Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Mattis, Pompeo, Kelly, Bolton, Coats: Resign Now

Since the secretary of defense, secretary of state, White House chief of staff, national security advisor, and director of national intelligence have been unwilling or unable to convince President Trump to faithfully defend the interests of the United States, they are in violation of their own oaths. It is time for them all to resign.

 

Lobelog

 

Every elected and appointed U.S. official, other than the president, must take the following oath:

I, ____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

It is no longer possible for any senior official in the Trump administration to uphold that obligation.

There is no question that Russia attacked the most sacred institution of American democracy: the system of free and fair elections. In 2017 the intelligence community issued, with “high confidence,” its unified assessment that “Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election” in order “to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.” Such activities “demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.”

Earlier this month the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, chaired by Republican Senator Richard Burr, affirmed that the intelligence community’s findings were “accurate and on point” and that “Russian cyber operations were more extensive than the hack of the Democratic National Committee and continued well through the 2016 election.”

On July 13, Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted 12 Russian military intelligence officers, acting in their official capacity, for engaging in “large-scale cyber operations to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”

In many ways, this attack is far more serious than the type of military aggression the United States has spent trillions of dollars over the past 70 years to deter and repel. Rather than seizing U.S. territory, Russia has stolen the integrity of the constitutional system that our soldiers and diplomats risk their lives to protect.

Yet President Trump has not condemned the ongoing assault or punished the man who directed it. Instead, he held a friendly meeting with Russian autocrat Vladimir Putin, announcing afterwards that he believes Putin’s denials over the findings of U.S. intelligence agencies. Trump not only declined to confront Putin over Russia’s cyber invasion of America, but blamed the special counsel, not Russian meddling, for keeping the two countries apart.

There is nothing wrong with holding talks with an adversary. There is nothing wrong with critically assessing the judgments of U.S. intelligence agencies. And there is nothing wrong with acknowledging that the United States, too, has a long history of secretly interfering in democratic elections (see: Chile, Congo, Guatemala, Iran).

Where Trump crosses the line is in failing to perform his sworn duty to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States. By acquiescing to the Russian attack—whether or not he and his campaign actually had a hand in its direction and execution—he is now, in effect, the agent of a foreign power.

Americans of all political persuasions have hoped or assumed that senior national security officials would keep the president from acting on his worst instincts, as former Secretary of State Tillerson and former National Security Advisor McMaster did when Trump proposed invading Venezuela. But none of them was in the room with Trump and Putin.

Since Secretary of Defense Mattis, Secretary of State Pompeo, White House Chief of Staff Kelly, National Security Advisor Bolton, and director of national intelligence have been unwilling or unable to convince President Trump to faithfully defend the interests of the United States, they are in violation of their own oaths. It is time for them all to resign.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…


Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.


The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


RightWeb
share