After Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson waited for much of the day, wondering whether he would get to meet with President Vladimir V. Putin, the two men sat down at the Kremlin late Wednesday afternoon in the first face-to-face meeting between the Russian leader and a top official in the Trump administration....
April 12, 2017
"Putin Meets With Tillerson in Russia After Keeping Him Waiting."
The NYT reports.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
102 comments:
These little games are so tiresome, aren't they? But I guess they have to play them.
He wasn't wondering like wondering if your prom choice is going to say yes.
He was also making a statement by just being there and was fully aware that if he never met Putin, that choice was a risk to Putin.
But of course if Putin didn't ever take the meeting, our press will only score that as a disappointment to Trump and Tillerson, not a fail or misstep by Putin.
Of course it was scripted, but that's fine. Russia needs some face-saving at the moment and we'd be smart to let them have it.
Scapegoat for Hillary's Defeat Keeps Tillerson Waiting. ---*fixed*
Mike is right. It was delayed enough for face saving but not too long for Tillerson to have left. Rex isn't Lurch. The Russians have figured this out.
I wouldn't assume that Putin does anything by accident. This was an unsubtle reminder that he's pissed.
Though I wonder why we're so intent on getting them out of Syria this time--just a few weeks ago the idea was to let them do the heavy lifting there against ISIS and we'd stay out of that civil war. We'd be better off focusing on Ukraine or the Baltics (which are actually NATO allies).
Original Mike rightly asserts: Of course it was scripted, but that's fine. Russia needs some face-saving at the moment and we'd be smart to let them have it.
Exactly so.
Move evidence that worldwide we are governed by people who act like children.
Good for Rex not to walk out. That was the Alpha move.
Did you see the Deputy Russian ambassador to the UN berating Nikki Haley today? At one point he even says to her, "Look at me when I'm talking to you." Or something along those lines.
"Though I wonder why we're so intent on getting them out of Syria this time[?] ..."
We're not. We shouldn't have let Russia back into the middle east, but now that they're there, we want them to play a productive role. According to some pundits, the offer to Russia is to allow them to pick Assad's successor. This will give Russia substantial influence over Syria going forward (which is what Russia wants) without the baggage that Assad brings. It will also make Russia, not the US, responsible for fixing Syria -- which is a task we want no part of.
My problem is that I'm sad.
... or maybe just hungry. Actually, I think it is just a sugar craving.
More important were the Chinese threats at North Korea. That is a massive story if China follows through.
It seems China realized a nuke in the ionosphere would hit them just as hard as the rest of Asia.
DKWalser makes an excellent point. If Putin is willing [and why not?] to throw Assad under the bus, we should encourage his continued participation in Syria.
"Of course it was scripted, but that's fine. Russia needs some face-saving at the moment and we'd be smart to let them have it."
-- In one of the conflict resolution things I did, I was told something like, "If after the situation you've resolved it peacefully, and everyone is walking away, if someone yells an insult, let it go. It's face saving. Don't challenge the insult; let them take that victory because it doesn't matter."
I found it true as an RA. After talking people down, they'd feel the need to get in that last snide "You suck" sort of statement, and some of my Co-RAs might rise to the bait or challenge them, undoing all the good work we'd done. Same thing on the national stage; sometimes you just have to let a bad actor flex some muscle that doesn't hurt anything but your ego to let them save face.
I suspect Syria is pretty much history, but will it be Iran or Turkey that takes it over?
Putin is soon going to have to make up his mind what horse to bet on, I think.
Putin has been put in his place.
Now he has a choice; get out of Syria or get his ass kicked.
Putin had to get his talking points from the DNC.
Basically 95% of foreign relations are theater and maybe 5% is actually things like discussions, agreements, decisions ect. So yeah, this particular instance is obviously an eyerollingly silly performance.
"I suspect Syria is pretty much history, but will it be Iran or Turkey that takes it over?"
Neither. De facto balkanization like Lebanon, with factional zones.
You can't have a country unless there is some willingness to tolerate each other, if by no other means than by total conquest and despotic rule. I don't think anyone there has the means or willingness to do that.
