I’m not so sure that Trump’s support has hit a ceiling. I suspect that owing to the media’s demonizing of him, a lot of people are reluctant to admit publicly that they could support him in a contest against Hillary. In any case, I would rather see Hillary as president than someone like Jeb! Bush or Marco Rubio, whose policies, particularly in the foreign area, would be essentially the same as hers. If we’re going to make a mess of things, let it be done by a Democrat! I say this as a long-time registered Republican and holder of two Ivy League degrees. (Note to Stephen R. Diamond: The pond may be bigger than you think.)

Will says: ” A Republican Party under Donald Trump would…emphasize…a fortress America approach to international relations.”

If memory serves, it was Carly Fiorina who said in one of the debates that she would not even talk to Putin. So why isn’t he calling her out as the isolationist in the GOP field?

The raison d’etre of NATO when it was founded in the late 1940s was to serve as a bulwark against the Soviet Union, which had overrun Eastern Europe and was feared to be about to do the same in Western Europe. Mainly, it served as a trip wire: It was understood that the armed forces of France, Great Britain, Italy, etc., might not be enough in themselves to deter the Soviets from attacking West Germany. With NATO in the picture, however, they would have to calculate that such an attack would provoke the full force of the U.S. against them.

When the Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991, the obvious response was to disband NATO. Alas, our MI Complex instead searched for other dragons to slay and insanely sought to expand NATO to the east.

Only in the last few decades has the perfectly normal human trait to want to associate with others of similar ethnicity and background come to be considered racist. When, for example, the Irish, Italians and Jews who settled in our Eastern cities in the late 19th and early 20th centuries coalesced into relatively homogeneous communities, no one thought that odd or reprehensible–much less “racist.” These groups obviously shared cultures, histories, attitudes and (often) religions, and thus their members felt comfortable and compatible with one another. No doubt there were individual Irish, Italians and Jews for whom these factors were not important and who as a result chose to live outside the “ghetto.” Nor were these communities hermetically sealed. Certainly, non-Jews ventured into the lower East Side of Manhattan for business or social reasons and were treated with dignity and respect.

What is wrong with this? Why shouldn’t I as an individual, resident, or small businessperson be free to associate with whom I choose, provided that all races are treated equally under the law? If someone wants to put out an “Irish need not apply” sign, that’s his problem. There are always other jobs available, and in any event such attitudes tend to diminish over time. Can anyone imagine a business even wanting to post such a sign today?

“When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability.

“I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.”

Do these provisions apply? How can one be a “prisoner of war” when there is no war? Similarly, does the provision regarding “surrender” apply when there is no battle?

I agree generally but there are a couple of problems.

First, post-modern Americans, particularly Millennials, are incredibly risk-averse. They want to be protected against all contingencies, no matter how remote the possibility they will actually occur. A candidate would have to overcome this pervasive attitude if s/he were to suggest that Islamic terrorism is not a major threat to us at home.

Second, we are mainly responsible for the mess that the Middle East is in. Can we simply wash our hands and walk away? I don’t think history would look kindly on us if we did. We should make it clear that it’s primarily up to the peoples of that region to solve their problems, but that we are ready to actively assist them in that process where we can be useful. This includes financial assistance where justified and required, but in the end it would probably be less expensive than continuing on our present course.

One thing the article doesn’t mention, at least not explicitly, is that Bush didn’t seem very smart. Consider how he dealt with the question: “Would you have invaded Iraq if you knew then what we know now?” This was an obvious question that anyone with an ounce of political sense would have anticipated and had a ready answer for. And the answer was not all that difficult–e.g., “President Bush acted on the basis of the best intelligence he had available to him at the time. I would have made the same decision if I had the same intelligence but now, of course, we know that the intelligence was wrong. No, I would not have invaded if I knew what we know now.” A simple, straightforward answer that would not have been critical of his brother and yet would have assured the electorate that he would not be likely to get us into similar messes. Let others argue over whether the intelligence should have been believed. To most people, he would have answered the question. Instead, after fumbling around he compounded the problem with the improbable excuse that he didn’t understand the question!

Is this someone we could have any confidence would be capable of dealing with the complex problems of the Middle Ease, healthcare, etc.? I don’t think so.

The Benghazi attack may be “old news” by now, but Trump has shown an ability to revive such stories. Witness his attack on Dubya’s Iraq invasion in the recent debate. A Trump-Hillary debate would be an excellent forum for a broadside against Hillary’s entire Libya policy (besides being great theater generally). Joe Six Pack might actually pay attention.

Beware the meetings on those Georgia islands: Sea and Jekyll

I agree. Raising the minimum wage may be superficially appealing but in reality it’s a terrible idea. For one thing, it would prevent young people (particularly minorities) from obtaining employment at jobs for which their skills do not justify the payment of the minimum wage, and it would thereby prevent them from getting the training necessary to improve themselves. Second, it would increase the incentive for businesses to outsource their manufacturing operations to foreign countries. Think about it. The main reason a business might want to move its manufacturing to, say, China is that the labor costs there are a fraction of what they are in the United States. So what do we do: Pass a law that INCREASES the latter. This would be insane.

