“At the halfway mark of this terrible presidency, one has to wonder how much more the country can take,” the former New York mayor said.
12/24/2018 06:24 am ET By Amy Russo
Michael Bloomberg, in a blistering op-ed ... https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-12-23/shutdown-stock-slump-and-mattis-exit-cap-grim-year-for-trump ... for his namesake media company, eviscerated President Donald Trump for the federal government shutdown and called the budget standoff a “dumb” way to demand border wall funding. The former New York mayor’s column, published on Sunday, said the partial shutdown of the U.S. government shows Trump’s administration is unraveling.
Bloomberg wrote that his major concerns include the potential for an economic nosedive triggered by what he described as Trump’s devil-may-care style of leadership.
“With other countries pleading for sanity and institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization warning of severe consequences if trade sanctions get out of hand, talk of a looming recession is growing,” he said. “Yet the president seems determined to make matters worse — and to hell with the economic consequences.”
Bloomberg pointed to last week’s stock market plunge as another sign that “Trump’s recklessly emotional and senselessly chaotic approach to the job” has a real impact.
“At the halfway mark of this terrible presidency, one has to wonder how much more the country can take,” he added.
The only solution, Bloomberg said, was for the GOP to stand up to Trump.
“Unless something changes — unless, in particular, Republicans in Congress start showing some spine — two more years might be enough to test whether we can sustain Trump’s model of bad government. This past week, we got a glimpse of what the beginning of the collapse may look like — and what it may ultimately cost us.”
Bloomberg, a Democrat, has openly flirted with a 2020 presidential run.
"OP-ED- Trump Rings in the New Year in the Worst Possible Way"
Alex Wong/Getty Images
Analysis
The defense secretary could no longer serve a president who no longer thinks he needs to listen to anybody.
By BLAKE HOUNSHELL
December 20, 2018
James Mattis is not an imposing man. At 5-foot-9, with a slight build, he doesn’t have the physical presence you might expect from someone whose nickname is “Mad Dog.” He doesn’t have, say, H.R. McMaster’s bull neck or booming voice. Yet Mattis loomed large over U.S. national security policy, such as it is, under this presidency—so much so that his long-expected but still-sudden resignation Thursday had Washington reporters competing to see who could dial up the most hair-raising quotes warning of catastrophe ahead.
(My contribution: One former top official who speaks regularly to the White House offered only a one-word reaction over email: “Alarming.”)
When I met Mattis for the first time, at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, the retired Marine general was still fuming over his treatment by the Barack Obama administration—he was fired as Central Command chief, basically, for urging a more aggressive Iran policy—and though our conversation wasn’t on the record, it was clear he was somebody who wasn’t to be trifled with.
Now, he’s aiming his considerable capacity for outrage at a different occupant of the Oval Office, with the stakes far higher given that the president today is, well, Donald Trump.
Every journalist in Washington knew Mattis opposed Trump on the biggest foreign policy issues of the day, be it pushing back against a revanchist Russia, managing the messy conflicts in the broader Middle East, or handling a surging China. He made it known around town that he was running the Pentagon only to protect it, if not the world, from the president, and for nearly two years he was more or less able to prevent an outright crisis.
The question was always when Mattis would reach his breaking point—when the president’s isolationist instincts, impulsive decision-making and attempts to use the military as a political weapon would push him over the edge.
It wasn’t, apparently, Trump’s deployment of U.S. troops to the Mexican border in a transparent effort to swing the November midterms that did it; Mattis went along with that. It wasn’t the president’s repeated snipes at NATO, the trans-Atlantic alliance that has underpinned American national security for seven decades; nor was it his assiduous adoption of Kremlin talking points or his periodic eruptions at U.S. allies—it was basically all of that, Mattis made clear in his extraordinary resignation letter, which contains not a scintilla of praise for his boss and outlines several major points of disagreement.
“Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours,” Mattis wrote, “I believe it is right for me to step down from my position.”
Obviously, Mattis couldn’t abide Trump’s sudden and apparently unilateral decision to pull U.S. troops out of Syria, where they were supporting predominantly Kurdish forces in fighting against ISIS and keeping an eye on an encroaching Iran. Word soon leaked out, too, that Trump plans to yank a big chunk of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, a flailing war effort the president has long questioned as pointless.
It’s not that these moves are indefensible—one can easily imagine a President Hillary Clinton determining that the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze and ordering U.S. forces home.
But in a normal administration, a big move like that would have taken place only after endless rounds of discussions at multiple levels of governments, arguments between agencies, and consultations with allies. There would be plans for every possible contingency, and a carefully coordinated PR rollout. Trump seems to have just ordered it done at the speed of a tweet, and it’s clear his administration hasn’t worked through the dangers that accompany any withdrawal of troops from a war zone.
On Wednesday, the administration hastily announced a conference call to brief the press on the president’s Syria decision, then struggled to explain what it was and when or how it would happen. The Pentagon pointed reporters to the White House; the White House told reporters to talk to the Pentagon. It was a level of chaos I hadn’t seen in a decade of covering U.S. foreign policy.
So it isn’t surprising that Mattis left—with his advice so conspicuously spurned, he might have realized he could no longer be effective. For years, he had ignored or slow-walked Trump’s wilder ideas, such as his reported order to assassinate Syrian President Bashar Assad, but this time the president doesn’t appear to have consulted him at all—and reportedly rejected his desperate final attempt to change his mind over Syria. Any Cabinet secretary would have resigned.
So what now?
Each occupant of the Oval Office claims ever-vaster powers in foreign policy, and Congress has steadily ceded its oversight powers as the complexity of conflicts, and the speed and might of the U.S. military, has increased. So those looking to Capitol Hill for a public intervention may end up disappointed. After all, Republican senators have wished away their differences with Trump on foreign policy for many months, occasionally rebuking him but generally doing little to rein him in.
Still, the criticism from lawmakers seems to have reached a new decibel level by Thursday night. The abrupt nature of the Syria pullout coupled with Mattis’ departure may finally spur them to do more than express mild disappointment.
One strong signal: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who studiously avoids making his differences with the president public, said he was “distressed” by the resignation and urged Trump to choose a replacement who shares Mattis’ views.
But if even the Mad Dog couldn’t sway a willful president who feels utterly unbound by the usual rules of foreign policymaking, why should we think his successor would have any more success? Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Blake Hounshell is the editor in chief of POLITICO Magazine. This article tagged under:
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
