« East of Aleppo - TTG | Main | Open Thread - 1 March 2017 »

28 February 2017

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Eric Newhill

Truly magnificent. Very unifying. Lots of strong leadership. Reinforced my pride in being an American - not just the ideas and emotional chords in the speech, but the behavior of the opposition.

I am glad the Ds didn't act out as anticipated. There is hope for the republic.

Merca

I expected a bit more and new definitions. I didn't like much the statement about the unconditional support for Israel and more aggression against Iran. If he keeps on going like this, I think my short dream of America leading the way to peace instead of keep on leading the war way, will be gone soon.

Stumpy

I would regard this as the Trump Moonshot speech -- he set the agenda and put the onus on the opposition party to play along. Let's see if they follow through on a good defense spending plan and support for vets.

raven

There is a time and place for everything.

alba etie

All
It will be interesting to see which part of the Muvaney budget President Trump actually can get approved . Do we really need a fifty four billion dollars plus up for the DOD ? But yes it was a masterfully written and delivered speech by POTUS 45 .

Lars

I think what was not said is important too. Nothing about Russia, Syria, Afghanistan. A lot of rhetoric that will require a lot of political skills to enact. No mention of how to pay for the rather large proposed programs.

I think it was more theatrical than substantial and pretty soon, we will have the @realDonaldTrump back and then this speech will soon be forgotten.

Politics is still broken and reading a speech will not change that. Getting down on the floor in that sausage factory has to happen. I have seen very little of that yet. It will not be easy when you have to work with the ones you spent a year insulting.

While it was nice that he celebrated a fallen hero, but after awhile it became exploiting a widow's grief for political gain. Possibly because there are bothersome questions about the action that got that soldier killed.

Those who think this was Trump 2.0 will soon find that it was just Trump 1.1.

Edward Amame

Good speech bad speech, I dunno and don't really care. Actual legislation is somewhere in limbo and and "Who knew health care is so complicated" suggests Trump's in over his head regarding the policy issues facing him.

Ken Halliwell

Now, it's up to Congress to figure out how to lower our taxes while paying for everything POTUS wants without increasing federal debt. Good luck!

I'm waiting to see whether or not DJT can follow his own request/advice to stop engaging in "trivial fights."

makelovenotwar

It is time that we, as professional military officers, accept the fact that we lost the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Objective analysis of the U.S. military’s effectiveness in these wars can only conclude that we were unable to translate tactical victory into operational and strategic success.1 As military professionals, it is not sufficient to offload the responsibility for these failures, at least in their entirety, to decision makers in Washington or in perceived lack of support from other governmental agencies. We must divorce ourselves from the notion that criticism of our performance is an indictment or devaluation of the sacrifices our Marines made on the battlefield. Like many of you, I lost Marines in the “Long War” as well. It has taken several years of personal struggle to arrive at the conclusions I am writing now. What makes this necessary, however, is that if you accept the objective, yet repulsive, fact that our Marines died on the losing side of our most recent wars, you cannot then accept that the status quo of the Marine Corps, and the larger defense establishment, is in an acceptable state of affairs. This is further compounded by future forecasts of conflicts with adversaries that are beginning to look like more like peers despite the self-aggrandizing “near-peer” label we assign them.2 We allow ourselves to look at our impressive defense budget and expensive systems and throw around hyperbole about the United States having the greatest military in the world. How, then, have we been bested by malnourished and undereducated men with antiquated and improvised weaponry whilst spending trillions of dollars in national treasure and costing the lives of thousands of servicemen and hundreds of thousands of civilians? Judging military capability by the metric of defense expenditures is a false equivalency. All that matters are raw, quantifiable capabilities and measures of effectiveness. For example: a multi-billion dollar aircraft carrier that can be bested by a few million dollars in the form of a swarming missile barrage or a small unmanned aircraft system (UAS) capable of rendering its flight deck unusable does not retain its dollar value in real terms. Neither does the M1A1 tank, which is defeated by $20 worth of household items and scrap metal rendered into an explosively-formed projectile. The Joint Improvised Threat Defeat Organization has a library full of examples like these, and that is without touching the weaponized return on investment in terms of industrial output and capability development currently being employed by our conventional adversaries.

Hood Canal Gardner

Sorry Pat, all the man did was read. I've yet to see anything with substance that he's written by himself. If I'm wrong I'll gladly stand corrected. Punt.

