I know I'll never find another Yoo, fortunately

John Yoo has an op-ed piece in the New York Times, you know the scandal sheet that features the merger of neoliberals and neoconservatives to bomb countries and then bring their suffering populations here.

Mr. Yoo, in the Bush administration, claimed the president could legally engage in torture. One would think the great and good might move away from the man who. according to Jon Schwarz of the intercept,

Yoo’s legal reasoning, as he (together with his superior Jay Bybee, who’s now a federal judge) advised the Bush White House, is that “the Department of Justice could not enforce Section 2340A [the federal probation against torture] against federal officials acting pursuant to the President’s constitutional authority to wage a military campaign.” In other words, the president can’t crush a 6-year-old boy’s testicles for fun, but if he thinks some child-testicle-crushing is needed to win the war, it’s totally constitutional.

You too might have thought that the world would have distanced itself from John Yoo, but no, he found a nice spot as a professor at Berkeley.  Wonder what he feels about his place of employment as that Madrassa has no problem with masked thugs suppressing speech.

The good professor's piece at the Times notes his misgivings about our new president.

Yoo has a problem with Mr. Trump on a few constitutional points.

Immigration has driven Mr. Trump even deeper into the constitutional thickets. Even though his executive order halting immigration from seven Muslim nations makes for bad policy, I believe it falls within the law. But after the order was issued, his adviser Rudolph Giuliani disclosed that Mr. Trump had initially asked for “a Muslim ban,” which would most likely violate the Constitution’s protection for freedom of religion or its prohibition on the state establishment of religion, or both — no mean feat. Had Mr. Trump taken advantage of the resources of the executive branch as a whole, not just a few White House advisers, he would not have rushed out an ill-conceived policy made vulnerable to judicial challenge.

So we bomb and torture people in MENA and Yoo is okay with that. Those folks may not harbor affection for us and understandably may want to harm us. The new president may believe that Muslims from disaffected regions may want to do that. Is that in the "constitutional thickets?"
If he were to proscribe the Muslim faith for all who are here legally and are citizens, no one would contest that that was unconstitutional.  People who are not here, well that is another story, and a full complement of the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter, but the idea itself is not at all outside the bounds of reason.

On December 1, The then president-elect outlined his foreign policy,

"We will destroy ISIS. At the same time, we will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past. We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments, folks," Trump told attendees at the U.S. Bank Arena. "Our goal is stability, not chaos because we wanna rebuild our country. It's time."

"In our dealings with other countries, we will seek shared interests wherever possible and pursue a new era of peace, understanding, and good will."

I am not sure if Trump completely means this.  Rumors of nominating Elliott Abrams as Deputy Secretary of State are not reassuring.  Nevertheless, the quote, while not neutralist, is a better sentiment than anything Mr. Yoo or any neocon has ever come up with.

I hope Trump means it and that we never hear from Mr. Yoo again.

I love ya Bill, but can't we give a nod to the good n word instead of the i word?

Over at the Spectator, Bill Kauffman has a lovely article entitled Isolationism is a noble American tradition.  He goes over the reasons that non-intervention is better than the eternal save the world stuff that is our foreign policy.

As to his use of the word "Isolationism" he uses it better than most people who say they are isolationists.  Even he, if we could ask him, might admit neutralism is a better choice, at least we hope.

So go read his article and just try to squeeze out Isolationism and replace with Neutralism.

Mike Whitney nails it, The Trump Speech That No One Heard at Counterpunch

It looked like business as usual for the foreign policy establishment back in 2015.  Jeb was being set up to lose gracefully to Hilary and war and mayhem could continue in foreign lands as usual.

A funny thing happened on the way to the continued status quo.  That funny thing was Donald Trump.  We at the Neutralist kind of laughed at first as well.  However, anyone who is anti-intervention has to be guardedly hopeful.

Trump has come close to a sensible foreign policy as anyone in recent times, such as maybe Grover Cleveland.  Not a high bar that.

Mike Whitney at Counterpunch has noticed that our new pres made a sensible speech.  Unfortunately, the press did not.  For those of you who have not read Mr. Whitney's article here is what the then president-elect said in Cincinnati on December 1.

“We will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past…We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments…. Our goal is stability not chaos, because we want to rebuild our country [the United States]… We will partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism …In our dealings with other countries, we will seek shared interests wherever possible and pursue a new era of peace, understanding, and good will.”

As the Neutralist, we would wish he would just bring all the troops home and try not to let bad actors into the country.  Still, as a policy, it would be an improvement over the last several chief executives.  Who could be against such common sense?

No one except the foreign policy elite including such institutions as the Council on Foreign Relations and that pay for play outfit, the Brookings Institute.  No matter that our FP this century has been one screw up after another, they want to keep going to take over the world and run it for elite interests.

It has been a recipe for disaster and probably will be in the future, but let's repeat the mantra "Trump is dangerous.

Read Mr. Whitney's piece.  It is worth your time.

William Kristol resigns as editor of The Weekly Standard-He won't be missed, if only because he won't be going anywhere

After twenty-one years as editor of The Weekly Standard, William Kristol is moving on, but not to far.  His new posisiton, "I'm thoroughly looking forward to the welcome opportunity to work on longer pieces while continuing to write weekly editorials and contribute to the website."

The Neutralist does not mean him ill, but his career is one of successful failure.  He was completely wrong about Iraq, then and now, and yet there were no cries to cast him out into the exterior darkness.

On Libya, he was equally mistaken, maybe worse, and yet there was no outcry to banish him.  This was probably because he was not without company.

Of course, he covered himself in glory as one of the chief nevertrumpers.  How a guy can keep smiling with egg all over his face for a whole presidential campaign will never cease to amaze me.

So as he continues to be seen on Fox and other venues pontificating away, we at the Neutralist have a rule, if Bill states there is someplace we need to invade or free, we don't.

John Kerry-sinecure watch

At the Hill is the headline that Kerry will return to Boston, work in privatesector.

Is this not a great country or what?  A man with no ability who ran a failed foreign policy can come back to his hometown and get a job.

His prospects are great.

Annie Machon at Consortium News is more right than she knows, there is no reason for NATO

The historical record of NATO post Soviet Union is one of aggression.  Maybe in Putin's heart there is a desire to roll the tanks to Normandy and embark an army on a fleet, but that cannot happen and we have been the troublemakers as Former Brit intel officer, Annie Machon makes clear in an article at Consortium News, Dreaming Up a Reason for NATO's Relevance.

The woman writes with clarity about the continued expansion of the alliance eastward in spite of our undertaking at the time of the demise of the "Evil Empire,"

I refer you back to an article I wrote two years ago after the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Referencing the work of former senior CIA officer and fellow Sam Adams Associate, Ray McGovern, it made clear that a deal was made between the Soviet Union of the time and the U.S. – and that, in return for the withdrawal of 260,000 Soviet troops from East Germany and the reunification of Germany, NATO would not move one inch further east than the German border.

This is the beginning of all our troubles with Russia.

Please read the article.  The Neutralist does object to her using the word "isolationist."  After all, who wants to be North Korea, thats isolationism.

The Neutralist does not know if Southfront is independent, but State's John Kirby is a song and dance man and they caught him

The "Russia is always bad crew" at State were caught by Southfront and have to obfuscate and do it poorly.

Come on people, just answer the questions, even if your answer sucks.

Vaudeville will never die while John Kirby lives.