Rubio, Tillerson spar over Russia

[mystery-ak]

Rubio, Tillerson spar over Russia
By Ben Kamisar and Devin Henry - 01/11/17 11:21 AM EST

Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio laid into Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson for failing to take a hard line on repercussions for Russia's conduct in the Syrian civil war and Russian cyberattacks.

Tillerson resisted Rubio’s contention that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a war criminal because of Moscow's role in Syria and his support for Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad's regime.

“Those are very, very serious charges to make and I would want to have much more information before reaching that conclusion,” he said. “I am sure there is a body of record in the classified realm. I would want to be fully informed before advising the president.”

more
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/313757-rubio-tillerson-spar-over-russia

[dfwgator]

[Frank Cannon]

Rubio is a dope. Assad was the only one keeping Christians alive in that country. Without him it would be a muslim takeover. Rubio and his pal Obama are the ones who destabilized the country and allowed ISIS to start taking over with their interventionist garbage.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Rubio is a dope. Assad was the only one keeping Christians alive in that country. Without him it would be a muslim takeover. Rubio and his pal Obama are the ones who destabilized the country and allowed ISIS to start taking over with their interventionist garbage.

I liked Rubio, but he was basically the GOP version of Hillary Clinton when it came to foreign policy.

[TomSea]

Daddy Assad helped kill 250 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing, Lebanon, Bashar let Jihadists attack our troops and coalition troops in Iraq from Syrian soil to where the Bush administration almost expanded the war, Syria is largely run by Iran whose General Soleimani helped kill 500 US soldiers in Iraq. Screw Assad, Syria and Iran. Christians are also among the opposition in Syria. Except, maybe we shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place.

[libertybele]

Two thoughts here; Rubio is still disgruntled that he lost Florida during the presidential campaigns and is going to be a thorn in Trump's side in the Senate, but I am glad to see Tillerson being challenged and I hope others question his qualifications as well.  I believe Tillerson is a huge mistake; he is a businessman.  He is the CEO of Exxon Mobile.  Where is his experience to qualify him for such an extremely important position in our government dealing with foreign policy?

[Frank Cannon]

  I believe Tillerson is a huge mistake; he is a businessman.  He is the CEO of Exxon Mobile.  Where is his experience to qualify him for such an extremely important position in our government dealing with foreign policy?

Yeah, because all the Ivy League educated lifetime govt' bureaucrats we have had over the last 30 years have been so awesome. The last decent one we had was George Shultz. 

[libertybele]

Yeah, because all the Ivy League educated lifetime govt' bureaucrats we have had over the last 30 years have been so awesome. The last decent one we had was George Shultz.

Point made.  The experience of the last two hasn't exactly been an asset that's for sure.

 

[GrouchoTex]

Daddy Assad helped kill 250 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing, Lebanon, Bashar let Jihadists attack our troops and coalition troops in Iraq from Syrian soil to where the Bush administration almost expanded the war, Syria is largely run by Iran whose General Soleimani helped kill 500 US soldiers in Iraq. Screw Assad, Syria and Iran. Christians are also among the opposition in Syria. Except, maybe we shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place.

I don't think it is as bad of an idea as you do.

Think of it this way:

We've tried piece through a variety of means over the years (strength, meddling, isolation, sanctions, etc.....)
Why not try peace through trade?

Two parties that have mutually beneficial co-existence would be less likely to harm one another, and help moderate the more radical elements in their own countries.

I may not work any better than the other methods have, but we cannot say we've had these brilliant foreign policy wins lately.

[GrouchoTex]

Sorry @TomSea

This was supposed to be and answer to @libertybele for this:

"  I believe Tillerson is a huge mistake; he is a businessman.  He is the CEO of Exxon Mobile.  Where is his experience to qualify him for such an extremely important position in our government dealing with foreign policy?"

[skeeter]

I don't think it is as bad of an idea as you do.

Think of it this way:

We've tried piece through a variety of means over the years (strength, meddling, isolation, sanctions, etc.....)
Why not try peace through trade?

Two parties that have mutually beneficial co-existence would be less likely to harm one another, and help moderate the more radical elements in their own countries.

I may not work any better than the other methods have, but we cannot say we've had these brilliant foreign policy wins lately.

After the misadventures of the past several decades it would be nice to have a few years of national introspection before we set off once again to change the world. Give us some time to remember what we as a nation stand for, and what a foreign policy goal would have to be worth before we shed more American blood.

But I do not believe the Russians and Chinese will afford us that luxury.

