Most Believe Trump Should Have Asked Congress Before Using Military In Venezuela

The chart above reflects the results of the YouGov Poll -- done on January 3rd of a nationwide sample of 2,092 adults. 

Voters Don't Like The Way Trump Is Handling Foreign Conflicts

 

The charts above reflect the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between December 20th and 22nd of a nationwide sample of 1,425 registered voters, with a 3.3 point margin of error.

The Letter From A Group Of Former Military JAG Officers On The Boat Attacks

 

From justseciruty.org.

Most Americans Oppose Military Action In Venezuela

 

The chart above are from the CBS News / YouGov Poll -- done between November 19th and 21st of a nationwide sample of 2,489 adults, with a 2.4 point margin of error.

Trump Approval 39% - Public Opposes Military In Cities - Blame Trump/GOP For Shutdown

 

The charts above reflect the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between October 4th and 6th of a nationwide sample of 1,648 adults (including 1,490 registered voters). The margin of error is 3.4 points for adults and 3.1 points for registered voters.

Americans Don't Want Soldiers Or National Guard In Their Cities

 

The charts above are from the CBS News / YouGov Poll -- done between October 1st and 3rd of a nationwide sample of 2,441 adults, with a 2.3 point margin of error.

Trump Goes To War - Against The United States

 

The following post is by Robert Reich:

The man who launched an attempted coup on the United States in 2020 and instigated an insurrection at the Capitol that resulted in five deaths now claims that people in Los Angeles are launching an insurrection. They’re not.

 

Yesterday, the Pentagon activated 700 Marines out of the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, California, to join the 4,000 federalized National Guard’s military occupation of parts of Los Angeles.

Trump doesn’t give a damn whether the troops are necessary. Nor does he care how many people are injured or even killed in his raid on Los Angeles. The show of military force is the point. It gives him the appearance of power. 

Like any bully, Trump is fundamentally a coward. Humiliated by China, Harvard, the Supreme Court, Elon Musk, and the federal courts, Trump has launched a war inside America on vulnerable people inside America, in a place — California — most of whose inhabitants loathe him.

All of this was manufactured by Trump. It was and is his creation. The frightful specter of federally controlled troops in American streets has historically signaled a social crisis — forcing integration in Arkansas, protecting civil rights marchers in Alabama. But Trump is sending the military to Los Angeles at a time when state and local officials say there is no need.

 

Let’s be clear: Trump and his lackeys want blood in the streets. They have been planning for it. “Looking really bad in L.A.,” Trump wrote on Truth Social shortly after midnight Sunday night. “BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!” 

The bully-in-chief has appointed a bunch of tin-pot bullies to every position of lethal force in the federal government — and is now activating them.

 

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristy Noam is a Trump stooge seemingly without understanding of the U.S. Constitution. Secretary of State Marco Rubio appears willing to go along with whatever Trump wants. Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller is a maniacal xenophobe. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is a brain-dead Trump sycophant. Border czar Tom Homan is a toady who has not ruled out arresting California’s leaders if they obstruct federal law enforcement. 

The central struggle of civilization has always been to stop brutality. Unless we prevent the stronger from attacking or exploiting the weaker, none of us is safe. 

A civil society is the opposite of what Trump seeks. A civil society doesn’t allow the strong to brutalize the weak. It moves as far as possible away from brutality. 

Every time the stronger brutalize the weaker — whether it’s Trump and his flunkies bullying immigrants and the state of California, white supremacists bullying Black and Latino people, giant corporations bullying customers with high prices, the wealthy bullying the public to get giant tax cuts, Elon Musk bullying poor people by cutting programs they depend on, police bullying poor Black people, powerful men bullying women through sexual harassment, politicians building their power by bullying racial or ethnic minorities, Netanyahu wiping out Palestinians in Gaza, Putin trying to take over Ukraine — it’s fundamentally the same playbook: Stoke fear. Exploit desperation. Suspend the rule of law. Fan brutality.

 

Unless the bullies are stopped, an entire society — even the world — can descend into chaos. 

Our duty is to stop brutality. Our responsibility is to hold the powerful accountable. Our challenge is to stand up to abuses of power. Our moral obligation is to protect the vulnerable.

The Public Thinks "Signalgate" Was A Serious Matter

 

The charts above are from the CBS News / YouGov Poll -- done on March 27th and 28th of a nationwide sample of 2,609 adults, with a 2.3 point margin of error.

