this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2025

225 points (98.7% liked)

politics

22233 readers

3701 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world

JuBe@lemmy.world

Lasherz12@lemmy.world

225

Trump revokes security clearances for Biden, Harris, Clinton and other perceived enemies (www.politico.com)

submitted 2 days ago by Redditsux@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 30 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] GuyFawkes@midwest.social 65 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Only reason to do that is if he’s hiding something.

[–] Australis13@fedia.io 39 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It may not even be that rational. It could be as simple as him being petty.

[–] b3an@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

100% it’s pettiness. He thrives on it. He ENJOYS being a barrier to people’s access to anything. It’s how he feels ‘powerful’.

[–] suite403@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

It can be a dictator likely is both

[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 52 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What a pathetic little man.

[–] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Tiny 🍄

[–] MuskyMelon@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Aw let's not besmirch the poor mushroom. Trump's penis is an itty-bitty, teenie-fungi weenie.

[–] DarkDarkHouse 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

An itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny, yellow, pustulant porcini

[–] MuskyMelon@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Leave the porcini alone!!!

[–] some_guy 48 points 2 days ago

That’s normal. Remember how every other president did the same thing? /s

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I revoke Trump’s security clearance to my secrets. If he submits an FOIA request, within 90 days, I’ll be happy to send him 40 pages of redacted text where the only words not redacted are “Ivanka” and “BOFA.”

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What’s the Bank of America have to do with anything?

[–] normanwall@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

BOFA Deez nuts lol gottem

[+] NimdaQA@lemmy.world -34 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No one in the title deserves security clearances, especially not Trump and Hillary.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 34 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State for eight years and has plenty of reason to have a security clearance for her advice. Lumping her in with Trump (let alone saying that Biden and Harris who were just P and VP mere months ago shouldn't have clearance) is an absolute dogshit take.

[–] Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone -5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Does her current role require access to classified data? If it does not, then she doesn't need clearance. It is literally as simple as "need to know".

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What role? Clinton works at Columbia now. It's a matter of fact nonetheless that former officials are often called back to discuss things they have special knowledge of, let alone a Secretary of State of eight years. Would that be used now? No, because Donald Trump is a petulant fucking moron who does whatever braindead, evil, impulsive shit he wants. Would it if we had a competent president? Almost certainly, yes. I'm aware of the principle of least privilege; it does not apply here. It's especially useful to have in a time of crisis because procedures still need to be followed, and getting clearance takes time. If you need that information right now but their clearance is revoked, you're screwed.

Donald Trump being an absolute moron and refusing to ever use her expertise isn't a valid reason to revoke her clearance.

[+] NimdaQA@lemmy.world -31 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I don’t care if she was Secretary of State, revoke it considering she wanted to risk starting WW3 over Syria of all places with her no fly zone which is protecting ISIS and ‘moderate rebels’ (whom just killed thousands recently in Latakia after their take over) from Russian bombs by proxy.

Her being the Secretary of State during her time period is even more reason to not give her security clearance.

Edit: Lasherz made it clear that by how my comment was worded, that I am stating that protecting ISIS was Clinton’s task, it wasn’t but she was doing it (in my eyes) by proxy.

[–] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Her stated reasons were to protect Syrian civilians, not "ISIS and moderate rebels" according to your own source... Be careful about spreading misinformation. It's okay to have the opinion that that's who she was protecting, but I'd say the stated goals of Obama's admin plainly dispute that motivation as well.

[+] NimdaQA@lemmy.world -11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

She wanted to arm insurgents (only good thing is that one of the groups she would support would be Kurds) and then during her campaign, stated that she wants a no-fly zone under the guise of protecting civilians. Hmmm.

To hinder Russian military operations in Syria was to support ISIS and ‘moderate rebels’ (mostly terrorists with exception of the Kurds) by proxy. It was Russian airpower that defeated ISIS as they destroyed ISIS command & control centers and destroyed ISIS ability to project force by bombing all targets that were not Assad’s forces (while many perhaps most of the targets were ‘moderate rebels’, the sheer number of sorties meant that significant damage to ISIS was done, more damage than the west inflicted) at a time when the Syrian government’s supply lines was cracking.

Damascus would be ISIS controlled territory if Russia didn’t turn half of Syria into a parking lot. Russia did this in support of Assad who is a horrible dictator but them not doing this means ISIS would have defeated Syria which would be a more horrible outcome.

[–] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Why is trying to prevent Russian airstrikes on Assad's behalf triggering doubt that it's for the benefit of the civilians? The kurds weren't the ones Exterminating them with chemical warfare

The article you linked once again states her motivations were not what you said... She wanted to support the Kurds, something virtually no progressive should have a problem with doing in the Middle East. She specifically wanted to prevent ISIS from coming to power by arming the kurds and you even acknowledge the airstrikes were mostly used against them and not just from Russia, but Turkey too thanks to Trump fully abandoning our allies. Also, for the people of Syria, Assad may represent stability for the Russian interests there, but horrible outcomes for the people, I find/found him to be the worst of the three options.

Again, you're free to say you think her motivations were to give ISIS a Senzu bean, but her stated mission was to arm and train the kurds and topple Assad. Something that eventually happened from a less scrupulous group because of a power vaccuum left by Russia, after trying to shore up a US power vaccuum with a cruel dictator and getting distracted by other imperialist interests. If anything, the strong ISIS emergence was directly counter to her plans; If you don't misleadingly claim the plan and motivations immediately stop after Assad is outsted, anyway.