[TomSea]

Tillerson answered questions on Ukraine like a hawk; said the takeover of Crimea should have been met with equal force, says we should have armed Ukraine better.  Assuming he isn't lying and perhaps with a bit more questioning,  I think he did well.

http://www.voanews.com/a/tillerson-to-address-russia-nato-in-opening-statement-to-senate/3671630.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/tillerson-i-would-have-responded-to-russia-taking-crimea-with-equal-force/

[TomSea]

Sorry @TomSea

This was supposed to be and answer to @libertybele for this:

"  I believe Tillerson is a huge mistake; he is a businessman.  He is the CEO of Exxon Mobile.  Where is his experience to qualify him for such an extremely important position in our government dealing with foreign policy?"

That's a good point. I thought he did field his questions well this morning. But as to dealing with Iran, we will see, I saw a list of Republican Senators questioning if he is qualified, it's beyond McCain and Graham, it was Senator Inhofe, OK and about 3 or 4 more.



http://www.voanews.com/a/tillerson-to-address-russia-nato-in-opening-statement-to-senate/3671630.html

I guess this is why he is being interrogated heavily.

[TomSea]

I don't think it is as bad of an idea as you do.

Think of it this way:

We've tried piece through a variety of means over the years (strength, meddling, isolation, sanctions, etc.....)
Why not try peace through trade?

Two parties that have mutually beneficial co-existence would be less likely to harm one another, and help moderate the more radical elements in their own countries.

I may not work any better than the other methods have, but we cannot say we've had these brilliant foreign policy wins lately.

We had too much regime change under Obama; and perhaps including Bush too.

I can see wanting to get the occasional bad apple dictator out of the way but it seems we have done this too much.

When a real threat comes along, then it's harder to act.

[r9etb]

I believe Tillerson is a huge mistake; he is a businessman.  He is the CEO of Exxon Mobile.  Where is his experience to qualify him for such an extremely important position in our government dealing with foreign policy?

He may or may not be any good. 

On the upside, he has extensive experience dealing and negotiating with people and governments at a very high level (a plus); and a necessary knowledge of conditions within various important countries in ways (commercial/business) that probably brings a valuable and long-missing component to the worldview of the SoS. 

On the downside, he probably doesn't readily understand the national security and military aspects of the job.  This isn't insurmountable, but it could lead to rookie mistakes.  Also, he will no doubt be actively hampered by the careerists in the State Dept., although that's probably a given regardless of who is SoS.

It's highly likely that he will be motivated to act in the national interest -- the difficulty there being, it's up to Trump to define what that means, and we don't really have a good sense of how Trump would assess such things.

[HonestJohn]

Point made.  The experience of the last two hasn't exactly been an asset that's for sure.

What people forget is that the Secretary of State is not a free agent that can do anything they please.

They get their marching orders from the President.

And if the President is hell-bent on doing stupid (bleep)... the the Secretary of State must do their level best to make it happen. 

If a lot of stupid (bleep) gets done... then the Secretary was very competent at translating the President's orders into reality.

[dfwgator]

He may or may not be any good. 

On the upside, he has extensive experience dealing and negotiating with people and governments at a very high level (a plus); and a necessary knowledge of conditions within various important countries in ways (commercial/business) that probably brings a valuable and long-missing component to the worldview of the SoS. 

On the downside, he probably doesn't readily understand the national security and military aspects of the job.  This isn't insurmountable, but it could lead to rookie mistakes.  Also, he will no doubt be actively hampered by the careerists in the State Dept., although that's probably a given regardless of who is SoS.

It's highly likely that he will be motivated to act in the national interest -- the difficulty there being, it's up to Trump to define what that means, and we don't really have a good sense of how Trump would assess such things.

Energy Policy is a huge part of our National Security and I think Tillerson understands this fact more than his predecessors.

[libertybele]

Granted the past two SOS have been catastrophic. My concern is Tillerson not knowing the ins and outs of government procedures and no dealing whatsoever with our national security. As far as taking order from POTUS, I thought that the SOS advises and communicates to the POTUS and Congress about matters dealing with foreign policy, and also negotiates treaties and agreements with other countries; again someone who knows absolutely nothing about national security this is a concern. This is a very high level position and the lack of Tillerson's experience could be equally as detrimental to our country.

Trump is nominating some people with tremendous business experiences; but running a country isn't the same as running a business.

[beandog]

Granted the past two SOS have been catastrophic. My concern is Tillerson not knowing the ins and outs of government procedures and no dealing whatsoever with our national security. As far as taking order from POTUS, I thought that the SOS advises and communicates to the POTUS and Congress about matters dealing with foreign policy, and also negotiates treaties and agreements with other countries; again someone who knows absolutely nothing about national security this is a concern. This is a very high level position and the lack of Tillerson's experience could be equally as detrimental to our country.

Trump is nominating some people with tremendous business experiences; but running a country isn't the same as running a business.

It can't hurt to try and run the country like a business.  We've done it the other way for a long time and things aren't working out so great lately. 

