Krystal & Saagar: Pelosi’s impotence on full display with War Power, Impeachment failure
Team Rising takes a look at how impeachment will play out in 2020.
Team Rising ponders why the ‚Never Trumpers‘ still think they matter in the Republican party
Forty-nine percent of Americans surveyed said they approve of the president’s job performance, up from 46 percent from the previous Dec. 8-9 poll. Fifty-one percent said they disapprove, a drop from 54 percent earlier this month.
“I am calling for open primaries for the list, which would bring new energy to the camp and enable setting the list according to the will of the public and not a political deal among political hacks. I will continue to fight for our constituents who believed in our path to be represented in the Knesset.”
But just in case, Shaffir hired campaign staff in order to run independently as head of the Green Party, which would also include former Zionist Union MK Yael Cohen-Paran.
A full day of debate will end soon with final votes in the Democrat-led House.
The Democratic-led US House of Representatives votes on whether to impeach President Donald Trump, setting up trial in the Republican-controlled Senate
Currently, 46% support impeachment and removal, down six percentage points from the first reading after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry. Meanwhile, 51% oppose impeachment and removal — up five percentage points over the same period.
Those results largely affirm other data out over the past week or so that suggest support for impeachment has dipped. In a CNN national poll released earlier this week, 45% said they supported the impeachment and removal of the President — down from 50% who said the same in a mid-November CNN survey. That same poll showed opposition to impeachment/removal at 46%, up 4 points from mid-November. And a CNN „poll of polls“ — an average of all six most recent quality/credible national polling conducted between December 4 and December 15 — showed 46% favored impeachment and removal as compared to 49% who did not.
1. Kenton Clymer, The United States and Cambodia, 1969-2000: A Troubled Relationship(New York and London: Routledge, 2004)
2. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger discusses the Khmer Rouge regime with Thailand’s Foreign Minister Chatichai, November 26, 1975
Kissinger: “You should also tell the Cambodians that we will be friends with them. They are murderous thugs, but we won’t let that stand in our way. We are prepared to improve relations with them.”
3. Ford and Kissinger discuss Cambodia with Indonesia’s President Suharto, Jakarta, December 5, 1975
4. Former US National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, on China and the Khmer Rouge, 1979:
“I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could.” According to Brzezinski, the USA “winked, semi-publicly” at Chinese and Thai aid to the Khmer Rouge.
There are allegations that the United States (U.S.) directly armed the Khmer Rouge during the Cambodian–Vietnamese War in order to weaken the influence of Vietnam and the Soviet Union in Southeast Asia. It is not disputed that the United States encouraged the government of China to provide military training and support for the Khmer Rouge and that the United States voted for the Khmer Rouge to remain the official representative of the country in the United Nations even after 1979 when the Khmer Rouge was mostly deposed by Vietnam and ruled just a small part of the country.
Additional alleged U.S. actions that benefited the Khmer Rouge range from tolerating Chinese and Thai aid to the organization (Henry Kissinger) to, according to Michael Haas, directly arming the Khmer Rouge. The U.S. government officially denies these claims, and Nate Thayer defended U.S. policy, arguing that little, if any, American aid actually reached the Khmer Rouge. However, it is not disputed that the U.S. voted for the Khmer Rouge, and later, for the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK), which was dominated by the Khmer Rouge, to retain Cambodia’s United Nations (UN) seat until 1982 and 1991, respectively.
Within Israel, Netanyahu’s Arabic-speaking mouthpieces amplify the ridicule, sarcastically „calling out“ Arab leaders on social media for their „treason“ and weakness, whenever they engage in normalization.
Added to that, the role of the Mossad in setting up the back channels that lead to Israeli politicians meeting Gulf leaders – despite being part of the secret service’s brief in states where no diplomatic relations exist – gives the impression that this form of normalization is part of a black ops scheme whose real purpose is still covert.
The vision he offered was of a capitalism that would be judged, he said, “not just by how much it produces, but how widely it shares; how good it does for how many; and how well it takes care of all of us.”
The speech amounted to an effort to guide his party toward a vision for how to tackle one of the most salient issues facing the country: the growing divide between the very rich and everyone else.
Insisting on thinking outside the box, Jared Kushner pushed Trump to build his Mideast strategy on M.B.S. and the Saudis. Now the West Wing is left with few good options. And some are joking that Kushner is probably going to take off soon for a well-timed vacation.
Saudi Arabia’s powerful crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, was meant to be the linchpin of the plan, providing key diplomatic cover to both Israelis and Palestinians. But with the Saudi prince’s credibility facing serious questions following Khashoggi’s death, US President Donald Trump may soon have to rethink his Mideast strategy.
“It definitely complicates their plans to release their proposal, if indeed they have one,” said Dan Shapiro, who served as former US president Barack Obama’s ambassador to Israel.
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Friday his country remains committed to dialogue with North Korea despite President Donald Trump’s decision to call off his summit talks with the communist nation’s leader next month, according to Seoul’s foreign ministry.
Pompeo made the remarks in his phone conversation with Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha to exchange views on related situations and coordinate a strategy.
(10.7.2015) The Pentagon has released its “National Military Strategy of the United States of America 2015,” June 2015.
The document announces a shift in focus from terrorists to “state actors” that “are challenging international norms.” It is important to understand what these words mean. Governments that challenge international norms are sovereign countries that pursue policies independently of Washington’s policies. These “revisionist states” are threats, not because they plan to attack the US, which the Pentagon admits neither Russia nor China intend, but because they are independent. In other words, the norm is dependence on Washington.
The Australian government adopted the “Indo-Pacific” term in 2012 as a pivotal idea in its diplomacy. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe used the same term for the first time in August 2016 during the Sixth Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD VI), held in Nairobi, when he unveiled a “free and open Indo-Pacific strategy.”
Here’s a report from Defense Industry Daily on the weapons used: