[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;482085]Regarding [i]Il Duce[/i] meeting with the Great Successor (or whatever they're calling him now), I will lightheartedly predict a press release something like the following:[/QUOTE]

All joking aside, if Trump achieves a de-nucleation of NK it will be a major win.

Perhaps it takes two mad men to come to zero (add up the vectors).

[url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/world/asia/trump-north-korea.html]With Snap ‘Yes’ in Oval Office, Trump Gambles on North Korea[/url] | NYT

[url=www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]The CIA Democrats[/url] | WSWS - and here are links to [url=www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/08/dems-m08.html]Part 2[/url] and [url=www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/09/dems-m09.html]Part 3.[/url]. “There are so many that there is a subset of Democratic primary campaigns that, with a nod to Mad magazine, one might call ‘spy vs. spy.'”
[quote]An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history.

If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the lower chamber of Congress.

Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the field for a favored “star” recruit.

A case in point is Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA operative with three tours in Iraq, who worked as Iraq director for the National Security Council in the Obama White House and as a top aide to John Negroponte, the first director of national intelligence. After her deep involvement in US war crimes in Iraq, Slotkin moved to the Pentagon, where, as a principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, her areas of responsibility included drone warfare, “homeland defense” and cyber warfare.
...
There are 57 candidates for the Democratic nomination in 44 congressional districts who boast as their major credential their years of service in intelligence, in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, at the State Department, or some combination of all three. They make up the largest single occupational group running in the Democratic primaries that began March 6 in Texas and extend through mid-September, selecting the candidates who will appear on the general election ballot on November 6.

Aside from their sheer number, and the fact that more than 40 percent, 24 of the 57, are women, there are other aspects worth considering.
Agents, but no longer secret

First: The number of candidates who openly proclaim their role in the CIA or military intelligence. In years past, such activities would be considered confidential, if not scandalous for a figure seeking public office. Not only would the candidates want to disguise their connections to the spy apparatus, the CIA itself would insist on it, particularly for those who worked in operations rather than analysis, since exposure, even long after leaving the agency, could be portrayed as compromising “sources and methods.”

This is no longer the case. The 2018 candidates drawn from this shadow world of espionage, drone murders and other forms of assassination positively glory in their records. And the CIA and Pentagon have clearly placed no obstacles in the way.
...
When the dust clears after November 6, 2018, there will almost certainly be more former CIA agents in the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives than former Sanders activists. It is the military-intelligence operatives who constitute the spine of the Democratic Party, not the Sanders “Our Revolution” group. This is a devastating verdict on the claims of the Vermont senator, backed by various pseudo-left groups, that it is possible to reform the Democratic Party and push it to the left.[/quote]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;482106][url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/world/asia/trump-north-korea.html]With Snap ‘Yes’ in Oval Office, Trump Gambles on North Korea[/url] | NYT

[url=www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html]The CIA Democrats[/url] | WSWS - and here are links to [url=www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/08/dems-m08.html]Part 2[/url] and [url=www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/09/dems-m09.html]Part 3.[/url]. “There are so many that there is a subset of Democratic primary campaigns that, with a nod to Mad magazine, one might call ‘spy vs. spy.'”[quote]
There are 57 candidates for the Democratic nomination in 44 congressional districts who boast as their major credential their years of service in intelligence, in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, at the State Department, or some combination of all three.
[/quote][/QUOTE]Well, with 57 candidates competing for 44 nominations, there are certainly some of them competing against each other. Let's see here, there are 435 US Representatives, so 44 is just about 10% of the seats.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;482143]Well, with 57 candidates competing for 44 nominations, there are certainly some of them competing against each other. Let's see here, there are 435 US Representatives, so 44 is just about 10% of the seats.[/QUOTE]

Nice try at lowballing - 44 is a whopping 30% of the open seats, and surely you're not claiming there are no such types currently serving in congress. (And of course its not just the Dems, it just seems to be *especially* the dismal Dems this election cycle, using ginned up Russia! Russia! Russia! hysteria to try to get as many of these Intel creeps elected as possible.)

I consider the following monograph - being of academic-circles vintage it's very footnote-heavy, but the main text is quite readable - to be required reading on this theme: [url=http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Final.pdf]National Security and Double Government[/url], by Michael Glennon.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;482200]Nice try at lowballing - 44 is a whopping 30% of the open seats, and surely you're not claiming there are no such types currently serving in congress. (And of course its not just the Dems, it just seems to be *especially* the dismal Dems this election cycle, using ginned up Russia! Russia! Russia! hysteria to try to get as many of these Intel creeps elected as possible.)