[r9etb]

Granted the past two SOS have been catastrophic. My concern is Tillerson not knowing the ins and outs of government procedures and no dealing whatsoever with our national security. As far as taking order from POTUS, I thought that the SOS advises and communicates to the POTUS and Congress about matters dealing with foreign policy, and also negotiates treaties and agreements with other countries; again someone who knows absolutely nothing about national security this is a concern. This is a very high level position and the lack of Tillerson's experience could be equally as detrimental to our country.

Trump is nominating some people with tremendous business experiences; but running a country isn't the same as running a business.

This doesn't worry me as much as it does you.

Tillerson's ability to deal with things like national security and governmental procedures can effectively handled by selection of the proper staff; Tillerson himself is undoubtedly intelligent and able enough to incorporate their recommendations into his decision-making process.  And his present experience is probably not devoid of those sorts of things in any case.

On the other hand, his experience as chief executive of a large, multinational/global corporation seems in many respects directly transferable to the main functions of the SoS.

If there is a concern, it's in his ability to deal with subtleties.  Diplomacy -- especially if you're a superpower -- has to deal with subtleties a lot.  Syria is a good example.  From a "stability of the region" standpoint, there's clearly a US interest in what happens there, but exactly what our position should be isn't particularly well-defined: there's no "good" solution; American foreign policy must therefore focus on the "least bad" solution, and then making sense of it to the world at large.

Tillerson's success or failure as SoS will lie in dealing with such things.  HRC and JF'nK had no clue what to do about subtleties, and regional disaster was the result.

[corbe]

Rubio: No decision yet on Tillerson

 By Timothy Cama - 01/11/17 06:02 PM EST   5comments


(R-Fla.) hasn’t decided yet whether or not he will support Rex Tillerson, the nominee to be secretary of State.

Through three rounds of questioning that frequently became tense, Rubio tore into President-elect Donald Trump pick to lead the State Department for not clearly declaring countries as human rights violators, standing up for human rights and sufficiently criticizing Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Speaking with reporters after his third round of questions, Rubio said he had not been swayed one way or another on Tillerson.

“It’s clear that I’m concerned about some of his answers, and I’m encouraged by a few others. But obviously, I want to go back and think through this a little bit,” Rubio said, adding that he will submit some follow-up questions in writing to Tillerson.
Rubio would nearly certainly be the swing vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee if he votes against Tillerson, which would kill Tillerson’s nomination and prevent it from going to the full Senate for a vote.

Asked if he was leaning one way or the other on the former Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO, Rubio said “I wouldn’t characterize it that way quite yet.”


<..snip..>

http://thehill.com/policy/international/313887-rubio-no-decision-yet-on-tillerson

   He'll come around, McConnell owns him.  This is Rubio trying to stay relevant.  I wasn't to enthused with Tillerson either, but he's holding his own today and he is a Texan, so I'm coming around.

[truth_seeker]

Trump is nominating some people with tremendous business experiences; but running a country isn't the same as running a business.

Trump and Tillerson have 40-50 years of management experience. Top management  guides, they don't "run."

During my corporate career, I worked with senior executives. We had board members, that included a former Sec. of Defense, and a former Deputy Sec. of Defense.

Government is highly screwed up. Workers create unnecessary complication, partly to make themselves important and necessary.

Private industry people can cut through a lot of government BS. I hope they do so.

Our corporate senior vice resident, that served as project manager for the Alaska Pipeline had a philosophy of management:

"What are we doing, why are we doing it, when are we going to stop?"

If it turns out that Trump and Tillerson cut some dead weight and overhead from our bloated bureaucracies, it will be fabulous.

[Chosen Daughter]

Saddam Hussein and Bashar al Assad both Baathist.  I remember when they thought that Saddam' WMD's were shipped to Syria.  I still think they were.  If there weren't WMD's why did the Clintons keep a no fly zone and the UN weapons inspections?  Why was there Oil For Food and the sanctions that killed half a million children?  It is well known Assad has chemical weapons and has used them.  Saddam had them and used them also.  He is a bad guy who possibly worked with ISIS against Syrian Rebels.  And if you asked me I would also tell you I don't think Obama's Arab Spring was a good idea.  That to me is what started ISIS.  Don't count me in on any Assad/Putin love fest though.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2016/02/21/show-this-column-to-anyone-who-claims-bush-lied-about-wmds-in-iraq-n2122278

[DB]

It can't hurt to try and run the country like a business.  We've done it the other way for a long time and things aren't working out so great lately.

Fascism is running a country like a business where the "business" is what the boss says it is. Running a business is not about individual liberty or justice.

You are greatly mistaken.

[txradioguy]

Rubio is a dope. Assad was the only one keeping Christians alive in that country. Without him it would be a muslim takeover. Rubio and his pal Obama are the ones who destabilized the country and allowed ISIS to start taking over with their interventionist garbage.

And Mussolini made the trains run on time too.

Just sayin...