Paul Heer

Great quote on the PBS Newshour from former US diplomat Alan Eyre: "I think this administration is trying to justify the war the same way Jackson Pollock used to paint. You just throw a bucket of reasons up against the canvas and hope the result looks good."

"Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

Hegseth said at the press conference this morning that Trump's decision to attack Iran was "unlike other presidents [whose] foolish policies of the past that recklessly pulled us into things that were not tethered to actual clear objectives."

"For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind." Hosea 8:7

"No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight."  There were many very good reasons for that.

Trump undoubtedly will push the very limits of what he can achieve in this regard, to include ignoring any SCOTUS decision against him.  He said publicly that a Democratic majority in the House would lead to his impeachment, and we should expect him to stop at nothing in an effort to prevent that.

If Trump has his way, it would preempt the November midterms.

This will add to the drama of the Trump-Xi meeting in April.

Yes. He didn't mention China. Or any "actual events."

Trump challenged the Democrats to agree that "The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.” Here's an alternative: "The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not make money for the president's family and friends."

Arms sales to Taiwan.

I was always skeptical of the claim that Xi and Trump didn't discuss Taiwan in Busan. They might have agreed to not say publicly that they had. But it doesn't matter, because Xi called Trump a month later, primarily to discuss Taiwan in the wake of Takaichi's statements about it in the interim.

Rubio in Munich: "Our great midwestern heartland was built by German farmers and craftsmen who transformed empty plains into a global agricultural powerhouse." But the plains were not in fact empty. Native farmers and craftsmen had been here for thousands of years.

I keep hearing from politicians from both US parties about what "the American people want" or what "the American people want to know." But many of these are things that I do not want or do not want to know.

Takaichi's election victory does not erase the fact that her comments about Taiwan in the Diet last November obfuscated and eroded Tokyo's one-China policy. That issue still needs to be addressed and persuasively clarified.

People should stop talking and thinking about the Trump Administration's National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy as if Trump himself knows what they say.

If only the United States "can avoid China and Russia’s greatest mistake—treating partners as vassals rather than contributors to shared strength." Whoops! Too late!

Why the US’ “One China Policy” Is Fading Away The White House’s recently published strategic documents further the US’ drift away from the original meaning of the “one China” policy.

"Washington’s 'one China' policy continues to erode, with potentially dire consequences if Washington persists in denying this erosion and Beijing continues to find the denials unpersuasive."

nationalinterest.org/feature/why-...

Tulsi Gabbard’s appearance at Fulton County FBI raid raises questions Lawmakers called for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to explain the presence of the nation’s top spy at a domestic law enforcement action in Georgia.

The DNI is pursuing crackpot conspiracy theories about the 2020 election being “stolen” by Biden, while lowering the intelligence community’s defenses against future foreign election interference. www.washingtonpost.com/national-sec...

Why the US’ “One China Policy” Is Fading Away The White House’s recently published strategic documents further the US’ drift away from the original meaning of the “one China” policy.

"Washington’s 'one China' policy continues to erode, with potentially dire consequences if Washington persists in denying this erosion and Beijing continues to find the denials unpersuasive."

nationalinterest.org/feature/why-...

Xi Jinping doesn't really fit in this category. He's a dictatorial autocrat, but his policies are not driven by "individual whims."

And Xi sees less need to precisely because of "the perception that Trump has little interest in defending Taiwan militarily." Trump's ambivalence about Taiwan makes a Chinese attack less--not more--likely because it increases the possibility that China could get Taiwan without a fight. (2/2)

"So far, a fundamental reason Xi has not used force against Taiwan is that is it uncertain such an operation can succeed." Actually, the more fundamental reason is that Xi does not want to, and he now sees less need to. (1/2)

How would the average American know "if China surpassed the United States in power and influence"? What would change?

Artificial intelligence may be a form of intelligence, but it will always be artificial, and thus imperfect. Human intelligence is also imperfect, but as a human I will always have more confidence and faith in it.

"I have tremendous respect for both the people of Greenland and the people of Denmark."

Has a consensus emerged that when Trump told the New York Times last week that his power was limited only by his "own morality," that he actually meant to say "mortality"?

Best Trump lines from the New York Times interview: "Everything I’ve read has been proven." "I did do that? When did I do that?" "I always respect the results of elections, but the elections in our country are rigged." "I just hate dishonest people." "I love democracy. I’m a big fan."

It's hard to imagine anything going right.

(3/3) . . . And some of them--particularly US allies--might not say so publicly about Trump for diplomatic reasons that are similar to Beijing's reasons for not saying so about Putin.