I consider the following monograph - being of academic-circles vintage it's very footnote-heavy, but the main text is quite readable - to be required reading on this theme: [url=http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Final.pdf]National Security and Double Government[/url], by Michael Glennon.[/QUOTE]

All 435 of the House of Rep seats are open (up for election) in 2018, so I'm pretty sure Dr. Sardonicus has it right unless you're counting it a different way?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;482200]Nice try at lowballing - 44 is a whopping 30% of the open seats, and surely you're not claiming there are no such types currently serving in congress.[/QUOTE]
Was a 28[sup]th[/sup] Amendment to the US Constitution passed recently? Because last I checked, Article I, Section 2 was the governing authority. It says US Representatives are chosen every second year.

If you mean "open seat" in some sense other than "up for election," you need to explain.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;482212]Was a 28[sup]th[/sup] Amendment to the US Constitution passed recently? Because last I checked, Article I, Section 2 was the governing authority. It says US Representatives are chosen every second year.

If you mean "open seat" in some sense other than "up for election," you need to explain.[/QUOTE]
I venture that "Open" means "without an incumbent."

Incumbency has a corrupting effect on politicians. I would love to see 3-term limits for the House, and 2-term limits for the Senate. Especially, the House was supposed to be "The People's House," as opposed to the "The Important People's (Wealthy White Male Land Owner's) House, aka the Senate.

[QUOTE=kladner;482214]I venture that "Open" means "without an incumbent."[/QUOTE]
That would mean the seat was vacant. Perhaps you mean, the incumbent is not running for re-election? There does seem to be a lot of that going around among Republicans in the Senate. I'm not sure about the situation in the House.

Other possibilities include: The incumbent is being challenged in the primaries, and the incumbent is being challenged in the general election. It is not uncommon for House incumbents to run unopposed in primary elections. If they have challengers in the primary, they usually win (though Eric Cantor is a notable recent exception).

It is also not uncommon for House incumbents who make it to the general election, to win re-election. It is only by defeating Republican candidates in districts whose incumbent is a Republican, that the Democrats can hope to gain House seats.

Update: The story in Saturday's Washington Post,

[url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/tillerson-cancels-days-events-in-africa-due-to-illness/2018/03/10/aa37b3ba-2424-11e8-946c-9420060cb7bd_story.html]Illness sidelines US secretary of state for a day in Africa[/url]

was merely a State Department cover story. Trump fired Rex Tillerson on Friday. Mike Pompeo, currently head of the CIA, is on deck for Secretary of State. His deputy is up for CIA chief. She would be the first woman to have that job.

Rex Tillerson: hapless, hopeless and tragic. Now his time is up -Richard Wolffe
 

[QUOTE][URL="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/13/rex-tillerson-fired-donald-trump"]Rex Tillerson[/URL] was a part-time truth-teller. In one national security meeting, he had the piercing insight and honesty to call Donald Trump “a moron” – possibly an Anglo-Saxon kind of moron. Yet, like his boss, he lacked the self-awareness to know that the same critique applied to himself, as the moron’s secretary-of-state.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]That teensy difference of opinion – now rendered moot by Trump’s decision to sit down with Kim Jong-un – led to some more truth-telling about Tillerson and Trump, this time from Bob Corker, the Republican senator who chairs the foreign relations committee.
“You cannot publicly castrate your own secretary of state,” Corker [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/14/republican-senator-blasts-donald-trump-for-castrating-rex-tillerson"]told[/URL] the Washington Post, without undermining your own diplomacy.
That naturally led Tillerson to [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/15/rex-tillerson-donald-trump-iran-moron-castration"]protest[/URL] that he was fully intact, in terms of his own testicles. Looking back on his career as the nation’s chief diplomat, Tillerson might pinpoint this as the foggiest of bottoms.[/QUOTE]If the Wolffish quotes above seem just a bit snarky, all I can say is, "You ain't seen nothin' yet!" In between deliciously nasty barbs, Wolffe runs through Tillerson's devastation at State: trying to cut his own budget two years running, and leaving many critical positions unfilled as department veterans quit or retired in disgust.

However, the wrap up, with discussion of historical "Rex"(s), and a coup de grace for this Rex, still has me grinning uncontrollably. :grin:

Hey Rex! Don't let the door hitcha where the good lord splitcha!