If Assad goes, then what?
Is there a good alternative?
"Of course it was scripted, but that's fine. Russia needs some face-saving at the moment and we'd be smart to let them have it."
This whole "Russia hacked the election!" brouhaha had to make the average Ivan feel pretty good. They are an intensely nationalistic people. "Putin's a player! We're an important country, just like we were back in the days of the USSR!"
The bombing was a humiliating smackdown for them. So yeah, if they need to make Tillerson sit around for a while and give Nikki Haley the what-for at the UN, well, OK.
They are negotiating a price to return our uranium now that Peace has broken out. And the Clinton Crime Family overcharged Russia anyway.
Blogger eric said...
Did you see the Deputy Russian ambassador to the UN berating Nikki Haley today? At one point he even says to her, "Look at me when I'm talking to you." Or something along those lines.
4/12/17, 11:26 AM
He should have taken off his shoe and pounded the desk with it for added emphasis.
"Is there a good alternative?"
There was an Iranian backed coup attempt a couple of weeks ago, backing his cousin I think.
If Assad goes, then what?
Is there a good alternative?
Hillary needs a job. And Syria needs sensitivity to the needs of women, minorities, and the LGBT community.
I don't think anyone there has the means or willingness to do that.
The Baghdad caliphate and the Ottomans have in the past and the hope of reconstituting past glories springs eternally.
"Hillary needs a job."
Wouldn't solve anything. The place would still be a massive snarl of incompetence and corruption, the Syrian people would still hate their leader and the brutality would likely increase.
On the other hand, if Hillary were in Syria, I'd definitely feel better about a massive bombing campaign.
If Hillary was President of Syria the Assad regime would be referred to as "the good old days."
"Russia needs some face-saving at the moment and we'd be smart to let them have it."
Hahaha!
We need the face-saving! We also owe Russia an apology for making unsupported accusations about their ally Assad using chemical weapons.
"The Baghdad caliphate and the Ottomans have in the past and the hope of reconstituting past glories springs eternally."
This used to be true.
One of the economic realities of the modern world (since the late 19th century) is that this sort of imperialism doesn't pay, literally. There is no way to make enough money out of a dump like Syria to make it worth owning, especially if you have to keep the unruly locals suppressed.
It used to be much cheaper to run an Empire before higher standards of living and consequent personnel costs at home made it too expensive to bother, and at the same time security costs and the prospect of social liabilities in the colonies promised to escalate.
That's the real and not often expressed reason why the European colonial empires disappeared. This was recognized even in the 1880's-90's - by then for instance French North Africa was widely acknowledged to be a drain on France, in spite of great efforts at making it a paying proposition. The last gasps of colonialism into the 1910's (and the Italians into the 1930's) were mainly inertia, in being forced to grab uncontrolled territories because they were causing trouble on the border, or pure fantasies.
There were ultimately only a few colonies that could pay for themselves -
Cuba, the sugar island par excellence, but Spain lost it because it could not afford to defend it from the US.
Hong Kong, in a tight spot which Britain could not hold against China for any reasonable expenditure.
The Dutch East Indies, because of oil, but the Netherlands was too small and broke, post WW2
And some few others.
If Russia takes over Syria, they won't let anyone leave, like in East Berlin in the "good old days", which will solve the refugee crisis. Win-win?
The Russians not so attractive anymore, huh? I recall all the Russia love from the Alt Right and Trumpists. Don't deny it.
" I recall all the Russia love from the Alt Right and Trumpists"
Delusional.
Apparently Inga missed this yesterday, so I'm reposting Quaestor's reponse to her out-of-content CNN quotes:
Quaestor said...
October 2007: Trump said Putin's doing a great job
According to public opinion surveys conducted by NGO Levada Center, Putin's approval rating was 81% in June 2007, and the highest of any leader in the world, other than that of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who received a 93% public approval rating in September 1997. That's evidence in favor of "doing a great job."
December 2011: Trump praised Putin's "intelligence" and "no-nonsense way" in his book "Time to Get Tough."
A fair and accurate assessment. Unlike the morons who cluge away at CNN's website. Knows a more than a few Russians and what they think.
June 2013: Trump wonders if Putin will be his "new best friend"
Much better a best friend than a worst enemy. We have many enemies and few friends, thanks to Obama.
October 2013: Trump says Putin is outsmarting the US
Obama was President in 2013. The conclusion is obvious. Trump could have said the same true thing about Erdogan, Kim Jung-Un, or a log of wood.
July 31, 2015: Trump says they'd get along
Wishing aloud. Trump made the mistake of believing Kerry's 100% comment.
Oct. 11, 2015: Trump says they had good ratings together
A true fact, as usual.
Nov. 10, 2015: Trump reiterates that he and Putin "were stablemates
Absurd when out of context. Neither Trump nor Putin is a horse. However, it is hopeless to expect context from CNN. Or Inga.
Dec. 17, 2015: Trump returns Putin's praise.
Trump understands diplomacy. Inga does not.
Dec. 18, 2015: Trump defends against allegations Putin has ordered the killings of journalists
And rightly so.
Feb. 17: Trump says he'd be "crazy" to disavow Putin's praise
And rightly so.
The rest is unworthy of comment.
4/11/17, 6:51 PM
"If Russia takes over Syria, they won't let anyone leave"
Not bloody likely. They, and any proxy they have, would love to see lots of people leave, to Turkey or Jordan or Lebanon or wherever.
The best way to prevent long term trouble is ethnic cleansing. This is another lesson of the 20th century. Actually the modern iteration started in the 19th, when the Russians (of course) drove nearly all the Circassians out of the Caucasus because they were so much trouble. Thats quite a prominent issue in Russian literature, you will find the theme in Tolstoy, Pushkin, etc. Nabokov commented on it.
Poll - what percentage of Althouse readers identify as Putinists?
Buwaya,
World conquest for Islam, Shia or Sunni, is not "colonialism," but perhaps more like "communism" - another religious faith.
A regular Putinist or a rootin', tootin' Putinist?
There is also the matter of birth rates.
Population pressures and religious fanaticism are not subject to rational analysis from the inside.
The Russians not so attractive anymore, huh? I recall all the Russia love from the Alt Right and Trumpists. Don't deny it.
Trust Inga to come up with something so wrong it's amusing.
Blogger MPH said...
Poll - what percentage of Althouse readers identify as Putinists?
Only on the first Tuesdays and third Fridays of the month. On the second Mondays and fourth Wednesdays of the month, I remain steadfast in my opposition to Putin and all of His Works. The rest of the time, I am undecided.
Trump on Putin: In his own words.
Sorry, I don't cite Breitbart or WND.
No, you cite CNN, which is on a par with WND.
"October 2007: Trump said Putin's doing a great job
"Look at Putin -- what he's doing with Russia -- I mean, you know, what's going on over there. I mean this guy has done -- whether you like him or don't like him -- he's doing a great job in rebuilding the image of Russia and also rebuilding Russia period," Trump told Larry King on CNN.
December 2011: Trump praised Putin's "intelligence" and "no-nonsense way" in his book "Time to Get Tough."
"Putin has big plans for Russia. He wants to edge out its neighbors so that Russia can dominate oil supplies to all of Europe," Trump said. "I respect Putin and Russians but cannot believe our leader (Obama) allows them to get away with so much...Hats off to the Russians."
June 2013: Trump wonders if Putin will be his "new best friend"
"Will he become my new best friend?" Trump asked of Putin in a tweet wondering whether Putin would attend the 2013 Miss Universe pageant Trump brought to Moscow."
"October 2013: Trump says Putin is outsmarting the US
"I think he's done really a great job of outsmarting our country," Trump told Larry King after Putin successfully dissuaded the US from striking Syria by arranging with the US for the removal of Syria's chemical weapons.
July 31, 2015: Trump says they'd get along
"I think I'd get along very well with Vladimir Putin. I just think so," Trump said in one of his first comments about the Russian leader since launching his presidential bid last June.
Oct. 11, 2015: Trump says they had good ratings together
Asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" about similarities between him and Putin, Trump pointed to their appearance on same edition of "60 Minutes."
"I think the biggest thing we have is that we were on '60 Minutes' together and we had fantastic ratings. One of your best-rated shows in a long time," Trump joked. "So that was good, right? So we were stable mates."
Trump said he and Putin "are very different," but that they would "get along very well."
"I think that I would probably get along with him very well. And I don't think you'd be having the kind of problems that you're having right now," Trump said."
"Nov. 10, 2015: Trump reiterates that he and Putin "were stablemates"
"I got to know him very well because we were both on '60 Minutes,' we were stablemates, and we did very well that night," Trump said, despite the fact that he and Putin had been interviewed in separate countries at different times for the same news program.
It's a comment Trump has repeatedly made at rallies.
Dec. 17, 2015: Trump returns Putin's praise
Donald Trump issued a statement after Putin praised the real estate mogul as a "talented person" and "the absolute leader of the presidential race."
"It is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond," Trump said in a statement. "I have always felt that Russia and the United States should be able to work well with each other towards defeating terrorism and restoring world peace, not to mention trade and all of the other benefits derived from mutual respect."
Trump took heat from his GOP rivals for the statement, but refused to back down.
Dec. 18, 2015: Trump defends against allegations Putin has ordered the killings of journalists
"He's running his country and at least he's a leader, unlike what we have in this country," Trump said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "I think our country does plenty of killing also.""
"Feb. 17: Trump says he'd be "crazy" to disavow Putin's praise
"I have no relationship with him other than he called me a genius. He said Donald trump is a genius and he is going to be the leader of the party and he's going to be the leader of the world or something," Trump said, embellishing Putin's praise.
"These characters that I'm running against said, 'We want you to disavow that statement.' I said what, he called me a genius, I'm going to disavow it? Are you crazy? Can you believe it? How stupid are they."
"And besides that wouldn't it be good if we actually got along with countries. Wouldn't it actually be a positive thing. I think I'd have a good relationship with Putin. I mean who knows," he continued.
April 28: Trump says maybe they'll get along
"Maybe we will, maybe we won't," Trump says when asked by Bill O'Reilly about whether he and Putin would have a good relationship.
"I'm saying that I'd possibly have a good relationship. He's been very nice to me," Trump said. "If we can make a great deal for our country and get along with Russia that would be a tremendous thing. I would love to try it."
July 28: Trump says he'd be firm with Putin
"I would treat Vladimir Putin firmly, but there's nothing I can think of that I'd rather do than have Russia friendly, as opposed to the way they are right now, so that we can go and knock out ISIS with other people," Trump said at a news conference.
But that wasn't Trump's only comment on Putin during the event.
He also refused to call on Putin to stay out of the election, "I'm not going to tell Putin what to do. Why would I tell him what to do?"
"Why do I have to get tough on Putin? I don't know anything other than that he doesn't respect our country," he continued.
Trump also predicted a better US-Russia relationship under his administration.
"President Trump would be so much better for US-Russian relations. It can't be worse," Trump said.
And of course, Trump said Putin would respect him more than Clinton, his Democratic rival who has been fiercely critical of Putin.
"I don't think he has any respect for Clinton. I think he respects me. I think it would be great to get along with him," Trump said."
CNN is on par with WND?
Ohhhh, hahahahahahah! On what planet?
Ah yes, maybe planet Trump.
"I respect Putin and Russians but cannot believe our leader (Obama) allows them to get away with so much...Hats off to the Russians."
This makes great sense. A bit of Patton respecting Rommel there - through all of this. This is normal, even virtuous, to admire the qualities of an opponent and to treat him with honor. If you want historical context here, you can go back to the Iliad. In the end Achilles is brought back to his senses, and his honor, through honoring Priam, his enemy, and the body of Hector.
A very, very male quality actually, and not something I have run across with women. Maybe women don't understand it.
"CNN is on par with WND"
Quite, or worse. CNN is thoroughly slanted news with no redeeming qualities.
Abroad it is seen as American Pravda. Al Jazeera is more respectable.
In fact I recommend Al Jazeera.
People who don't mind that their sources of information actively colluded with the Clinton campaign think CNN is a credible source.
Those people are tools and dupes.
That's a great example, buwaya. As a woman I do fully understand it--in men. The sense of honor between rivals is pretty much a guy thing and, though I admire the quality, it is doubtful I could exercise it, myself. It is also doubtful that women would take prisoners.
Everybody knows Clinton poisoned her enemies with plutonium. Bad Hillary.
Buwaya is correct that Al Jazeera is a superior news source to CNN. Not that it is unbiased but it is certainly more comprehensive in its coverage.
According to Margaret Macmillan's Nixon and Mao (or Nixon in China in some editions), Nixon went to China without knowing for certain that Mao would meet with him.
I wonder why Althouse doesn't link anything from WND or Breitbart? Such great sources!
"The NY Times reported in an explosive piece on Thursday that Canadian records show the chairman of Russian-owned Uranium One gave over $2 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation, which the Clintons’ didn’t disclose. At the same time, Russia pushed for control of a Canadian Uranium company.
A Kremlin-connected bank promoting stock in the company also reportedly paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech in Moscow. Eventually, the Russian-Canadian uranium deal was approved."
Bad Hillary.
Inga conveniently overlooks that many of the NY Times articles Althouse links to are ruthlessly analyzed and found wanting by Althouse.
Althouse, unlike certain commenters, has a sharp critical sense and doesn't believe everything the Old Gray Whore tells her.
Yes and Althouse also said she loves the NYTs, lol.
Inga said...
Yes and Althouse also said she loves the NYTs, lol.
4/12/17, 3:02 PM
So what? She certainly doesn't read it uncritically - you do.
And what about this Inga? You seem to have missed it.
"The NY Times reported in an explosive piece on Thursday that Canadian records show the chairman of Russian-owned Uranium One gave over $2 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation, which the Clintons’ didn’t disclose. At the same time, Russia pushed for control of a Canadian Uranium company.
A Kremlin-connected bank promoting stock in the company also reportedly paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech in Moscow. Eventually, the Russian-Canadian uranium deal was approved."
Let's see - Carter Page, who was spied upon by the Feds, who found nothing, is a "useful idiot" to the Russians in Inga's book, but the Clintons, who actually took money from the Russians - oh, nothing to see here. Let's just ignore it and get back to Our Narrative, the one Inga and CNN really, really want to be true!
The WND pages are interesting.
http://www.wnd.com/
I don't see an obviously wrong story there, they are reported as any story, most are wire service items or from other news services (as with CNN). The only real difference is is the SELECTION of news items they feature, the wording of headlines and the tone (spin) of reporting and the interviews they use.
CNN also selects and spins and looks for interviews, or edits them, to suit their purposes.
In what way, then, is CNN superior to WND? That is in spite of enormously greater resources CNN has. But it uses these largely to spin, interviewing, recording and editing selectively.
Snopes.
CLAIM
Sec. of State Hillary Clinton's approval of a deal to transfer control of 20% of U.S. uranium deposits to a Russian company was a quid pro quo exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation.
ORIGIN
In the months leading up to the 2016 United States presidential election, stories abounded about the relationships between the Clinton Foundation and various foreign entities.
May 2015 saw the publication of a book called Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, an exposé of alleged Clinton Foundation corruption written by Peter Schweizer, a former Hoover Institution fellow and editor-at-large at the right-wing media company Breitbart..
RATING
FALSE
Well, that cinches it Inga. Just another huge coincidence involving the funding of the Clinton Foundation. (How is their fund raising going now that Hillary is not going to be President? Ever.)
But, but, Inga, don't you love the NY Times?
They reported it:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
David Baker said...
Putin has been put in his place.
Now he has a choice; get out of Syria or get his ass kicked.
By whom? The United States? Do you really think Trump would (or should) go to war to remove the Russians after Obama let them in?
The Russians can do a lot of damage in the Middle East now that they control whether Assad remains in office or goes. We are stuck with that thanks to Obama and it's not worth the risk and sacrifice to try to undo that mistake with military force. It's always been a long game in the Middle East. Now it is longer.
From Bloomberg a source Inga also respects:
"Since 2013, the nuclear energy arm of the Russian state has controlled 20 percent of America’s uranium production capacity.
Rosatom’s acquisition of Toronto-based miner Uranium One Inc. made the Russian agency, which also builds nuclear weapons, one the world’s top five producers of the radioactive metal and gave it ownership of a mine in Wyoming.
The deal, approved by a committee that included then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, also followed donations from Uranium One’s Canadian chairman to the Clinton Global Foundation, the New York Times reported on Thursday."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-23/how-putin-s-russia-gained-control-of-a-u-s-uranium-mine
Snopes is as usual playing its little disingenuous games.
This is an autistic analysis as usual. To begin with it defines the claim literally and absurdly. This is a conflict of interest matter that it spins as something else. And then there is the conflict itself.
One pays people off for many reasons, including to preclude opposition, or to use under the table (unofficial) influence. Paying off any member of an oversight body is corruption, much less the US Secretary of State, the senior cabinet official of the Republic.
It also tries to dismiss the payoff by concentrating on parts of it, but not the relevant parts, which down at the bottom it admits (even via the UK Guardian) that there is substance to this - so its true. But yet says its False. Because of course it has redefined it in absurd terms.
There is a deep, deep defect in Snopes. And a strange corresponding autism in its fans.
How, oh how, could Bloomberg and the NY Times have gotten things so wrong, Inga?
And if they're wrong about the Clinton's getting big bucks from the Russians in exchange for the uranium deal, then what else might they be wrong about?
An analogy for the style of Snopes -
If I call my opponent a swine, Snopes will respond with a DNA analysis to prove that he is not actually a pig.
Chuckling, oh boy.
From Forbes:
No one Mentions That the Russian Trail Leads to Democratic Lobbyists
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/02/18/no-one-mentions-that-the-russian-trail-leads-to-democratic-lobbyists/#11e07e953991
Goodness, why is nobody mentioning this? There must be a reason...
It is unusual for people to chuckle when they have just been beaten with the facts as soundly as you have, Inga.
The NY Times, Bloomberg and Forbes are all fulla crap, sez Inga. Good to know!
"Straddling the line of fake news and the occasional seed of truth is World News Daily Report."
The New York Post, famously, once defended the existence of Santa Claus (as have many other newspapers since), as they have also (and not in the spirit of fun) frequently defended the utility of various aspects of socialism, the innocence of Mumia, the claims of Al Sharpton, or the veracity of Seymour Hersch.
buwaya said...
An analogy for the style of Snopes -
If I call my opponent a swine, Snopes will respond with a DNA analysis to prove that he is not actually a pig."
Exactly. It's not difficult to see the games they play to "disprove" inconvenient stories, but if you can't think critically....
"Marylin Monroe and Hillary having an affair"
Is silly fun comrade. Is called humor. Is not in the party line for Wednesday.
The NY Times was also famously wrong about the Duke Lacrosse players, who were innocent of the rape the Times all but asserted they committed.
Just like Rolling Stone has just shelled out big bucks to the UVA president they slandered in their made-up rape story.
Rolling Stone, you'll remember, is where Obama hilariously aired his grievances about "fake news." He was talking to experts.
But some people enjoy being lied to. We call them "liberals."
Well you all should petition Althouse never ever again to source to the NYTs! And surely not WaPo!
"Marylin Monroe and Hillary having an affair"
Is silly fun comrade. Is called humor. Is not in the party line for Wednesday."
Uh, being that Hillary was a teen in Illinois when MM died, yeah, I'd call it a joke.
I guess humor-impaired people took it literally though.
Inga said...
Well you all should petition Althouse never ever again to source to the NYTs! And surely not WaPo!"
