Having let every lunatic out of the asylum, the Dems seem to expect a polite little convention to happen anyway. I originally thought the riot would be over Bernie not getting the nomination, but with what's going on now nominating an old-line Socialist like Bernie seems downright quaint.
[NYPost] Joe Biden plans to formally accept the Democratic presidential nomination in person at a scaled-back national party convention in Milwaukee later this summer. The former vice president will attend the final night of the four-day convention, set to kick off in the Wisconsin city on Aug. 17.
Posted by: Matt ||
06/22/2020 12:40 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11135 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Poor Joe has to have a scaled down convention, beyond his physical and mental inability to handle the rigours of a normal one. He had a rally of his own last week in Philadelphia, and about 20 people showed up. He had a virtual happy hour on YouTube for younger voters, reportedly maxing out at 2800 viewers. His address to the Wisconsin Democrats’ virtual convention had 68 viewers.
By contrast, after Democrat shenanigans and physical intimidation outside the building, 7,000 Republicans cheered President Trump’s speech live, and either 11.7 million or 13.7 million watched on Fox News and YouTube.
[Stars and Stripes] Democratic lawmakers have introduced legislation that would block President Donald Trump’s push to withdraw nearly 10,000 troops from Germany, warning that such a move would have catastrophic security consequences for the U.S. and benefit America’s adversaries.
President Trump’s superpower: to make Democrats and NeverTrumpers demand the exact opposite of their long-stated positions because they can’t stop hating him long enough to think.
“President Trump’s disastrous decision to withdraw thousands of troops from and reduce the total force cap in Germany endangers our national security,” the chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., said in a statement Thursday, when he and Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., proposed the legislation.
More posturing by House Democrats. Once again they’re puffing some thing that will be dead on arrival in the Senate, hoping to fool the rubes.
Menendez, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Russian President Vladimir Putin would benefit from the proposed drawdown.
“The current U.S. troop presence in Germany is in the U.S. national security interest. Full stop,” he said in a statement. “This drawdown weakens America and Europe. And Vladimir Putin understands and appreciates that better than anyone.”
The Russian Foreign Ministry last week welcomed the plan to withdraw more than a quarter of U.S. troops from Germany, saying it would help bolster security in Europe.
The legislation proposed by the Democrats would deny funding for force level reductions in Europe unless the cuts were requested by a host nation government. It would also require that 180 days’ notice be given for planned drawdowns in Europe, and that the secretaries of defense and state testify before Congress within 14 days of a proposed troop cut being announced. Read that part again:"would deny funding for force level reductions in Europe unless the cuts were requested by a host nation government". So what these idiot anti-Trumpers are doing is giving a foreign government veto power over CiC moves to better deploy troops, punish "allies" who don't align policy or ops with us, don't meet their defense commitments, or actively court our enemies, by, say purchasing S-400 systems from the Russians. Unconstitutional infringement on Executive powers as CiC
On Monday, Trump confirmed that he wants to reduce the number of troops in Germany by 9,500, and tied the proposed cut to his dissatisfaction with Berlin over the amount of money it spends on defense.
Trump has repeatedly complained that Germany is falling short of its commitment to NATO to spend at least 2% of GDP on its military.
Both Republicans and Democrats have aired concerns over the proposed troop cuts in Germany. More than 20 Republican lawmakers urged President Donald Trump earlier this month to reject the plan, saying the move would weaken the NATO alliance and encourage Russian aggression.
Before Russia’s 2014 incursion into Ukraine and the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula, it was routine for both Democratic and Republican lawmakers to complain about the number of troops in Europe and call for forces to return to the United States.
But Russia’s move on Ukraine changed that, and in recent years, efforts to strengthen the U.S. military presence in Europe have enjoyed bipartisan support.
It isn’t clear when Trump intends to execute his directive or which military units would be affected. Proponents of current force levels argue that a large reduction would hinder operations beyond Germany, since troops based there support efforts in places like the Baltics, Middle East and Africa.
The Pentagon, which appears to have been blindsided by Trump’s decision, has been mum on the issue. U.S. European Command also has declined to comment, referring questions to the National Security Council in Washington.
#3
The legislation proposed by the Democrats would deny funding for force level reductions in Europe unless the cuts were requested by a host nation government.
No problem. When troops rotate out, neglect to rotate new troops in.
#4
Yes, only bureaucrats in Washington can figure out how to make it cost more to take something away than to keep paying to leave it in place.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
06/22/2020 1:34 Comments ||
Top||
#5
At this point, I'd rather the Germans pay their own defense bills. We can train troops better and more cheaply here in the US. Just leave a versitale brigade sized force (Heavy Armored Cavalry regiment) in Germany at Grafenwhoer, an AFB with a couple remote fields, and POMCUS sites with small rotating garrisons. Thatsa all oyou need in Germany. Put the bulk of a Division with Corps elements in western Poland, rotate battalion combat teams regularly to joint exercises in the Baltics, Slovenia/Slovakia/Hungary/Romania/Western-Ukraine. Do a REFORE (E=Europe) off the POMCUS sitec every other year to mobilize and deploy into threatened areas. That should be enough to cost the Russians more time and money than its worth for them, as well as enough uncertainty to head off potential trouble. Maybe keep regular exercises in Norway with the small pre-positioned USMC depots there, and a small Garrison across the Dardanelles in Greece to keep Turkey's feet to the flames.
Thats all we should need there. Everything else comes home.
Posted by: Marilyn Tojo7566 ||
06/22/2020 1:51 Comments ||
Top||
#6
/\ Looks good! Flesh out a five year rotational schedule with cost estimates and get it into the POM.
#11
With the Civil War on the horizon, why would you want more politically 'unreliable' military formations back in the old country? Geez, even the Romans figured it out that it was better to keep the legions on the frontier rather than nearby when regime change was in the offing.
#12
The people expecting the US military to behave like the Argentine or Pakistani military will probably be disappointed. Events move too fast for PowerPoint to keep up.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
06/22/2020 8:09 Comments ||
Top||
#14
The legislation proposed by the Democrats would deny funding for force level reductions in Europe unless the cuts were requested by a host nation government.
Ditto Frank G's (green) inline. No! No way, no how. This is HOR rewriting US treaties and that is not their job. It's also unconstitutional, but when has that ever slowed them down?
A good reason to keep a few troops in Germany and many more in neighboring countries like Poland. The time may come when we need to smack Germany down again.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
06/22/2020 14:53 Comments ||
Top||
#21
#11 With the Civil War on the horizon, why would you want more politically 'unreliable' military formations back in the old country? Geez, even the Romans figured it out that it was better to keep the legions on the frontier rather than nearby when regime change was in the offing.
#3
He may be a fine fellow to have a beer with, but he's a hawkish Yale lawyer and consummate beltway insider, who advocates for international regime change and has never deployed in uniform anywhere or been elected to anything.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Stars and Stripes] Democratic lawmakers have introduced legislation that would block President Donald Trump’s push to withdraw nearly 10,000 troops from Germany, warning that such a move would have catastrophic security consequences for the U.S. and benefit America’s adversaries.