The Twisted Genius

In this speech Trump showed us the President he aspires to be. It certainly hasn't been the President he's been for the last few weeks. It was inspirational, true to his agenda, but without a path forward to accomplish that agenda. He should have given something like this at his inauguration. But if he governs as the President who gave that speech last night, he will go much farther in finding a path to fulfill some of that agenda. I don't know if he has it in him to keep it up.

Fred

AE,

Do we really need federally directed policies for bathrooms? One can easily pick and choose from last year's budget what isn't needed - but that's a political decision decided on November 8th, wasn't it?
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2016-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2016-BUD.pdf

JJackson

All
I saw the Israel good, Iran bad bit and the repeat of 'an inherited mess in the Middle East' but again I do not see which bits he means and what he plans to change or do about it. The two FP aspects he has referred to seem to be at the heart of the mess and without a change in attitude towards these two countries I can not see how he hopes to do other than continue the misadventure.

Thomas101st

Empty words intended to further inflate the bubble economy and the ponzi stock market. Trump plans an increase in military spending and a trillion dollar infrastructure program while reducing taxes by trillions more on trust fund babies and corporate fatas*es. Oh, and of course, spend billions/trillions defending the Israeli invaders of Palestine against the "evil Iranians". If Congress goes along it looks like a replay of Bush 43 to me.

Tyler

Sir,

Agree on all point. The Democrats had to resort to passive aggressive antics. It seems like using US steel and honoring the wife of a dead SEAL really bothers them.

Its going to be a long eight years for them.

Castellio

A reply from Sanders. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eK-5ivYb3o

Valissa

Trump critic Van Jones: ‘One of the most extraordinary moments you have ever seen in American politics, period’ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/28/trump-critic-van-jones-one-of-the-most-extraordinary-moments-you-have-ever-seen-in-american-politics-period/

turcopolier

All

1. All presidents read speeches to Congress. If they do not, they are fools. 2. His legislative program is not yet passed into law. This is an impossibly high standard. The man has only been in office a few weeks. pl

Tyler

Some of you need to drop the autistic insistence on "he has to be THIS or THAT". He can mix it up on an individual level and give grand, stirring speeches.

Both are effective rhetorical tools to get one's point across.

Tyler

One of the better comments of the night was Ann Counter responding to a picture of a wide eyed, obviously worried Mitch McConnel with "When you realise that you have to tell your big business cronies thier cheap labor influx is done".

BillWade

Tyler, I liked this one from Thomas DiLorenzo, "Nancy Pelosi had a look of horror on her face, as though President Trump had just announced a moratorium on plastic surgery."

LeaNder

I wondered if she felt a little uncomfortable, with all the attention centered on her. But then? Also the most effective rallying point.

Possibly because there are bothersome questions about the action that got that soldier killed.

A little background on what led to the invitation of Carryn Owens, the widow of "Chief Special Warfare Operator William 'Ryan' Owens". In any case the raid was planned before Trump took over.

http://time.com/4657513/trump-owens-navy-seal-yemen-raid/?iid=sr-link3

Trump: We are blessed to be joined tonight by Carryn Owens, the widow of a U.S. Navy Special Operator, Senior Chief William "Ryan" Owens. Ryan died as he lived: a warrior, and a hero --- battling against terrorism and securing our Nation.
I just spoke to General Mattis, who reconfirmed that, and I quote, "Ryan was a part of a highly successful raid that generated large amounts of vital intelligence that will lead to many more victories in the future against our enemies." Ryan's legacy is etched into eternity. For as the Bible teaches us, there is no greater act of love than to lay down one's life for one's friends. Ryan laid down his life for his friends, for his country, and for our freedom --- we will never forget him.

ISL

your question is excellent and one would hope will re-invigorate a critical post mortem to address obvious strategic, logistical, and structural deficiencies (but probably not as they would interfere with some big contracts, like the F-35).

I think even more important is to evaluate tactics, strategies, and weapons used by the Russia in Syria not to get bogged down in as Obama predicted with a gleam in his eye "a quagmire." Aside from the details, I think Russian politics and strategies were better integrated than US policies (military, financial, geo-political) have been.

We are the Microsoft of the world, getting by with buggy lousy software thanks to a near monopoly. (Warning note for resting on laurels, computing is shifting to the cloud (Google) and Bill Gates got his money out of Microsoft at the right time.

LeaNder

I thought I saw applause on some matters on the side of the Democrats, not least including US steel and the killed US Navy Seal ...

Fred

makelovenotwar,

"It is time that we, as professional military officers,..."

The constitution places all authority over the US military entirely in the hands of the civilian government.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

September 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
Blog powered by Typepad