Americans Say Sharing Military Plans With A Journalist Was A Serious Problem

The chart above is from the YouGov Poll -- done on March 25th of a nationwide sample of 5,976 adults with a 2 point margin of error. 

Former Defense Secretaries Call For Firings Of Military To Be Investigated

 

Public Supports Women In Combat And Transgenders In The Military

 

The charts above are from the Gallup Poll -- done between January 21st and 27th of a nationwide sample of 1,001 adults, with a 4 point margin of error.

A Plurality In U.S. Support Decreasing Military Aid To Israel

 

The chart above reflects the result of the new Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between April 6th and 9th of a nationwide sample of 1,795 adults (including 1,583 registered voters). The margin of error for adults is 3.1 points and for registered voters is 2.9 points.

Voters Oppose More Military Aid To Israel For Gaza War

The chart above reflects the results of the latest Quinnipiac University Poll -- done between March 21st and 25th of a nationwide sample of 1,407 registered voters, with a 2.6 point margin of error.

Protecting Abortion Care Is A Matter Of National Security

The following post is by Louis Caldera, Ray Mabus, and Deborah James in The Washington Post. 

Louis Caldera is a former Army secretary and former director of the White House Military Office. Ray Mabus is a former Navy secretary. Deborah James is a former Air Force secretary and former assistant defense secretary for reserve affairs.

The tragic attack on our troops at Tower 22 in Jordan is a stark reminder of how those in uniform might give their lives at any moment in service to our country. Two of the three soldiers killed were women. They lost their lives for a country that is moving to restrict the rights of all women — including those in uniform.

While it might not seem to be a military issue, the Supreme Court will soon decide a case that will affect the armed forces and hundreds of thousands of women who serve in uniform — as well as those civilians we need to recruit. The question before the court is whether to severely limit access to mifepristone, one of two drugs used for medication abortions up to 10 weeks of pregnancy. Medication abortions make up over half of the cases in the United States.

Threatening vital reproductive health care will only make it harder to recruit and retain women across the military and meet the security challenges of a dangerous world. That is precisely why we, as former secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force, felt compelled to join with retired general officers in filing a landmark amicus brief to the Supreme Court with the nonpartisan Vet Voice Foundation.

Our filing marked the first time that former defense professionals and retired military officers have weighed in on a Supreme Court abortion case on national security grounds.

Although there are a number of barriers to receiving reproductive care, service members for now can still obtain safe and effective medication abortions without visiting a doctor’s office. Mifepristone offers a less expensive, more private and convenient method of abortion care, including for those women stationed in remote locations and to whom the military cannot provide care directly.

This case could not come at a worse time. We are deeply concerned about our country’s defense readiness. The Army, Navy and Air Force all failed to meet recruiting goals last fiscal year. Men in particular have lost interest in joining the military, and the number of people who meet its rigorous enlistment standards has gone down.

Women are critical to our military. But for many, the demands and challenges can be career-ending. Female service members are 28 percent more likely to leave military service, driven in part by difficulties with family planning and child care. Reducing that attrition rate — combined with bringing in new female recruits — is essential to maintaining America’s military readiness and protecting our national security.

Mifepristone has provided military women and veterans safe and effective care they need, regardless of where they are stationed or deployed. When women are forced to take extended leave and travel out of state to access health care, their units are deprived of full staffing, and the women’s morale and careers suffer. Moreover, delays in accessing care increase the health risk associated with abortion.

Military service requires many sacrifices, including being stationed in locations where access to reproductive care is already hard to find. Undermining our female service members’ physical and mental well-being could have disastrous consequences.

Those who take an oath and wear the uniform will always do their duty and put their lives on the line for us. But those who defend America should not — while on the front lines or training to defeat our nation’s enemies — also have to fight for reproductive care and bodily autonomy. That is more than a matter of principle. It’s a matter of national security.

Tuberville Thinks The "Culture War" Trumps Our Military

Republicans like to claim they are strong supporters of the military. The same can't be said for Alabama's GOP senator. Tommy Tuberville is holding up all military promotions because of his idiotic culture war beliefs. Steve Been, at MSNBC.com, explains: 

Tuberville has spent months blocking 184 military promotions — not because he has concerns about officers’ qualifications, but as part of a broader tantrum over a policy dispute.

