• Senate confirms James "Mad Dog" Mattis as Secretary of Defence
    31 replies, posted
[QUOTE]The Senate confirmed James N. Mattis as President Trump’s defense secretary Friday, breaking with decades of precedent by making a recently retired general the Pentagon’s top civilian leader. Mattis, 66, will lead the Defense Department’s 1.9 million active-duty service members and reservists and oversee a budget of more than $580 billion as Trump prepares to expand the military. He becomes the first senior military officer to serve as defense secretary since President Truman nominated Army Gen. George C. Marshall for the job in 1950, as the U.S. military struggled in the Korean War. Many lawmakers and long-time foreign policy observers hope Mattis can be a moderating voice of experience in an administration that has notably few senior officials with national security experience in Washington. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Mattis is one of the most influential military officers of his generation, retiring from the Marine Corps in 2013 as the four-star chief of U.S. Central Command after a career in which he led troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. In his Jan. 12 confirmation hearing, he said he never anticipated he would be nominated for the job and was “enjoying a full life west of the Rockies” when Trump asked to meet with him. “I was not involved in the presidential campaign, and I was certainly not seeking or envisioning a position in any new administration,” Mattis said. “That said, it would be the highest honor if I am confirmed to lead those who volunteer to support and defend the constitution and to defend our people.” To allow Mattis become defense secretary, Congress passed legislation to overcome a law first passed in 1947 that banned recent veterans from the positon. For decades, there was a 10-year moratorium; it was reduced to seven years in 2008. The waiver for Mattis passed 81-17 in the Senate, and then 268 to 151 in the House. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Mattis broke with Trump’s past rhetoric in several instances during his confirmation hearing, arguing that there are few places where Washington is likely to find common ground with Russia and that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance is vital. Trump has sought closer ties with Russia, and called NATO obsolete. “History is not a straitjacket, but I’ve never found a better guide for the way ahead than studying the histories,” Mattis said. “We have a long list of times we’ve tried to engage positively with Russia. We have a relatively short list of successes in that regard.” But Mattis expressed common ground on other issues, including a belief that the U.S. military needs to be fortified. [/QUOTE] [URL]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/01/20/senate-confirms-retired-gen-james-mattis-as-defense-secretary-breaking-with-decades-of-precedent/[/URL]
hooray, the one good trump appointment got approved
mad dog mattis is the best thing to come out of this so far
[quote]oversee a budget of more than $580 billion as Trump prepares to expand the military[/quote] [B]why[/B]
[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;51701080][B]why[/B][/QUOTE] We as humanity need to discover the limits of debt
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51701063]hooray, the one good trump appointment got approved[/QUOTE] And the one that might be his undoing if Trump pisses him off.
Vote was 97-1
[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;51701080][B]why[/B][/QUOTE] Isn't $580 billion less than usual? Last I remember it was around $650 billion.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;51701088]And the one that might be his undoing if Trump pisses him off.[/QUOTE] he'd have to explain to the senate why he fired his sec def.
[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;51701080][B]why[/B][/QUOTE] IIRC we're about 2-5 years ahead of our allies in most regards with military tech. You don't get to that position cheaply.
[QUOTE=bdd458;51701118]Vote was 97-1[/QUOTE] That 1 guy is going to wake up to find Mattis standing over him in his bed.
here's hoping mattis can defend us from our new president
[QUOTE=Judas;51701333]here's hoping mattis can defend us from our new president[/QUOTE] At the very least, he can probably sway most of the Senate away from blindly voting for whatever conflict Trump is going to drive us into.
Mattis is a good choice for Secretary of Defense.
[QUOTE=Judas;51701333]here's hoping mattis can defend us from our new president[/QUOTE] I wonder if there is any way to get Mattis or Kelly as our 46th president within 4 to 8 years.