Many men’s colleges and universities, mine (Yale) included, decided to admit women before Title IX went into effect. There was no need for the federal government to get involved. (BTW I opposed the change then on the ground that men ought to have the option of attending an all-male school if that was their wish. Some men prefer a learning environment free from the distractions that inevitably accompany the presence of women (no, I’m not gay). In effect, their choices were being curtailed. Despite the self-congratulatory protestations of the Yale administrators that they had an “obligation” to provide the unique benefits of a Yale education to young women, there were plenty of fine schools, both all-female and coed, where young women could be educated. A woman had no more reason to demand a Yale education than I had to demand a Vassar or Smith education.)

The Bush administration pushed the Medicare prescription benefit through in 2003, to the applause of big pharma. Does anyone smell a rat, or a payoff?

The details have nothing to do with it. What industry wouldn’t be delighted to drop its prices in return for the government’s handling out money to people to buy its products? This is especially true of the pharmaceutical industry, where the cost of getting FDA approval represents a large share of total costs. Once a drug is approved, these are in essence fixed costs that do not vary with output. A higher sales volume, stimulated by a government program like Medicare, allows them to spread these costs over more units. In other words, a large percentage of the price of each additional product they sell goes straight to their bottom line.

Memo to Trump:

Securing southern border – good
Putting America first – good
Running against the establishment – good
Getting into spat with Hispanic San Diego judge – bad
Getting into spat with Muslim Gold Star parents – utterly stupid

These are just a few examples.

When are you going to ignore perceived personal slights and learn to stay on message? Do you feel any obligation to the voters who supported you in the primaries? Do you think they care whether you feel insulted by someone who is insignificant to your campaign?

To use a word you like, when are you going to get SMART?

I guess name-calling is the last resort when you run out of rational arguments. Suffice it to say that refusing to get into a silly, self-defeating fight with an insignificant speaker at the DNC, who would otherwise have been little noticed and forgotten by now, in no way amounts to surrendering to the Democratic Party.

You obviously have some issues beyond politics.

Pat put his finger on the fundamental question that the CFR and neocons cannot answer: What does the scenario look like that will finally allow us to withdraw our military from the Middle East?

If they can’t answer that question, their policies amount to perpetual involvement. Most Americans won’t support that. Understandably, they want to see an exit strategy, an endgame.

Oddly enough, Haass wrote a book titled “Foreign Policy Begins at Home.” It seemed pretty sensible. I guess it goes to show that your true colors show through when you begin to feel threatened.

All of this is CONJECTURE about what Trump as a public official MIGHT DO. I would remind Ms. Prins that it is in contrast with what we KNOW Hillary as a public official, or as the spouse of one, DID DO.

I rest my case. Besides, if Trump behaved as egregiously as she suggests, impeachment and removal from office would be a real possibility. In such circumstances don’t look for Trump to have a lot of GOP supporters in the Senate. We could end up with a President Pence.

Still far better than President Clinton!

“It is longtime GOP doctrine to cut entitlement spending.”

Right. But did they ever do it? It’s great to pay lip service to something, but if after decades you don’t take the first step to accomplishing it, people have reason to doubt your commitment.

All the talk about Trump not being a “conservative” is rubbish. In what sense was George Bush (whichever one you want to pick) a conservative?

You’re absolutely right. The law involved here does not require criminal intent in the normal sense –just gross negligence. Extreme carelessness=gross negligence. It’s not Comey’s job to decide whether they can successfully prosecute her. That’s up to the Justice Department. The FBI’s role is to get the facts–just the facts, ma’am, nothing but the facts.

What kind of criminal intent did Gen. Petraeus have?

Where did we get these guys.

The disconnect between the first paragraph and the rest of the article is so blatant that at first I assumed that Ms. Gordon’s absurd comments about Trump were facetious.

“Right now the Trump rhetoric simply makes no sense: he wants to befriend Russia while antagonizing China and he wants to defeat Daesh while threatening Iran again. This is lunacy.”

Like a good general, Trump seems to have a knack for keeping his enemies guessing. His real foreign policy priorities — non-interventionism and trying to engage Russia — are evident from his speeches and his appointment of Tillerson. His appointment of a strongly pro-Israel ambassador to that country (what could be more natural?) is secondary and amounts to throwing a crumb to the neocons. Presidents and secretaries of state make foreign policy; ambassadors have some input but generally implement decisions made at a higher level. If the ambassador refuses to go along with his policies, Trump’s response will be: “You’re fired.”

“Sources confirm to CBS News they believe Putin was aware of attacks that began in July of last year.”

“The hacks were so widespread and sustained over such a long period of time that U.S. Intelligence sources say it [sic] could not have been carried out without the knowledge of senior levels of the Kremlin.”

