• Welcome to our new home!

    Please share any thoughts or issues here.


Why they wanted him dead before the convention:

Matt Collins

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
47,707
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4804488-republicans-alarmed-trump-war-ukraine/


The full article:

National security-minded Republican lawmakers are alarmed by what they see as a growing split between themselves and former President Trump on key issues, including the war in Ukraine, preserving the NATO alliance and protecting Taiwan from Chinese aggression.


Trump’s actions over the past three weeks have stirred confusion and concern among Republican senators who voted earlier this year to approve tens of billions of dollars to contain Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and to deter China from attacking Taiwan, an important U.S. ally and trading partner.


Defense-minded GOP senators viewed Trump’s invitation to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán to visit him at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida after the NATO summit in Washington as a worrisome development, given Orbán’s close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin and his efforts to undermine NATO’s support for the defense of Ukraine.


GOP senators who support U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine were dismayed when Trump selected Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), who led the opposition to the Ukrainian assistance package, as his running mate.


And Senate Republicans are feeling uneasy about Trump’s assertion that Taiwan should pay more for its defense and refusal to commit to defending the island.


One Republican senator, who requested anonymity, said “it’s a big question” whether Trump will support the war in Ukraine or would come to Taiwan’s defense if attacked by China.


“I don’t think he desires to be in conflict or to pay for conflicts around the world,” the senator observed.


“There’s no question where JD Vance is,” the lawmaker said of Trump’s selection of the Ohio senator as his running mate.


And the senator called Trump’s meeting with Orbán at Mar-a-Lago “concerning.”


“I can’t tell you why he’s doing it,” the lawmaker remarked.


Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) argued earlier this year that the Republican Party has “turned the corner on the isolationist movement” within its ranks when a majority of GOP senators voted for a $95 billion foreign aid package, which included $61 billion for Ukraine.


But that’s now in doubt after Trump picked Vance to join him on the GOP ticket.


Opponents of continued funding for the war in Ukraine cheered the selection and touted it as a sign Trump would change course if elected in November.


“JD is probably one of the most outspoken individuals about continuing to fuel the flames of that bloody stalemate. I happen to agree with him. I think President Trump does as well,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who opposes sending more funding to Ukraine.


Johnson said Vance’s selection as Trump’s running mate “kind of confirms the position of, hopefully, the next administration.”


“The president said he’d end that thing in 24 hours,” Johnson said, referring to Trump’s comments on the war.


Vance told The Hill in April that the $61 billion approved for Ukraine would be the last major assistance package of its kind to get through Congress.


“If Ukraine thinks that it’s getting another $60 billion supplemental out of the United States Congress, there’s no way,” Vance said.


McConnell told reporters he will support the GOP ticket with Vance on it but insisted he’s going to keep arguing for the importance of stopping Russia’s invasion.


“I support the ticket. I also support Ukraine, and I’m going to be arguing, no matter who gets elected president” for deterring Russian aggression, McConnell said. “It’s not just Ukraine, we’ve got worldwide organized authoritarian regimes talking to each other — China, North Korea, Russia, Iran and Iran’s proxies.


“This is a serious challenge,” he warned. “This is the single largest problem facing the democratic world, no matter who wins the election. And that’s what I’m going to be working on the next couple years.”


McConnell didn’t explicitly criticize Trump for meeting with Orbán in Florida but made it clear he views the Hungarian strongman as NATO’s “weakest” member and someone who has undermined U.S. security interests in Europe.


“He’s the one member of NATO who’s essentially turned his country over to the Chinese and the Russians. [He’s] been looking for ways to undermine NATO’s efforts to defeat the Russians in Ukraine. So Viktor Orbán, I think, has now made Hungary the most recent problem in NATO,” McConnell said.


McConnell also spoke out about the need to stand with Taiwan and other Far East allies when asked about Trump’s reluctance to commit to defending the island nation, which is a major source of semiconductors for U.S. industry.


“We don’t know yet who’s going to be the new administration. But it’s pretty clear that our allies in Asia, and now you can add the Philippines to the group, are all concerned about Chinese aggression. They are watching what happens to Russia in Ukraine carefully,” he said.


“This is the clearest example of the democratic world needing to stand up to these authoritarians,” he said. “Reagan had it right. There’s one thing that works. Peace you get through strength.”


Other Republican senators are balking at Trump’s pick of Vance as his running mate and outreach to Orbán.