[QUOTE=AnnieOakley;51701348]I wonder if there is any way to get Mattis or Kelly as our 46th president within 4 to 8 years.[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/vaPr3RJ.png[/img] five well-timed heart attacks
[QUOTE=Ridge;51701319]That 1 guy is going to wake up to find Mattis standing over him in his bed.[/QUOTE] [quote]The Senate's lone "no" vote came from New York Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand, the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Personnel. Gillibrand said in a statement she respects Mattis but cast her vote on the principle of civilian control of the military. [/quote] [url]http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us-senate-confirms-mattis-for-defense-secretary?utm_content=buffer2aeff&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer[/url]
Decent enough reason to vote no. Traditionally Secretary of Defense is a civilian posting. Kind of surprised only one voted no, considering 17 voted against the waiver to begin with.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51701404]Decent enough reason to vote no. Traditionally Secretary of Defense is a civilian posting. Kind of surprised only one voted no, considering 17 voted against the waiver to begin with.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I think it's fantastic to see someone stand up for their beliefs, even when literally everyone else doesn't share the position.
Imho all the Secretaries of Defence we had so far, most of whom civilians, were awful and didn't play a big role in advising the president. I think we should give a chance to someone like Mattis who has an extensive military experience and knowledge in the middle east.
[QUOTE=Judas;51701356][img]http://i.imgur.com/vaPr3RJ.png[/img] five well-timed heart attacks[/QUOTE] Just according to keikaku
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51701404]Decent enough reason to vote no. Traditionally Secretary of Defense is a civilian posting. Kind of surprised only one voted no, considering 17 voted against the waiver to begin with.[/QUOTE] I actually watched the 5+ hour hearing and there has been a huge rift between the Senate Armed Services committee and the Pentagon as apparently the Pentagon has been doing as they please and not working with the senate for the past decade or so. On top of the fact that Mattis is military this has led to major suspicion and initial distrust of him from the senate. That said, the committee did ask him a staggering array of questions (as they should) and his responses sated a lot of the initial dislike of him. It's really not a suprise the no votes were so few no votes, he is safely THE MOST qualified person in the country. I don't care that Gillibrand voted no if she had a decent reason, 'the principle of civilian control of the military' is a pretty stupid reason to bar an overly qualified person from one of the most important jobs in our Government, especially considering the past SecDefs were civilian and had no issues telling the Senate to get fucked. [B]Remember that Trump requires a second authorization by SecDef to order the use of nuclear weapons.[/B]
So I actually looked up Senator Gillibrand and it turns out she was actually on the committee and this is how she spent her time vetting Mattis [video=youtube;JH1_eSjP3YQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JH1_eSjP3YQ[/video] How embarassing, especially the end. This makes me doubt her reason now.
I am very excited to have Mattis as secdef. I don't think you will find many in the armed forces who disagree. We need to get back to warfighting standards and a focus on them rather than being a plaything of whatever social thing that politicians want to force on us. Mattis is a very wise and respected leader, and he will do a great job of keeping things grounded and realistic.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51702178]So I actually looked up Senator Gillibrand and it turns out she was actually on the committee and this is how she spent her time vetting Mattis.[/QUOTE] I understand her concerns though, but he doesn't seem like he cares either way. That could be good or bad, he could allow women to serve as long as they meet standards, but on the other hand he may let minority groups get banned because he doesn't care for protecting those rights.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51702178]So I actually looked up Senator Gillibrand and it turns out she was actually on the committee and this is how she spent her time vetting Mattis [video=youtube;JH1_eSjP3YQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JH1_eSjP3YQ[/video] How embarassing, especially the end. This makes me doubt her reason now.[/QUOTE] Hahaha holy shit, yea I'm starting to doubt it too
[QUOTE=Judas;51701356][img]http://i.imgur.com/vaPr3RJ.png[/img] five well-timed heart attacks[/QUOTE] I want to make a death note joke but the NSA is watching us all
[QUOTE=OvB;51701347]Mattis is a good choice for Secretary of Defense.[/QUOTE] A man who's seen as much as he has is perfect for the job
At least he has some semblance of competence, unlike most of the other appointees. Practically everyone voting yes is showing that the Dems are willing to play ball with Trump's somewhat-acceptable choices so that they can unanimously vote no on the crazy ones to give it more impact.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;51702220]I am very excited to have Mattis as secdef. I don't think you will find many in the armed forces who disagree. We need to get back to warfighting standards and a focus on them rather than being a plaything of whatever social thing that politicians want to force on us. Mattis is a very wise and respected leader, and he will do a great job of keeping things grounded and realistic.[/QUOTE] woah are you in the army?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.