Why he mad
I guess this is why Trump is saying he knows better than the intelligence people: they were telling senators he’s got everything wrong yesterday.
In open testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday morning, leaders of the intelligence community knocked down the president’s talking points about ISIS, the nuclear capabilities of Iran and North Korea, and the value of NATO.
CIA Director Gina Haspel confirmed to Sen. Angus King (I-ME) that Iran is not currently violating the terms of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Last May, President Donald Trump claimed without evidence that Iran had violated its terms and withdrew the United States from the agreement.
We see reporters saying “President Donald Trump claimed without evidence” a lot, because he does that a lot. He just makes shit up, all the time, with no caution or hesitation or embarrassment or anything else you would expect from a grown-ass adult making shit up in public. It’s weird living under a President Toddler.
Haspel, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, and Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Gen. Robert Ashley also told the committee that North Korea was unlikely to give up its nuclear weapons because Kim Jong Un sees them as essential to protecting his regime.
Duh.
Trump, after a meeting with Kim in Singapore in 2018, claimed without evidence that the country was no longer a nuclear threat to the United States.
Just landed – a long trip, but everybody can now feel much safer than the day I took office. There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea. Meeting with Kim Jong Un was an interesting and very positive experience. North Korea has great potential for the future!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 13, 2018
n his opening statements, Coats also laid out the U.S. Intelligence Community’s consensus view that ISIS has not been defeated, knocking down a popular Trump talking point. Trump announced in December that ISIS was defeated in Syria, although he cited no evidence, and said that this success justified pulling U.S. troops out of Syria.
“While ISIS is nearing territorial defeat,” Coats said, “the group has returned to its guerilla warfare roots while continuing to plot attacks and direct its supporters worldwide. ISIS is intent on resurging and still commands thousands of fighters.”
But Trump claims without evidence that he knows better.
Coats also emphasized the importance of NATO in countering China and Russia’s growing power and influence as U.S. adversaries. He claimed China and Russia are increasingly aligned and coordinating, an aspect of his opening statements King said was alarming and overlooked. Coats’ 2019 national intelligence strategy, issued the week before the hearing, emphasized that China and Russia would coordinate to expand their global influence as the West became more isolationist.
Trump has actively pushed isolationist foreign policies, and has railed against key U.S. alliances like NAFTA and NATO.
But Coats emphasized the strategic importance of coordinating with NATO allies in countering Russia’s influence efforts. NATO, Coats said, was needed to push back on autocratic tendencies within Europe, but it was also essential for NATO to counter Russia’s goal of destabilizing European unity and the U.S.-European alliance.
With Trump’s eager assistance.
The intelligence leaders, in their testimony, also offered a consensus view that Russia would meddle in the 2020 U.S. election; that the government shutdown was harmful to the intelligence community; and that climate change presents a significant security threat to the United States.
But Trump claims without evidence that he knows better.
And everybody else.
I’m waiting for the headline “TRUMP LIES”. But, well, that’s not exactly news, is it, since we all already know that? (I think his supporters do, too, it’s just they’re fine with it because they are the “right” sort of lies).
It’s only barely on topic but this sort of thing reminds me of a talk I was asked to do to a bunch of air force, army and navy types, along with some of the big military hardware contractors. I didn’t want to do it but I kind of had to and it was a subject I knew something about: how to use AI to make joint military operations more effective.
I really sweated over writing this talk, but in the end I just put up one slide, which read:
I am cooperating with the police
I am coordinating with the police
I am colluding with the police
And we all had a discussion about what those statements mean. It turned out to be a lot better than any talk I could have given. The point, of course, was expectation management. Everyone had a different idea about what joint operations meant, how they should be carried out, how important they were, how to measure success and so on. Making the discussion overtly political (and in a personal rather than a military domain) helped some of the people there realise what some of the enormous difficulties are. It’s not just that the AI in your defense grid can’t talk to the AI in someone else’s missiles, it’s that nobody can even agree on what anyone is trying to achieve.
Three points:
1. That was the only thing I ever did for any military applications. On balance, if it achieved anything at all I like to think it was slightly less shooting fuck out of people as opposed to slightly more if someone else had given the talk.
2. Yes, I am deeply ashamed of doing it anyway. It didn’t seem right before, during or after and I wouldn’t do it these days. The fact that I smarmed my way out of talking about what they wanted me to doesn’t get me off the hook. Although it actually was a very interesting discussion.
3. Every time I hear Trump talk about COLLUSION I think of that discussion. I want to get him in a headlock and then politely ask him about the blurry differences between cooperation, coordination and collusion.
Because that’s what this issue is going to turn out to be about.