Why Can’t We Be Friends?

This week on The Big Show®, we converse about the Kurds, talk about the limits of woke corporatism with David French, and get the low down on Kim Strassel’s new book Resistance (At All Costs): How Trump Haters Are Breaking America (buy it!). Also, Ricochet member @doctorrobert wins this week’s coveted Lileks Post of The Week for his two (!) posts Why We Need People Who Have ‘Too Much Money’ and Memories of the Cleveland Orchestra, 10/4/19. Well done, Doc! Finally, can Ellen Degeneres and George W. Bush be friends? Some folks insist that they cannot. Weird. Hey, speaking of friends, don’t forget to weigh in on this week’s Long Poll as it asks a similar question.

Music from this week’s show: Why Can’t We Be Friends? by War

 

Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 103 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Taras (View Comment):

    ericB (View Comment):

    There is strong bipartisan objection to this disastrous Syria withdrawal decision by Trump.

    It is time for bipartisan impeachment and removal of “loose cannon Trump”. Congress should clear its calendar and get it done without delay. This is not like earlier impeachment fishing expeditions.

    1. This will not depend on contrived dossiers, secret anonymous sources, waiting for redacted released info, or he-said-she-said arguments over conflicting nuanced interpretations of who did what and what was meant or intended.
    2. There is no doubt that Trump had been warned against this rash error.
    3. There is no doubt whatsoever that this decision was Trump’s call despite the warnings of wise council. He personally owns it.
    4. Information about the disastrous consequences is available and apparent to all.
    5. There is widespread agreement that this is contrary to U.S. interests in multiple ways, both in the short term and in the long term (e.g. betraying allies, helping ISIS, and facilitating ethnic cleansing for a start).
    6. The deep disconnect between reality and Trump’s failure of judgement is further demonstrated by every Trump tweet or public statement by Trump that claims that this disaster could not have been foreseen, or that someone else is to blame, or that it was really a good decision after all.
    7. When a sufficient consensus of Congress determines and collectively agrees there has been sufficiently egregious malpractice by the President, impeachment and removal is the constitutionally provided remedy. Let’s get it done ASAP and begin to recover.

    Is this some kind of parody I’m not getting? Even the screwiest impeachment supporters try to base it on some kind of “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

    By this standard, just about every President we’ve had should have been impeached. Obama’s mistake in pulling out of Iraq was one hundred times as serious; let’s not even mention JFK and LBJ.

    Even in the worst case scenario, American interests are only peripherally involved in Syria.

     

    It would be a seismic shift in American Politics to legitimize removing a President because of policy differences with the Congress.

    • #91
  2. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Is it true Peter was missing because he was in Florida looking at houses?

    • #92
  3. ericB Lincoln
    ericB
    @ericB

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Is this some kind of parody I’m not getting? Even the screwiest impeachment supporters try to base it on some kind of “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

    By this standard, just about every President we’ve had should have been impeached. Obama’s mistake in pulling out of Iraq was one hundred times as serious; let’s not even mention JFK and LBJ.

    Even in the worst case scenario, American interests are only peripherally involved in Syria.

     

    It would be a seismic shift in American Politics to legitimize removing a President because of policy differences with the Congress.

    You are completely correct that mere “policy differences with the Congress” are not grounds for removal.

    The idea that the Constitution’s reference to “high crimes and misdemeanors” is a narrow reference to violating criminal law is an incorrect minority perspective. “The generally accepted viewpoint is much broader. It defines high crimes and misdemeanors as any serious abuse of power—including both legal and illegal activities.” The words refer to “criminal actions as well as any serious misuse or abuse of office”.

    As for Obama, see Andrew McCarthy.

    Trump’s issue is not mere policy preference favoring diminished US Middle East presence. Trump abused the authority of his office with his disastrous unplanned gut impulse use of power, resulting in egregious harms both to US interests and allies.

    If any president significantly abuses presidential power, the constitution’s safeguard remedy is impeachment and removal.

    • #93
  4. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    IMO, “high crimes and misdemeanors” means you are corroding the efficacy and intent of the constitution or the structures it set up. I will be glad to take that back on new information, too. 

    • #94
  5. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    ericB (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Is this some kind of parody I’m not getting? Even the screwiest impeachment supporters try to base it on some kind of “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

    By this standard, just about every President we’ve had should have been impeached. Obama’s mistake in pulling out of Iraq was one hundred times as serious; let’s not even mention JFK and LBJ.

    Even in the worst case scenario, American interests are only peripherally involved in Syria.

     

    It would be a seismic shift in American Politics to legitimize removing a President because of policy differences with the Congress.