[–] NimdaQA@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The article you linked once again states her motivations were not what you said… She wanted to support the Kurds

Something which I stated: (only good thing is that one of the groups she would support would be Kurds)

However historically, efforts to fund ‘moderate rebels’ also benefitted groups such as the Al-Nusra Front.

Jacob Sullivan even stated to Hillary Clinton that, "AQ is on our side in Syria", in reference to al-Qaeda likely about Al-Nusra Front (whom their successors are currently murdering Alawites in massacres after their takeover, thankfully 10k is safe hiding in a Russian air base).

Hillary Clinton's goal was not to have ISIS topple Assad however, America’s previous strategy at least before Russian air power ruined this, was to funnel ISIS concentrations into Assadist forces (in an effort to destroy ISIS) and fund moderate rebels, this however only led to 'moderate rebels' and ISIS hitting Assadist forces on both fronts as many of these ‘moderate rebel’ groups did not prioritize fighting ISIS (really the only one that did was the Kurds hence why I support supporting them). Even with America not directly supporting ISIS, one can easily see how this can benefit ISIS.

something virtually no progressive should have a problem with doing in the Middle East.

And nothing I have a problem with, they are the most democratic region in Syria, believers of socialism, and even Russia supported their aims that is federalization of Syria.

Do note however that SDF barely did anything when Assadist forces were collapsing last year.

Also, for the people of Syria, Assad may represent stability for the Russian interests there, but horrible outcomes for the people, I find/found him to be the worst of the three options.

ISIS, a death cult that wants to start WW3 is a superior outcome according to you or am I not getting what you stating here?

Thankfully by 2024, ISIS was just a blip on a map albeit they remain a cockroach that refuses to die.

[–] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm not sure multiple post-hoc edits are going to make people trust you more, but better than nothing. Do people who interact with you need to screenshot the goalposts?

As for ISIS being better than Assad, I mean the bar is in hell, but for Syrians I think it's unmistakable and Others seem to agree. Kurds would result in a much better governance. What we ended up getting with Al-Sharaa seems like the 2nd best scenario of the 4, which almost certainly couldn't have happened without Ukraine putting up the defense they did.

The Kurds were abandoned to Turkey, and you're surprised they're on the defense? Erdogan wants them dead more than anything. We can talk about alternative timelines, but let's not ignore what got us to the current set of facts and pretend it was always going to be this way.

[–] NimdaQA@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I’m not sure multiple post-hoc edits are going to make people trust you more, but better than nothing.

I was quite known for this on Reddit.

As for ISIS being better than Assad, I mean the bar is in hell, but for Syrians I think it’s unmistakable and Others seem to agree.

Yes, a literal apocolyptic death cult that bombs cities across the world and conduct mass shootings across the world is a better option than Assad? We will have to agree to disagree on this.

The Kurds were abandoned to Turkey, and you’re surprised they’re on the defense?

I am not surprised, I was just stating that they were on the defensive, all the way in the corner in fact.

Erdogan wants them dead more than anything.

I mean we can agree. Have you seen Turkish rhetoric on Kurds? It is genocidal.

What we ended up getting with Al-Sharaa seems like the 2nd best scenario of the 4, which almost certainly couldn’t have happened without Ukraine putting up the defense they did.

Well there were definitely far worst options, I can agree with that.

Then again, there are hardly good options when your country could only be described as "a country-sized battlefield that was fought over by the now-deposed murderous dictator Bashar al-Assad, DAESH remnants, Al-Qaeda psychos, proxies of Iran, proxies of Turkey, private military companies like the Russian-controlled Wagner Group, various oppressed minorities fighting to secede, and supposed moderate rebels".

[–] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Lemmy has no edit history, so the only honest way to edit something after a reply has been made is to contain all new text after Edit: or at least add ()* if it's to fix typos or reword. This should make people feel less like they're arguing with a bag of water.

Let's agree to disagree between who's worse between two nightmare scenarios.

Fair enough, you weren't surprised. Point stands, though, that Kurds are on the defensive largely because of a lack of support and powerful enemies. Hillary didn't have recent events to contend with at the time, and her intended actions likely or at least plausibly would have stopped them from needing to behave that way. Erdogan made his move the literal moment Trump announced no more support, US involvement clearly prevented this up to that point.

Honestly, Al-Sharaa has been a great thing so far if stability is the real goal. This will be tested, though, once he tells a single big nation with economic interests in the region, "no" or if Trump/Putin can find something to extort them for.

[–] NimdaQA@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Honestly, Al-Sharaa has been a great thing so far if stability is the real goal.

The stability of the HTS regime has been pretty good so far, although I was actually surprised by the more recent events actually. I didn't expect things to heat up a bit as they did as I stated here: https://lemmy.world/post/26434168/15500733

This will be tested, though, once he tells a single big nation with economic interests in the region, “no” or if Trump/Putin can find something to extort them for.

My main concern about the new regime is that al-Julani seems to be having massive problems with controlling his own people, I mean he had to instruct his own troops to stop recording arrests or executions (poorly translated sorry) alongside with the massacres against the Alawites and it is difficult to trust someone who was not only former Al Qaeda but also former ISIS.

I do however believe that Assad's crimes is still worse as of now than that of the HTS regime,* I mean Assad had a literal death camp not like the torture chambers that Saddam had but I mean full on extermination camps, namely in the form of Sednaya Prison where 30,000 were killed in.

Edit: *As of right now, but I now have a feeling that things can get worse with the HTS opening all of Syria's prisons completely (something similar happened to Iraq in 2003 resulting in total collapse of order) and the total disregard for the lives of Alawites, Christians, minority women, etc.