This represents a bizarre standard of proof that sidesteps the basic problem that we have seen no evidence that the Russian government approved the hacks. How does the fact that the hacks were so “widespread and sustained” that Putin must have been “aware of” them lead to the conclusion that the Russian government approved them? Even assuming that Putin knew of the hacks, did his knowledge thereof impose on him an affirmative duty to stop them?

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the M-I complex faced a big problem: how to maintain huge defense budgets when the main enemy had suddenly disappeared. Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 provided them with a temporary solution, as did 9-11. What we are witnessing now is the latest chapter of this saga. Ross Perot was right: follow the money.

There’s an old saying: Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds (no offense intended, Dr. Paul). I thought Trump’s visit to the CIA on his first full day in office was potentially brilliant. First, he went to see “the enemy” on their own turf, rather than summoning their leaders to the Oval Office. He loses nothing by showing that he respects them. There are undoubtedly some decent, honest people working in the CIA; I suspect the problems of political interference and massaged assessments emanate from the upper echelons. Second, if he fact intends to clean house, it doesn’t hurt to have the rank and file, if not on his side, at least somewhat favorably disposed to him.

We’ll see what happens. Trump may sometimes operate by indirection–head fakes–rather than giving his enemies a clear and consistent picture of his intentions and methods.

Agree. Ron Paul could have been a more effective candidate if he had been both non-interventionist and pro-military.

Attacking Iran would be completely contrary to the America First policy. How does Iran threaten us? Even if, in the worst case, it developed a nuclear bomb and the means to deliver it, Iran wouldn’t dare attack us. We have thousands. We’d bury them in an hour. The countries that should be worried, if at all, are smaller nations that Iran could conceivably attack. We should be working with them rather than issuing ultimatums ourselves.

Even if the deal Obama reached with Iran is a bad deal, we should stick with it until Iran clearly renounces or violates it. Testing a missile did not violate that agreement. If you want Iran to stop testing missiles, you should try to reach a new agreement with them. In fact, Iran could help us get rid of ISIS. There seem to be the makings of a new “deal” there.

A war against Iran would make the Iraq war look like child’s play.

Get real, Trump, Flynn et al. We voted for you because you seemed interested in working with other nations rather than fighting them. If we’d wanted war we would have voted for Hillary. Were we wrong? Are you going to disappoint us?

The article makes some valid points, but it’s a mistake to judge a person’s proclivity to get us into wars by whether he or she has been in the military. As I recall, among Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Rice (Condoleezza), Obama, and both Clintons, none was ever in the military. Career military types are more likely to ask questions and demand answers about such issues as exit strategies and mission creep.

Furthermore, they are more likely to be aware of the consequences of war. It was Gen. Sherman who said, in speaking to the graduating class at a military academy:

“I’ve been where you are now and I know just how you feel. It’s entirely natural that there should beat in the breast of every one of you a hope and desire that some day you can use the skill you have acquired here.
Suppress it! You don’t know the horrible aspects of war. I’ve been through two wars and I know. I’ve seen cities and homes in ashes. I’ve seen thousands of men lying on the ground, their dead faces looking up at the skies. I tell you, war is Hell!”

One further entry for your list of things Trump should be, but is not, doing: Get control of the IC’s surveillance operations of ordinary Americans. He is justifiably enraged when he learns that he has been “wiretapped.” What about the rest of us? One gets the feeling that it’s all about him. He appears to have the intellectual depth, emotional development and ego-centrism of your average 14-year-old. (P.S. I voted for him.)

Another possibility is that Comey was fired for incompetence. He badly bungled the matter of the Hillary email investigation. When Loretta Lynch found herself in a conflict (of her own making), Comey should not have agreed to make and announce the decision whether to prosecute Hillary. That is not the role of the FBI. There are procedures in the DOJ to handle this type of situation. Comey should have insisted that they be followed. No one could have justifiably criticized him for that. Moreover, he should have followed the traditional FBI policy of not commenting on ongoing investigations, to Congress or anyone else.
In short, Comey evidenced little understanding of the mission of the agency he headed.

The issue is often framed as whether Trump colluded with the Russians. “Collude” is a loaded word. There was clearly nothing wrong if Trump or his associates communicated with Russian government officials or other citizens. In fact, that would be expected of an incoming administration. Thus, even if such communications did take place, the issue is whether anything improper was said or agreed to. After many months of investigations, one could reasonably expect that SOME evidence in support of the allegations would have been uncovered if anything exists. And you can be sure that any such evidence would have been front page news.

JFK had secret “back channel” communications with Khrushchev and Brezhnev before he was inaugurated. https://1997-2001.state.gov/www/about_state/history/volume_vi/exchanges.html

And afterward.

Heavens! If only we’d known. We could have impeached him!

Excellent points. For a more detailed analysis, I recommend “Manufactured Crisis – The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare,” by Gareth Porter.

Interesting factoid: A 2007 National Intelligence Estimate concluded with “high confidence” that Iran’s nuclear weapons program had been halted in the fall of 2003 and with “moderate confidence” that it had not been restarted as of mid-2007. I am not aware that this estimate has been revised or updated.