    You are completely correct that mere “policy differences with the Congress” are not grounds for removal.

    The idea that the Constitution’s reference to “high crimes and misdemeanors” is a narrow reference to violating criminal law is an incorrect minority perspective. “The generally accepted viewpoint is much broader. It defines high crimes and misdemeanors as any serious abuse of power—including both legal and illegal activities.” The words refer to “criminal actions as well as any serious misuse or abuse of office”.

    As for Obama, see Andrew McCarthy.

    Trump’s issue is not mere policy preference favoring diminished US Middle East presence. Trump abused the authority of his office with his disastrous unplanned gut impulse use of power, resulting in egregious harms both to US interests and allies.

    If any president significantly abuses presidential power, the constitution’s safeguard remedy is impeachment and removal.

    Again, I’m not sure this isn’t a leg-pull. 

    Nobody’s arguing Trump doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to move a handful of troops, just that they think it’s unwise in this particular case.

     The “egregious harm” is very debatable, given that Turkey is an ally vastly more important than this particular Kurdish faction.

    • #95
  6. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Taras (View Comment):
     The “egregious harm” is very debatable, given that Turkey is an ally vastly more important than this particular Kurdish faction.

    Andrew Wilco was reading an article about this. What a freaking mess. NATO really needs Turkey apparently. 

    I think the big mistake was invading Iraq and not controlling it. Paul Bremmer kicked out all those low level functionaries in the Baath party. Then you had all kinds of knock on effects and bad decisions after that. None of these guys know what they’re doing.

    • #96
  7. ericB Lincoln
    ericB
    @ericB

    Taras (View Comment):

    Nobody’s arguing Trump doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to move a handful of troops,

    Correct.

    Taras (View Comment):

    … just that they think it’s unwise in this particular case.

    No, not just “unwise”.

    Legitimate Constitutional authority can be misused.  Impeachment and removal is the Constitution’s political remedy for removing someone from a position of executive authority such as for serious misuses of their otherwise legitimate authority.  (Removing legislators has a different process.)  This is distinct from the question of prosecuting someone for criminal violations.  Recommended: How Impeachment Works.

    The question isn’t at all whether Trump has the authority to move troops.  It is whether he seriously misused that authority.

    “This January, in Afrin, after the last Turkish invasion, they hunted down Christian converts from Islam door to door, to impose the sharia penalty. That is, death.”  Turkey is An Islamist Aggressor.

    That is the Islamist that Trump sought to accommodate on an impulse after their phone conversation.  The reason Erdogan wanted us out of the way was so that they could begin their jihad against our SDF allies (not terrorists) who defeated ISIS (who the Turks had financed by buying ISIS oil).

    Tump didn’t move us out of the Middle East.  Instead, he used his authority to relocate these troops out of Erdogan’s way, thereby enabling Erdogan to attack another country and begin ethnic cleansing.

    Moving troops to facilitate international ethnic cleansing is immoral and a gross misuse of Presidential authority.

    • #97
  8. Hartmann von Aue Member
    Hartmann von Aue
    @HartmannvonAue

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    The Long Poll has not yet been updated.

    It actually had been updated but probably you were seeing a cached version of the sidebar.

    Not thrilled with the questions.

    If you can’t get along with a liberal friend, then they’re not a liberal.

    It should be “lefties”

     

    Yup. This is a pet peeve of mine. Don´t call them liberal because they aren´t. Their motiving life-philosophies are all varying degrees of  totalitarianism. 

    • #98
  9. Jager Coolidge
    Jager
    @Jager

    ericB (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Nobody’s arguing Trump doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to move a handful of troops,

    Correct.

    Taras (View Comment):

    … just that they think it’s unwise in this particular case.

    No, not just “unwise”.

    Legitimate Constitutional authority can be misused. Impeachment and removal is the Constitution’s political remedy for removing someone from a position of executive authority such as for serious misuses of their otherwise legitimate authority. (Removing legislators has a different process.) This is distinct from the question of prosecuting someone for criminal violations. Recommended: How Impeachment Works.

    The question isn’t at all whether Trump has the authority to move troops. It is whether he seriously misused that authority.

    “This January, in Afrin, after the last Turkish invasion, they hunted down Christian converts from Islam door to door, to impose the sharia penalty. That is, death.” Turkey is An Islamist Aggressor.

    That is the Islamist that Trump sought to accommodate on an impulse after their phone conversation. The reason Erdogan wanted us out of the way was so that they could begin their jihad against our SDF allies (not terrorists) who defeated ISIS (who the Turks had financed by buying ISIS oil).