A second GOP senator who requested anonymity voiced hope that former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who served under Trump, would serve as Defense secretary in a new Trump administration and convince him to stay the course in supporting Ukraine.


The lawmaker blamed the influence of conservative media personality Tucker Carlson in pushing Trump toward Vance and Orbán.


“Not the way I would do it,” the senator said.


A third Republican senator said McConnell and other GOP colleagues aren’t happy with how Trump’s recent moves telegraph how he might run foreign policy out of the White House if he’s elected in November.


“I think Trump goes in and tries to negotiate a deal [to end the war in Ukraine] where they cede certain territory to Putin knowing that Putin can’t walk away a loser. Putin’s only graceful exit from this is Zelensky and company ceding some territory, the Russian-speaking parks of Ukraine,” the senator said, predicting that Trump will lean on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.


“My guess is that doesn’t sit well with McConnell, at all. But Trump and McConnell have had a pretty rocky relationship,” the source said.


Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), an outspoken advocate for supporting the war in Ukraine and a McConnell ally, told reporters Wednesday he thinks Trump is open to continued U.S. support for Ukraine.


“If you take a look at the fact that we passed a $60 billion-plus supplemental package [for Ukraine], the House passed it, I’ve got to believe there was some tacit support from Trump … or he could have blocked it,” Tillis said. “It’s on us to convince President Trump why it’s in our best national interest to support Ukraine.”


But other GOP senators are skeptical that Trump will support sending tens of billions of dollars in additional military aid to Ukraine if he returns to the White House.


“His instinct is always toward nonintervention, caution. I don’t know that there’s well-formed philosophy about this is. It’s just his gut. He kind of does this by gut, and his gut is nonintervention,” said a fifth GOP senator who requested anonymity.
 
Last edited:
What's up with these senators requesting anonymity? Is it perhaps they realize that their pro-war position might be unpopular enough to cost them re-election? I can't think of any other reason. What happened to the GOP that was once proudly pro-war and destruction?
 
It was so they could crown Hindi Haley as the new queen of the party.
And whether she won or lost they would have their wars and boot MAGA out of the party.
 
What's up with these senators requesting anonymity? Is it perhaps they realize that their pro-war position might be unpopular enough to cost them re-election? I can't think of any other reason. What happened to the GOP that was once proudly pro-war and destruction?
We are winning.
 
Put Rand or Massie in the WH, give the Neocons a legit reason to be scared.
 
“This is the clearest example of the democratic world needing to stand up to these authoritarians,” he said. “Reagan had it right. There’s one thing that works. Peace you get through strength.”

Except the rest of the world is kind of up to speed on a few things:
a) Reagan's military buildup and deficit spending had little to do with the USSR collapsing,
b) Strength does not equate to getting involved in proxy wars and we have history going back 60 years to show that's a bad idea,
c) Nobody's concealing the fact that there are plenty of other wars we don't get involved in that are more righteous but don't line the pockets of the MIC

“His instinct is always toward nonintervention, caution. I don’t know that there’s well-formed philosophy about this is. It’s just his gut. He kind of does this by gut, and his gut is nonintervention,”

I guess we're never going to get a fair hearing on this. Nonintervention has plenty of well-formed philosophy behind it. Primarily, the fact that if we don't intervene we don't have to develop reams of philosophy to justify that action.

I think we should force legislators to find an apiary and buy 5 lb of wax every year, and have a big ceremony where we melt it and pour it all in their hair, and yell "Oh, do you mind this? Do you mind that it's happening?" Just so we can know there's at least one time a year when they mind their own beeswax.
 
I guess we're never going to get a fair hearing on this. Nonintervention has plenty of well-formed philosophy behind it. Primarily, the fact that if we don't intervene we don't have to develop reams of philosophy to justify that action.

I'm honestly kind of surprised that Mr. Anonymous Senator used the actual word "nonintervention." The go-to word until now has always been 'isolationism' which is intended to elicit negative connotations.
 
Yeah, but I don’t know if we would want to lose their voice in Congress.

No, having someone good in the most powerful office in the land isn't a worthwhile gamble compared to being assured of having someone in each chamber for all the other 99/434 to outvote.

Yeah, they're on committees and doing very good, very important things with those. Absolutely. But if either runs for POTUS, I'm in 110%.
 
Back
Top