Still can't figure out why Tillerson is a problem.

He has had a lot of dealings with Russia and...

Maybe all true what you said.
But Putin is still a piece of shit.

I have to ask, after watching the video, if it's as cut and dried as Rubio claims, why hasn't something been done by the international community?

I thought Tillerson came across as rational and reasonable, Rubio, not so much.

I have to ask, after watching the video, if it's as cut and dried as Rubio claims, why hasn't something been done by the international community?

I thought Tillerson came across as rational and reasonable, Rubio, not so much.

I agree. Rubio was grandstanding; Tillerson's response was calm and (dare I say it) diplomatic.

He has had a lot of dealings with Russia and...

aarondb4 wrote:

Uhhhh, Putin is an effective leader who serves the interests of his country despite whatever bullshit red lines others draw for him.

I guess maybe you have to be 50-60 years old to have a healthy fear of Russia. At 31 years old I am more worried about the anti-russia rhetoric from some than I am about Russia itself.

With Russia it has been a good policy never trust and always verify. I actually don't have that big of a problem with Tillerson. I am just pointing out why some people don't like him. One of his assets IMO is he has had dealing with the Rookies. But claiming he does not know/ believe that Putin is 'a war criminal' seems to me disingenuous. Bombing schools (killing children) and hospitals is fucked up!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXs0dIxWmnU


New York Times:

"Unlike in some other smaller-scale sieges of recalcitrant cities in Syria, the Syrian government forces and Russian military have begun dropping extraordinarily potent and not terribly precise “bunker buster” bombs which can obliterate underground shelters, residents and aid workers say."

"Hannah Stoddart, director of advocacy and communications for War Child, a charity based in London, said Mr. Assad’s government had violated international law by targeting “built-up areas, schools and hospitals, where there’s a much higher chance that children will be hit"

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/world/middleeast/syria-aleppo-children.html?_r=0

Sadly it really doesn't matter. Russian people love him because he gets the job done and they don't sweat the details. Besides he has 7000 nukes under his index finger.

In the words of Peggie Noonan, Rubio did no harm to Tillerson, but did so to himself. The optics on this aren't looking good. What is his endgame? Go keep the support of the warhawks he had last go around? For a guy who never put on the uniform, he seems to be a little to eager to support military conflict. McCain and to a lesser extent, Graham, I can see, even if I don't agree with them.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...rson/article/2611786

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Bit tough to be sitting on a high horse about bombing cities when we routinely bomb the shit out of whatever we feel like. Drone bombings, Iraq, handing weapons over to rebels or then do god knows what with them, etc.

If Putin is a war criminal, then so is Obama.

Bit tough to be sitting on a high horse about bombing cities when we routinely bomb the shit out of whatever we feel like. Drone bombings, Iraq, handing weapons over to rebels or then do god knows what with them, etc.

If Putin is a war criminal, then so is Obama.

With Russia it has been a good policy never trust and always verify. I actually don't have that big of a problem with Tillerson. I am just pointing out why some people don't like him. One of his assets IMO is he has had dealing with the Rookies. But claiming he does not know/ believe that Putin is 'a war criminal' seems to me disingenuous. Bombing schools (killing children) and hospitals is fucked up!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXs0dIxWmnU


New York Times:

"Unlike in some other smaller-scale sieges of recalcitrant cities in Syria, the Syrian government forces and Russian military have begun dropping extraordinarily potent and not terribly precise “bunker buster” bombs which can obliterate underground shelters, residents and aid workers say."

"Hannah Stoddart, director of advocacy and communications for War Child, a charity based in London, said Mr. Assad’s government had violated international law by targeting “built-up areas, schools and hospitals, where there’s a much higher chance that children will be hit"

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/world/middleeast/syria-aleppo-children.html?_r=0

Sadly it really doesn't matter. Russian people love him because he gets the job done and they don't sweat the details. Besides he has 7000 nukes under his index finger.

2. If this does amount to war crimes and Putin a war criminal why isn't the press and congress pushing the current administration to admit it and take appropriate action?

I believe called for an war crimes investigation into Russia's bombing of Syria this past fall.

1. The statement you made in bold is factually accurate, he didn't say he believed or didn't believe, he said he would want to see ALL the information we have on the issue.
What is the difference?

2. If this does amount to war crimes and Putin a war criminal why isn't the press and congress pushing the current administration to admit it and take appropriate action?

I anxiously await your reply.

Please post a link to something showing John Kerry calling Putin a war criminal.

He has had a lot of dealings with Russia and...[/quote[/url]]

I liked Tillerson for SOS based on what I knew about him which was mostly from reading prior to watching this video.

After watching this exchange with Rubio (if you can call it that) I like him even more. If this is the demeanor, mannerism and thoughtful/even approach he will take into the office I am pleased. I hope he spends a good deal of time in the Oval Office and some of what I just saw rubs off on the Commander in Chief

one of the things I liked about it is that in almost 5 minutes he let Rubio prattle on for 4:00 of them and then answered the "question" in a calm and reasoned manner. All without for the most part answering the question or provoking Rubio into higher hysterics by not answering the question. This is what I am looking for out of a US SOS. It is what we have had in a lot of them (including recently Powell, Rice, and Kerry).

That should read "Kerry called for a war crimes investigation"

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that.

I wonder if anyone in the Obama administration has been pressed as hard as Tillerson was by Rubio.