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;482212]Was a 28[sup]th[/sup] Amendment to the US Constitution passed recently? Because last I checked, Article I, Section 2 was the governing authority. It says US Representatives are chosen every second year.

If you mean "open seat" in some sense other than "up for election," you need to explain.[/QUOTE]

Brain fart on my part - I was misapplying the Senatorial 1/3-of-seats-up-for-election-every-year math to the House election. Apologies! No, wait, why apologise when you can blame-shift ... I blame Julian Assange, whose following tweet I read the morning I made my 30% post:
[quote]Julian Assange:

With Pompeo taking over State from Tillerson, we now have:

1) CIA taking over State
2) CIA/NSC/etc influx making 25% of 2018 Democratic candidates in competitive areas
3) CIA former heads, officers influx to NBC, MSNBC
4) CIA fake news journalist Ken Dilanian sheltered at NBC
5) CIA contractor Jeff Bezos ($600m in just one CIA contract) has already taken control of the Washington Post ($250m)

[url]https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/973594172266635265[/url]
[url]https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/973595078328553473[/url][/quote]
Assange's "25%" in item (2) was close to my 30% estimate, I think that may have been where the Senate-6-year-terms 3x factor entered my mental math.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;482232]Update: The story in Saturday's Washington Post,

[url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/tillerson-cancels-days-events-in-africa-due-to-illness/2018/03/10/aa37b3ba-2424-11e8-946c-9420060cb7bd_story.html]Illness sidelines US secretary of state for a day in Africa[/url]

was merely a State Department cover story. Trump fired Rex Tillerson on Friday. Mike Pompeo, currently head of the CIA, is on deck for Secretary of State. His deputy is up for CIA chief. She would be the first woman to have that job.[/QUOTE]

Regarding that glass-ceiling-shatterer ... new (or at east newly-nominated-to-be) CIA director Gina Haspel is a full-on psychopath behind that sweetly schoolmarmish face:

[url=https://www.democracynow.org/2018/3/14/she_tortured_just_for_the_sake]“She Tortured Just for the Sake of Torture”: CIA Whistleblower on Trump’s New CIA Pick Gina Haspel[/url] | Democracy Now
[quote]AMY GOODMAN: So talk about why you and others called her “Bloody Gina.”

JOHN KIRIAKOU: We did call her Bloody Gina. Gina was always very quick and very willing to use force. You know, there was a group of officers in the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, when I was—when I was serving there, who—I hate to even make the accusation out loud, but I’m going to say it: who enjoyed using force. Yeah, everybody knew that torture didn’t work. That’s not even the issue. Lots of different things work. Was it moral, and was it ethical, and was it legal? I think the answers to those questions are very clearly no. But Gina and people like Gina did it, I think, because they enjoyed doing it. They tortured just for the sake of torture, not for the sake of gathering information.[/quote]
I expect the Team D reactions to Haspel's elevation will fall broadly into 3 categories:

1. Hypocritical she's a torturer" objectors: hypocritical, because where were the objections to Haspel et al's war crimes when they committining them "to keep America safe" under Obama?

2. Conflicted, due to either having pushed the "our intelligence agencies are a vital bulwark of democracy against election hacking by evil Rooskies" meme hard, or due to the shattering-the-glass-ceiling aspect of a woman now being the nation's torturer-in-chief. "I think it's wonderful that every girl in America can now aspire to growing up to be a sadistic intelligence officer and black site operator", that sort of thing.

3. Approving - cue Dianne Feinstein: [i]“Well, I have spent some time with her, we’ve had dinner together, we have talked … everything I know is, is that she has been a good deputy director of the CIA….[b]I think hopefully the entire organization learned something from the so-called enhanced interrogation program[/b]. I think it’s something that can’t be forgotten. And I certainly can never forget it. And I won’t let any director forget it,” the senator added, revealing she shared a “long personal talk” with Haspel about the program.[/i]

As for what the CIA might have learned "from the so-called enhanced interrogation program", would that be that they can conspire to destroy evidence of wide-scale war crimes with impunity?

OK, it seems there is a fourth category...

4. Chuck Schumer: [url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/toys-buyers-redeem-gift-cards-cash-schumer-article-1.3874138]Toys ‘R’ Us should let customers redeem gift cards for cash, Sen. Chuck Schumer says[/url].