• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Election Op-Ed Series - Chapter 1 - Robert Cardillo Blasts Trump for failure to serve US National Security Interests

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
20,903
Reaction score
14,890
Location
Rocky Mtn. High
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Trump failed to garner the endorsement of a single major US Newspaper in 2016. Most refused to endorsement him calling him "unfit to serve".

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...-list-of-endorsements-20161026-htmlstory.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election

These newspapers included the Dallas Morning Star, The Cincinnati Enquirer, the Arizona Republic and USA Today, each of which had not failed to endorse the Republican candidate in decades.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2016/09/07/recommend-hillary-clinton-us-president
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/op...dorses-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/90728344/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...-editorial-board-editorials-debates/91295020/
http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2016/09/27/hillary-clinton-endorsement/91198668/

Now, I have often asked the question here, "what did they get wrong?" . No one here has attempted to answer that question, leading me to conclude they got it right. Which brings us to this subject: newspaper endorsements of presidential candidates.

What I like about newspaper endorsements, whether or not you agree with the conclusion, is that they are well reasoned arguments in support of one candidate over the other. We are debate politics, yet "well reasoned" arguments here seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

I thought running a series of threads arguing the presidential endorsements of various major newspapers might be fun as it at begins in a good place .... a well reasoned argument in support of one candidate or another. I will try to post as many as I can. I hope others enjoy this contribute as well. Although I do expect Trump to be shut out of major endorsements, there will be some small papers that will endorse him. I do hope someone catches one of those and contributes. It would be nice to start a discussion of Trump with a well reasoned argument in his favor.

I have yet to see a newspaper editorial staff make an endorsement. There have been plenty of political endorsements, as follows....


So, to kick of my "well reasoned" endorsement, let's start with this: not actually a newspaper endorsement but an excellent guest commentary from Robert Cardillio, retired director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency after 36 years of public service that also included serving as deputy director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Acting J2 — a first for a civilian — in support of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, which appeared yesterday in the Denver Post.

"....I served under six presidents — four Republicans, two Democrats — only one has failed to serve U.S. national security interests
As a Commander in Chief, President Trump comes up tragically short.....

....I spent over 300 mornings in the Oval Office briefing the president and his senior staff. I had the privilege to manage, edit and deliver the president’s Daily Brief a summary of the most timely and critical intelligence threats to the U.S. from 2010 to 2014.

As a Deputy on the National Security Council, I spent over 1,000 hours in the White House Situation Room providing the intelligence assessments which informed critical U.S. national security policy decisions — including the raid that rendered justice for the victims of 9/11.

Since I have been eligible to vote, I have never registered with a political party. I remain an independent with a history of voting for candidates I believe in — I focused on their policy and not their party. Before this election, I have never spoken out for or against a candidate for any office.

But I can be silent no longer...."


Cardillo goes on to explain Trump's unfitness for office based upon him not doing the job of protecting America's national security. Your well-reasoned thoughts...





 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
90,203
Reaction score
38,928
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Trump failed to garner the endorsement of a single major US Newspaper in 2016. Most refused to endorsement him calling him "unfit to serve".

And yet, Trump won. I guess that means that nobody really cares about newspaper endorsements.

Oh well...

/thread
 

Tangmo

Army Veteran
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
22,943
Reaction score
6,186
Location
Fascist Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Shortly after Trump became Potus and in the oval office Trump gave classified intelligence to the Russian foreign minister and the Russian ambassador. No Americans were present, only Russians were in the oval office to include Russian media. Americans and the world found out about it via the Russian media.

Subsequently chairman of the Armed Services Committee Sen. McCain asked Gen. Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during a hearing if giving intelligence to the Russians was a good idea.

"No, " Gen. Dunford said, "sharing intelligence with the Russians is not a good idea."

So McCain the Russia Nemesis and Gen. Dunford CJCS agreed.

Which reminds us that espionage against the United States is a crime.
 
Top Bottom