: This
Russian poodle is acting in character by giving important government
posts to friends of Moscow,
in effect rewarding it for its attack on the United States. "So it’s
critical that the Senate, the news media and the public subject
Tillerson to intense scrutiny. We must be vigilant and recognize what
is afoot!" WOOF!
Read the rest of the story HERE: At www.nytimes.com
In
1972, President Richard Nixon’s White House dispatched burglars to bug
Democratic Party offices. That Watergate burglary and related “dirty
tricks,” such as releasing mice at a Democratic press conference and
paying a woman to strip naked and shout her love for a Democratic
candidate, nauseated Americans — and impelled some of us kids at the
time to pursue journalism.
Now
in 2016 we have a political scandal that in some respects is even more
staggering. Russian agents apparently broke into the Democrats’ digital
offices and tried to change the election outcome. President Obama on
Friday suggested that this was probably directed by Russia’s president,
saying, “Not much happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin.”
In
Watergate, the break-in didn’t affect the outcome of the election. In
2016, we don’t know for sure. There were other factors, but it’s
possible that Russia’s theft and release of the emails provided the
margin for Donald Trump’s victory.
The C.I.A. says it has “high confidence” that Russia was trying to get Trump elected, and, according to The Washington Post, the directors of the F.B.I. and national intelligence agree with that conclusion.
Both
Nixon and Trump responded badly to the revelations, Nixon by ordering a
cover-up and Trump by denouncing the C.I.A. and, incredibly, defending
Russia from the charges that it tried to subvert our election. I never
thought I would see a dispute between America’s intelligence community
and a murderous foreign dictator in which an American leader sided with
the dictator.
Let’s
be clear: This was an attack on America, less lethal than a missile but
still profoundly damaging to our system. It’s not that Trump and Putin
were colluding to steal an election. But if the C.I.A. is right, Russia
apparently was trying to elect a president who would be not a puppet
exactly but perhaps something of a lap dog — a Russian poodle.
In
Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair was widely (and unfairly) mocked as
President George W. Bush’s poodle, following him loyally into the Iraq
war. The fear is that this time Putin may have interfered to acquire an
ally who likewise will roll over for him.
Frankly,
it’s mystifying that Trump continues to defend Russia and Putin, even
as he excoriates everyone else, from C.I.A. officials to a local union
leader in Indiana.
Now
we come to the most reckless step of all: This Russian poodle is acting
in character by giving important government posts to friends of Moscow,
in effect rewarding it for its attack on the United States.
Rex Tillerson,
Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, is a smart and capable manager.
Yet it’s notable that he is particularly close to Putin, who had
decorated Tillerson with Russia’s “Order of Friendship.”
Whatever
our personal politics, how can we possibly want to respond to Russia’s
interference in our election by putting American foreign policy in the
hands of a Putin friend?
Tillerson’s
closeness to Putin is especially troubling because of Trump’s other
Russia links. The incoming national security adviser, Michael Flynn,
accepted Russian money to attend a dinner in Moscow and sat near Putin. A
ledger shows
$12.7 million in secret payments by a pro-Russia party in Ukraine to
Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort. And the Trump family
itself has business connections with Russia.
It’s
true that there will be counterbalances, including Gen. James Mattis,
the former Marine commander who has no illusions about Moscow and is
expected to be confirmed as defense secretary. But over all it looks as
if the Trump administration will be remarkably pro-Putin — astonishing
considering Putin’s Russia has killed journalists, committed war crimes in Ukraine and Syria and threatened the peaceful order in Europe.
So
it’s critical that the Senate, the news media and the public subject
Tillerson to intense scrutiny. There are other issues to explore as
well, including his role in enabling corruption in Chad, one of the
poorest countries in the world. The same is true of his role in complicity with the government of Angola, where oil corruption turned the president’s daughter into a billionaire even as children died of poverty and disease at a higher rate than anywhere else in the world.
Maybe
all this from Russia to Angola was just Tillerson trying to maximize
his company’s revenue, and he will act differently as secretary of
state. Maybe. But I’m skeptical that his ideology would change in
fundamental ways.
This
is not only about Tillerson just as the 1972 break-in was not only
about the Watergate building complex. This is about the integrity of
American democracy and whether a foreign dictator should be rewarded for
attacking the United States. It is about whether we are led by a
president or a poodle.
Mr.
Tigerli in China Copyright 2016 by Letizia Mancino translation by Mary Holmes All rights reserved
Yes Betty, either or it seems he wanted to fly only with
Singapore Airways.
Boeing or Airbus, it’s just the same
isn’t it? Aren’t they both just fat birds with 500 passengers?
Yes, but Singapore Airlines has the
most beautiful airhostesses: delicate, fine, graceful…Mr. Tigerli had looked forward to the flight
so much!
So the little man was disappointed?
You just can’t imagine how disappointed
he was.
But thank God one of the hostesses was a
pretty Chinese girl. Mr. Tigerli purred loudly but she didn’t hear him because
the purring of the Airbus 380 was even louder.
The poor cat!
You’ve said it Betty. Mr. Tigerli was
in a very bad mood and asked me for a loud speaker.
I’m sure you can get one in 1st
Class.
“”Russian Girl” had even heard you over
the roar of the Niagara Falls” I said to Mr. Tigerli. “You are a very
unfaithful cat. You wanted to get to know Asiatic girls. That’s how it is when
one leaves one’s first love”.
And what did he say to that?
“Men are hunters” was his answer.
Yes, my dear cat, a mouse hunter. And
what else did he say?
Not another word. He behaved as if he
hadn’t heard me.
The Airbus is very loud.
I told him shortly “Don’t trouble
yourself about “Chinese Girl”. There will be enough even prettier girls in
China. Wait till we land in Guilin”.
Did he understand you?
Naturally Mr. Tigerli understood me
immediately. Yes, sweetheart, don’t worry. They will find you something sweet
to eat.
And he?
He was so happy.
No problem going through the immigration
control?
Naturally!Lots of problems. How could I explain to
customs that the cat had come as a tourist to China to buy shoes?
Fur in exchange for shoes…
Don’t be so cynical Betty!
Cat meat in exchange for shoes?
I said to the officials. He isn’t a cat, he is Casanova.
Permalink
1