While I agree that nobody has been pressed previously on this issue, I didn't really see Tillerson pressed that hard. Looked to me like Rubio was too busy speechifying.

I don't think Rubio genuinely cared what Tillerson thought on the issue.

I can't disagree.

He has had a lot of dealings with Russia and...

Rubio's position is idiotic.

We can play word games during what should be a routine confirmation, or we can leave the next administration with the freedom to further the interests of the United States of America.

Rubio's position is idiotic.

We can play word games during what should be a routine confirmation, or we can leave the next administration with the freedom to further the interests of the United States of America.

If one from a perspective mostly opposite of a Tillerson can stretch to that position, one might actually be able to see his experience and relationships around the world including in places like Russia in a positive light. Instead of "having ties to Russia" like that is only a negative thing

I think the strongest counter argument would be from the anti-fossil fuel development/dependency camp. He was party to the largest oil deal in history (Exxon-Mobil with state-owned Rosneft), which stood to produce massive amounts of oil and billions, possibly trillions, of dollars for the partnership. As I understand it, American sanctions on Russia put the project on ice indefinitely, and so the only way the project moves from the red to oceans of black is for the U.S. to change its stance on sanctions as it applies to this project. I don't know if, and to what extent it's possible, he's completely divested from Exxon-Mobil, but having spent his entire adult life in the company, it's fair to say that the project would be very good for those stockholders in his immediate and extended circle, if not him personally. So if you're deeply concerned about fossil fuel development, or the potential for our relationship with our greatest geopolitical foe and international war crime enabler/committer to be heavily influenced by an oil deal, then I can completely understand the opposition.

I've heard mostly good things about him, and the criticism I've read and heard doesn't move me much. His "ties to Russia" are not insignificant, in that respect, though, and I think knowing what our next President's financial relationship with Russia looks like in detail would go a long way to removing the cloud of suspicion from over Tillerson's head.

that is certainly the strongest counter argument. But it kind of discounts the paragraph you didn't quote. Meaning one has already concluded that he hasn't put serving his country and putting the best interests of the USofA ahead of the things you note. Meaning he could serve big oil well and effectively and conversely cant set that aside and is there to screw the USofA in favor of Russia and big oil when the rubber hits the road.

appreciate your insight and comments. I'll take them under consideration

What's with the LR these days? People posting considered opinions instead of inflammatory accusations - what's with that? Even the two ACA threads didn't blow up and had a lot of good exchanges.

I for one am enjoying this state of affairs and want to thank those of you contributing to it.

Report: Trump open to lifting Russian sanctions if 'we get along'
By CRISTIANO LIMA 01/13/17 11:21 PM EST

President-elect Donald Trump expressed a willingness Friday to lift sanctions on Russia if it assists the U.S. in other efforts such as counterterrorism...

“If you get along and if Russia is really helping us, why would anybody have sanctions if somebody’s doing some really great things?” Trump said.

The president-elect spoke of meeting with Russia and its leader Vladimir Putin after he is sworn in.

“I understand that they would like to meet, and that’s absolutely fine with me,” he said.

Exxon Mobil Seeks U.S. Sanctions Waiver for Oil Project in Russia

HOUSTON — Exxon Mobil is pursuing a waiver from Treasury Department sanctions on Russia to drill in the Black Sea in a venture with Rosneft, the Russian state oil company, a former State Department official said on Wednesday. An oil industry official confirmed the account.

The waiver application was made under the Obama administration, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity, and the company has not dropped the proposal.

The proposal is now before the Trump administration at a delicate time in Russian-American relations, with rising tensions over the war in Syria and a looming congressional inquiry into reports of Russian efforts to influence the United States presidential election.

The appeal did not come up during Senate confirmation hearings for Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, who was Exxon Mobil’s chief executive before his nomination by President Trump and was known to have a strong working relationship with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. At the time, Mr. Tillerson and other company officials said they had not lobbied against the sanctions, which were imposed on Russia in response to its military intervention in Ukraine.

But Mr. Tillerson and company officials did note that Exxon Mobil had received a waiver to complete drilling of an exploration well in Russia’s Arctic waters. Company officials also disclosed that they had urged Obama administration officials to make American sanctions consistent with European Union sanctions, which gave greater latitude to European companies to continue taking part in some Russian projects.

The Exxon Mobil waiver request for the Black Sea was reported Wednesday by The Wall Street Journal.

Asked about the waiver application, Alan Jeffers, an Exxon Mobil spokesman, said, “We don’t comment on ongoing issues.” A Treasury representative said the department would not comment on individual licenses or waiver requests.

The oil industry official said that the application had been made in 2015, with Exxon Mobil arguing that it could lose its contractual exploration rights in the Black Sea if it did not begin drilling operations by the end of 2017. European companies, particularly Eni, the Italian oil and gas giant, could then pick up the work.

The Russian news media quoted Zeljko Runje, Rosneft’s vice president for offshore projects, saying last June: “We are going to drill with Eni next year. That is our plan. On the Black Sea.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...4579e4b018a9ce5b014f

just saw this. Haven't read through it in detail so not sure if there is any substance behind it.

Haven't read into this much but it all seems reasonable.

I'm wondering though: we're kinda three months into Trump's term, five months since the election, more than that since the Trump/Russia investigations started. Anyone finding any dirt?!? Lotta people seem convinced that Putin is pulling the strings for whatever reason but what's going on there?