Cartoon

Sorry Says

JM Ashby
Written by JM Ashby

(Cartoonist - John Branch)

In other news, the Trump campaign's data analytics firm has admitted that they reached out to Wikileaks and asked for Hillary Clinton's emails.

Meanwhile, the US Attorney in Manhattan is reportedly working with special prosecutor Robert Mueller on an investigation of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort for possible money laundering.

Finally, current U.S. ambassador and former Senator Scott Brown was reportedly investigated by the State Department over the summer for possible sexual harassment. Brown apparently told a group of Samoan women that they should work in hospitality because they're beautiful.

  • waspuppet

    Brown didn’t just sexually harass them; he essentially said “You ladies are pretty enough to go wait tables in America and make REAL money in a REAL country.” Because anyone who doesn’t live in America dreams only of living here.

  • Badgerite

    As to the cartoon, I think Rachel Maddow has struck a nerve and probably is quite accurate as to how the deaths of those four servicemen occurred. One of the early criticisms from military analysts about trump’s proposed immigration ban involving countries where we had troops in harms way and working with local allies was that such a ban would have repercussions in terms of those functioning military alliances and the safety of our troops in the field. In other words, in all likelihood, subsequent events have proven those critics right and John Kelley, who is reputed to have supported these stupid political stunts that have no significant benefit to our security, wrong. We now have the government of the United States of America talking out of both sides of its mouth. From day one, this was the case. Both with respect to our European allies who were repeatedly assured by various officials that the United States was committed to the collective defense provisions of Article 5 of the NATO Accords, only to have trump say just the opposite in high profile speeches in front of those very allies and with respect to any kind of cohesive and comprehensive ( stretching through all of our governmental foreign policy) strategy in terms of maintaining alliances to deal with terrorism abroad. The proposed and somewhat implemented travel bans on immigration from countries with Muslim populations and the damage to their expected military cooperation with our troops in the field is just one instance of how this will damage US efforts to contain terrorism. The problem with having no real central organizing principle ( the role of the president) in the operation of the executive branch is that it results in various elements of US action abroad working at cross purposes. And when that happens, troops in the field and their loved ones pay the price. We have no active State Department and the military is almost acting alone in its planning and carrying out its operations. If General Kelley bears some responsibility in having supported these pointless and non beneficial travel bans and those policies ended up costing the lives of service people in the field, then yes, he will, of course be questioned about that. And it is his job to respond to those questions honestly and without rancor. “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.” Oliver Cromwell.

    • “In the bowels of Christ…”

      That’s a new one on me–had to look it up. LOL

      • Badgerite

        Its a classic. Always good when you are dealing with the closed minded.

    • ninjaf

      Kelly is outside of the military command now; he is a civilian so he has nothing to answer for on this. Unless this was initiated by him during his tenure at HHS.

      • Badgerite

        By all accounts Kelly is a supporter of the “travel bans” that included Chad.
        He stepped into a rather public defense of trump, who was lying about the conversation he had had with a Gold Star widow, at the expense of his own reputation. The question would be why? The answer might be what Maddow reported. And when someone in government states that you have no right to question them unless you have lost someone in combat, that kind of statement in of itself raises questions that need answering. Government officials are always accountable to the electorate how ever they came by their positions and regardless of what they have done before. Kelly has to know that, so what the hell was that statement about?

        • ninjaf

          I don’t disagree that he is answerable to the public. I just meant that I am not certain he is at fault (necessarily) for what happened in Niger. Unless it is something (like the Chad inclusion on the travel ban) he directly had agency over in his role as HHS Secretary, but not as Chief of Staff.

          • Badgerite

            No. I suppose that would be Mattis. But the fact remains that Kelly took it upon himself to make the statement he did and he is the current Chief of Staff of this administration and therefore does share responsibility of answering for all the decisions which emanate from that office and one of those decisions was putting Chad, a country cooperating with the US militarily to fight terrorism in their own country, in the latest incarnation of the travel ban.
            And I’m not even saying that he, himself has to necessarily answer for it. But it seemed to me that what he was doing with that statement was to try to use his earned reputation and service to quell any and all questions relating to what went wrong there.
            And that simply will not fly. No way. No how.

  • Aynwrong

    Yet Trump’s enablers in congress are preparing to investigate the Clinton campaign’s “collusion” with Russia. It never ends. The phrase “banality of evil” comes to mind.

    That former Senator Playgirl model Scott Brown is an ambassador or anything else in government tells us all we need to know about the times we’re living through. I wonder how many mojitos Brown had put away?

    • ninjaf

      I even heard Chris Matthews last night bleating on and on about how the dossier is tainted now. WTF, dude? We don’t need any help from the left in forming a circular firing squad on this, you asshat. It has been known from the beginning that this dossier came form opposition research. The only thing that has changed is that we now have a specific name for who paid for it. FFS!

      • And since when is oppo research a bad thing!?!? The fact that it was serious enough to be funded by BOTH GOP and Dem backers makes it even MORE legitimate in my view.

        • ninjaf

          Because, supposedly, Elias denied being the funder. “And Democrats should be better than that!” Blah blah blah!

          All low information voters hear is “Liberals also think it was bad.”