    Tump didn’t move us out of the Middle East. Instead, he used his authority to relocate these troops out of Erdogan’s way, thereby enabling Erdogan to attack another country and begin ethnic cleansing.

    Moving troops to facilitate international ethnic cleansing is immoral and a gross misuse of Presidential authority.

    Would Turkey let us use the air bases we have in Turkey to fight the Turkish Army?

    You seem to want to ignore what Lileks was say about fighting a NATO ally. Our two allies are about to fight, Trump got our handful of troops out of harms way. You really think we do ourselves a big favor by fighting a true “ally”, meaning someone we have a treaty with?

    If Turkey is as bad as you say, and I just don’t know anything I am not doubting you, then the response is not just to abandon 50 troops in the middle of a shooting war, but to kick Turkey out of NATO.

    • #99
  10. ericB Lincoln
    ericB
    @ericB

    Jager (View Comment):
    If Turkey is as bad as you say, and I just don’t know anything I am not doubting you, then the response is not just to abandon 50 troops in the middle of a shooting war, but to kick Turkey out of NATO.

    I’ve heard it said (though I don’t know myself) that there are no provisions for kicking any country out of NATO.  If so, it was doubly foolish to let Turkey into NATO.

    Jager (View Comment):
    You seem to want to ignore what Lileks was say about fighting a NATO ally. Our two allies are about to fight, Trump got our handful of troops out of harms way. You really think we do ourselves a big favor by fighting a true “ally”, meaning someone we have a treaty with?

    Trump wasn’t faced with a situation where he needed to initiate a fight against Turkey.  That simply isn’t what happened.  What transpired was that Turkey wanted to attack our SDF allies and couldn’t because we were present.  Attacking them meant attacking us, a NATO ally.  Our presence (while it lasted) was preventing Turkey from engaging in the ethnic cleansing they wanted to undertake.

    Trump announced our pullback on a Sunday.  It was on the Wednesday after Trump’s announcement that Turkey began their offensive with the Orwellian upside down name of “Operation Peace Spring”.  Our presence was preventing that operation.  Trump’s misuse of power enabled international ethnic cleansing.

    • #100
  11. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    ericB (View Comment):
    I’ve heard it said (though I don’t know myself) that there are no provisions for kicking any country out of NATO. If so, it was doubly foolish to let Turkey into NATO.

    It happened in 1952.

    NATO should have been comprehensively reset after the USSR fell. Completely new charter or whatever.

    • #101
  12. ericB Lincoln
    ericB
    @ericB

    Jager (View Comment):
    If Turkey is as bad as you say, and I just don’t know anything I am not doubting you,

    p.s. To be fair to the historical record, for a while it wasn’t as bad as it is now.

    Turkey used to have a distinction between the government (which was enforced to be secular by the backing of the military) and the culture (which was majority Muslim with pro-Islamist sentiments).  If an elected leader tried to push the country toward a Sharia style government, the military would take them out of power with a coup.

    That Turkey (with a secular, non-Islamist government) is the Turkey that was allowed into NATO.

    The U.S. participated in opposing the military coups.  Understandably, we don’t like the idea of a military coup, but ironically the elimination of military coups is exactly what allowed Erdogan to begin to push Turkey away from secular government and toward his Islamist preferences.  That is what recently gave us the invasion of Afrin, Syria and the deliberate execution of people who had converted away from Islam, among other atrocities then …

    … and now, including implementing “peace” by seeking to destroy the very people who defeated ISIS (which had received support from “peaceful” Turkey).

    • #102
  13. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    ericB (View Comment):

    Jager (View Comment):
    If Turkey is as bad as you say, and I just don’t know anything I am not doubting you,

    p.s. To be fair to the historical record, for a while it wasn’t as bad as it is now.

    Turkey used to have a distinction between the government (which was enforced to be secular by the backing of the military) and the culture (which was majority Muslim with pro-Islamist sentiments). If an elected leader tried to push the country toward a Sharia style government, the military would take them out of power with a coup.

    That Turkey (with a secular, non-Islamist government) is the Turkey that was allowed into NATO.

    The U.S. participated in opposing the military coups. Understandably, we don’t like the idea of a military coup, but ironically the elimination of military coups is exactly what allowed Erdogan to begin to push Turkey away from secular government and toward his Islamist preferences. That is what recently gave us the invasion of Afrin, Syria and the deliberate execution of people who had converted away from Islam, among other atrocities then …

    … and now, including implementing “peace” by seeking to destroy the very people who defeated ISIS (which had received support from “peaceful” Turkey).

    I see this screwup stuff everywhere, but no one talks about it that much. I highly doubt that State Department and CIA etc. net out.

    • #103
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.