Uh, we've been though this already my dear.
Althouse reads and writes about those stories with a critical eye.
You don't.
"Well you all should petition Althouse never ever again to source to the NYTs"
Maybe you should. They're the ones who reported about the sweet deal Hillary cut with the Russians.
There is a deep, deep defect in Snopes. And a strange corresponding autism in its fans.
Snopes lost credibility with me when they disputed an event about which I had personal knowledge.
Dance puppet dance. Petrushka is part of Russian cultural tradition and Putin is very Russian.
OK, back to Syria. Sad, but buwaya says my plan to have Russia take over Syria to stop the refugees won't work. I have to accept that because buwaya is a smart guy (or gal?), which I know because I mostly agree with his comments.
So how about we turn Syria over to Texas? Everybody knows that a heck of a lot more people are moving INTO Texas than are moving OUT of Texas. That's what we want for Syria, right? I don't propose to merge Syria into Texas, but rather to turn Syria over to Texas as a "mandate" the way various parts of the Middle East were mandated to European powers after WWI, except we can count on Texas to do it right.
What do you think? Brilliant, right?
I've already been accused of autism on this site, by one of the Unknowns, but here goes.
About ten years ago I wrote Snopes about this. It's still there.
"You can’t keep your eyes open when you sneeze. While it is impossible for most people to keep their peepers from shutting during the process, some rare folks are capable of it. (By the way, about those not physically wired that way, Muriel Simmons of the British Allergy Foundation said: 'If you sneeze while driving at 70 mph, you will travel 300 feet with your eyes closed.')"
70 miles per hour is just over 100 feet per second. While most people may find it impossible not to blink during a sneeze, pretty much all of them will manage to open 'em back up before three seconds have passed.
I mean, if you're going to quibble for a living or a hobby, get this stuff right!
"So how about we turn Syria over to Texas?"
This will only work if you replace the Syrians with Texans.
Land is valuable if empty.
@JPS: ""You can’t keep your eyes open when you sneeze. While it is impossible for most people to keep their peepers from shutting during the process, some rare folks are capable of it. (By the way, about those not physically wired that way, Muriel Simmons of the British Allergy Foundation said: 'If you sneeze while driving at 70 mph, you will travel 300 feet with your eyes closed.')" 70 miles per hour is just over 100 feet per second. While most people may find it impossible not to blink during a sneeze, pretty much all of them will manage to open 'em back up before three seconds have passed. I mean, if you're going to quibble for a living or a hobby, get this stuff right!"
Well. This just depends on how long it takes to sneeze. And then you have to take into account that no one sneezes just once. And really, why is that, anyway, sneeze experts and medical professionals?
Sebastian,
I bow to a professional.
@David
"We are stuck with that thanks to Obama and it's not worth the risk and sacrifice to try to undo that mistake with military force."
Disagree. Trump does not feel bound by any part of the Obama legacy, particular those parts that surrender Syria or the Middle East to Putin. Not "Russia," but "Putin."
This is a classic battle of alphas. One has the superior military, the other does not. IMO, Trump will effectively muscle Putin out of Syria - and sooner rather than later.
Boy! Trump sure is getting played! isn't he? Boy oh boy!
It is all part of the negotiation process. Everyone does it.
I definitely enjoyed reading about Russian Foreign Minister Lavarov rebuking Andrea Mitchell for her poor manners. "Who gave you your manners?" A very good question addressed to someone who haughtily referred to voters in rural Virginia as rednecks.
Putin said he wouldn't meet with Tillerson, then he did.
I'd call that a blink
I mean who could have predicted that a few cruise missles would bring Russia to the table?
Likely, a personality profile was worked up on Tillerson and it identified that he's not great at waiting - not an uncommon trait for a CEO. This would be done to raddle him. We've used this technique when employing psychologists to interview executive candidates. If their profile indicates they may be impatient, we'll make them wait. It's not to get to get them to fail the interview - it's more about raddling them to the point that they cannot provide scripted answers to questions. It's damn near truth serum.
Post a Comment