The GOP senator — whose most meaningful association with the military was coaching the losing team in the 2014 Military Bowl — objects to a Pentagon policy that provides troops and their family members paid leave and stipends to travel for abortions or for fertility treatments. Tuberville is apparently of the opinion that the policy is at odds with existing federal law. He has no background in such matters, and lawyers who know what they’re talking about completely disagree, but that hasn’t swayed the senator, who hasn’t budged.

The Alabaman’s blockade has been condemned by the Pentagon, which has said the Republican senator’s tactic poses a “clear risk” to the nation’s military readiness and directly affects the lives of service members’ families. What’s more, literally every living former Defense secretary from the past quarter-century — including two former Republican members of the Senate — recently signed on to a joint statement to Senate leaders with a simple message: Tuberville is hurting the military with his blockade.

Even other GOP senators have expressed discomfort with the Alabaman's antics.

Tuberville’s blockade, however, continues, and it will apparently apply to Air Force Gen. C.Q. Brown Jr., who is supposed to become the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

There’s growing talk in Democratic circles that Senate leaders can’t allow an abuse like this to continue indefinitely, and members can change what one House Democrat described as “stupid, arcane, [and] selfish rules.”

Senate leaders have not expressed a willingness to overhaul the chamber’s traditions on holds — though the longer Tuberville’s tantrum continues, the more likely it is Democratic members will rethink their comfort with the status quo.

Another Massive (And Very Bloated) Military Budget

 The following article is by Robert Reich:

Congress is on track in the coming week to give final approval to a national military budget for the fiscal year that is expected to reach about $858 billion — or $45 billion more than President Biden had requested and 8 percent more than last year. 

This is its highest level of military spending (adjusted for inflation) since the peaks in the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars between 2008 and 2011. It’s the second-highest military spending since World War II. It’s more than the budgets for the next 10 largest cabinet agencies combined. It’s larger than the military spending of the next 10 largest military powers in the world combined. 

Expect it to be even more. Congress is considering an extra $21.7 billion for the Pentagon to resupply materials used in Ukraine.

Don’t fall for the myth that this humongous sum is going to our troops. What’s spiking is spending on weapons (including a 55 percent jump in Army funding for new missiles and a 47 percent jump for the Navy’s weapons purchases). 

All told, more than half of this giant spending budget is going to for-profit companies (such as Lockheed, Raytheon, Boeing, General Dynamics, BAE, and Northrop Grumman) whose stock prices are surging. The profits are going into executive pay, shareholder dividends, and stock buybacks. 

This is the military-industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower warned of — on steroids. 

And yet, there’s almost no debate. Most Americans aren’t aware of what’s happening. And many of those who do know aren’t tracking the humongous size of this relative to previous military spending. And no one is hearing any arguments on the other side.

Yes, of course, America has to worry about Putin, China, Iran, and North Korea. But before deciding to spend so much, we might at least expect some, er, discussion. 

How on Earth are we supposed to believe we “can’t afford” paid family leave, an expanded child tax credit, Medicare for all, or universal pre-K when our politicians are willing to spend $858 billion on the military without batting an eye?

Worse yet: No one knows where all this the money is going. 

The Pentagon just failed its annual audit for the fifth year in a row. “I would not say that we flunked,” said DoD Comptroller Mike McCord, although his office did admit that the Pentagon only managed to account for 39 percent of its $3.5 trillion in assets. 

The U.S. military is the only U.S. government agency to have never passed a comprehensive audit.

Cost-overruns are legion. The Pentagon’s failed F-35 program has exceeded its original budget by $165 billion to date. It’s projected to cost more than $1.7 trillion.

“Guns versus butter” is the old story. Now it’s extraordinary bloat versus unnecessary misery for American families struggling with a cost-of-living crisis exacerbated by inflation. 

A recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that most American workers have become poorer over the past year because their real wages haven’t kept up with inflation.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.

 

So back to my question: Why no real debate?

Because support for military spending is bipartisan. No lawmaker wants to be portrayed as weak on national defense. Democrats have been jumping onto the military spending bandwagon as fast as Republicans. 

Bipartisanship is not always good. In fact, it’s a problem when, as now, the lack of political conflict means no news. Absent political conflict, there’s no story. Without a story, there’s no debate or discussion in the media. Absent any debate in the media, most Americans have no idea what’s happening. 

We’re sleepwalking through history.