Open Letter on Trump from GOP National Security Leaders – WOTR

CK MacLeod

WordPresser: Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001.

Related Post Roulette

19 Responses

  1. Burt Likko says:

    This statement’s publication the day after Romney’s speech strikes me as non-coincidental.

    I’m also not sufficiently well-versed enough in the field to know how many true luminaries there are on the list of signators. But it sure looks impressive.Report

    • Chris in reply to Burt Likko says:

      The statement was actually published before the Romney speech.Report

    • Stillwater in reply to Burt Likko says:

      This statement’s publication the day after Romney’s speech strikes me as non-coincidental.

      I agree. Thing is, it’s a risky move since this sorta power play really will usher in the destruction of the GOP if it fails. I wouldn’t be surprised if Diebold voting machines in Ohio (and Florida!) receive a bit of extra code come primary day. 🙂Report

    • CK MacLeod in reply to Burt Likko says:

      Luminary is in the eye of the beholder, of course, but the list includes numerous well-known officials from past administrations, including some high-ranking ones (Chertoff’s and Mukasey’s names jump out). New names are being added as we write: The count was 77 this morning, and is now up to 106 (up from 104 since I began this comment). I wouldn’t be surprised to see Colin Powell and other Bush 41/43 types insisting on the honor of being included.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to CK MacLeod says:

        Maybe they could preface it with the tag line, “We, the architects and managers of the Afghan and Iraqi Wars, now in their 13th glorious year, scarcely one Friedman Unit away from Triumphant Victory…”Report

      • If includes Max Boot and Daniel Pipes; being criticized by them on your foreign policy views is a badge of honor. As would be the same criticism from any Bush 43 types.Report

        • Marchmaine in reply to Mike Schilling says:

          Yeah… though not as close to the secondary literature on Foreign Policy as I once was… a quick skim of the names made me think that disavowal by exactly this group is the first step to recovery of a sane US foreign policy. Point 1 for Trump.

          Being old enough to remember the knock-down drag-out fights with the Neo-Cons back in the 80s… I’m consistently amazed at how utterly and completely they have owned the 3rd leg of the stool. They have done what they wanted without any sort of check for at least 30-years. Mostly because while the executive branch owns Foreign Policy, it is the least scrutinized aspect of an election cycle. While I don’t expect this to change (ever), the dim awakening of the possible costs of abdicating to the current bi-partisan consensus is a happy by-product of the current nonsense.Report

  2. Michael Cain says:

    I have to admit that this strikes me as tactically… unsound. What happens next week? The heads of the big banks and hedge funds all sign a letter saying Trump will be bad for the economy?Report

    • Yes, precisely. “Donald Trump will be bad for our economy because…”

      Then prominent military figures, who of necessity will have to be retired. But a slate of generals and admirals and other brass saying, “Donald Trump will be bad for the military because…”

      Then a sample platter of the lawyers and scholars from the Federalist Society and other conservative legal advocacy groups. “Donald Trump will be disrespectful to the Constitution because…”

      I wonder how long that can be sustained.Report

  3. Francis says:

    Between the Romney speech, this letter and the general NeverTrump movement, it’s going to be a very interesting couple of years for the GOP.

    My bet is that Trump wins the nomination and the party — with gritted teeth — does its best to unify. But there are Senators out there in close races who may think that disavowing Trump is the better course of action to get re-elected come November. In any event my follow-up bet is that Trump loses, pretty badly.

    Then what? Does the GOP pretend that he never existed? Will Tea Party ver 2.0 form to run Trump-style nationalist / populist candidates in primaries? I know that Perot’s efforts never much went anywhere, but I find it hard to believe that all this energy, leading up to an actual nominee, will simply fizzle away.Report

  4. Christopher Carr says:

    Japan does pay money for US protection.Report

  5. Mr. Trump’s own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world. Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States.

    Therefore, as the party which still refuses to admit any embarrassing truths about the Bush-Cheney administration, we support him 100%.Report

  6. trizzlor says:

    First of all, it’s a bit sketchy for advisors from rival campaigns (e.g. Rubio advisor Max Boot) not to disclose that here. It would be useful to know how many of these folks are currently drawing a paycheck off of letters such as this.

    Second, if these are the important issues on which Trump fails, why aren’t the other candidates publicly challenging him on this ground? I don’t hear Cruz or Rubio talking about hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric. I don’t hear them criticizing expansive use of torture; or being critical of Bush for having looked into Putin’s eyes and seen greatness; or expression anything but “contempt for our southern neighbor”. If this disqualifies Trump why aren’t they shouting this to the heavens in every debate, why do they need to send out surrogates in a on-line only open letter that only politicos will read? Indeed, how different is Trump’s position really from the Cruz strategy:

    “We need to define the enemy, rebuild the military to defeat the enemy, and we need to be focused and lift the rules of engagement so we’re not sending our fighting men and women into combat with their arms tied behind their back,”