My comments about Trump’s transition are from the perspective of “anti-war”, a major position of LRC, not from those of “anti-state” and “pro-market”, which I also endorse but on which Trump’s positions are generally not libertarian.

A Washington Post article provides us with material to understand the progress Trump is making in choosing members of his administration.

In this article, we can easily distinguish and thus lay aside the biases of the reporters. The result is that we find that Trump’s transition displays some good, even very good to excellent, signs from the anti-war, anti-empire perspectives. Trump continues to be bad on Iran, however.

First, Trump and Putin have already conversed by telephone. “…they agreed that relations between their countries were ‘unsatisfactory’ and vowed to work together to improve them, the Kremlin said in a statement.” Vowed? That’s a pretty strong commitment. It means that neither man accepts the status quo.

“Moscow said the two men discussed combining efforts in the fight against terrorism, talked about ‘a settlement for the crisis in Syria’ and agreed that their aides would begin working on a face-to-face meeting between them.” A summit talk already? That’s certainly news. Such meetings are usually not held until there are things that have been agreed upon. Syria is one place where “settlement” is a huge change from where the U.S. has been on Syria since 2011.

Second, “Former congressman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), a respected voice on national security thought to be a leading candidate to run the CIA, was among those pushed out of the team over the past two days, two individuals with direct knowledge said.” This is good news too. Rogers is establishment. It’s all the better that he’s characterized as “a respected voice on national security”. That means he clearly favors the national security state and will perpetuate it if he can. He’s been arguing for a strong U.S. role in Syria for years. He wanted a U.S. military strike in 2013, for example. It’s very good that the Trump team has expelled him.

Third, the headline of the article reads “Trump faces growing tension with key Republicans over national security issues”. The headline is designed to tell a story that will gratify Clinton supporters, which is that Trump has problems in his own party. However, if there is tension, this is good. It shows that his team is resisting the standard Republican warmongers.

Fourth, related to point three, is that McCain has spoken up with a lot of junk. He “issued a statement blasting Putin as ‘a former KGB agent who has plunged his country into tyranny, murdered his political opponents, invaded his neighbors, threatened America’s allies and attempted to undermine America’s elections.'” This statement just shows how weak McCain’s hand is in this game. If he had any influence with Trump, he wouldn’t go public like this. He’s saying the same old stuff, and it’s either wrong or irrelevant or both. McCain’s statement indicates a fear that Trump is going in a very, very different direction than what McCain’s position entails, which is that he thinks Russia is a mortal enemy of the U.S.

The bad news about Trump’s foreign policy is his anti-Iran deal position. In addition, his close national security advisor, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, would expand war against ISIS and would seek to undermine Iran’s Islamic Republic. Flynn co-authored a book with neocon Michael Ledeen.

This article also tries to make Trump’s team look like nasty loonies by taking sides with Eliot A. Cohen. Cohen’s tweet is anti-Trump. The amazing thing is that Google News reports it as “Most referenced”. This is in line with the continued post-election anti-Trump bias in major media. According to this article “Eliot Cohen, a leading voice of opposition to Trump among former GOP national security officials during the campaign, blasted Trump’s transition team for its treatment of perceived foes.”

I submit that he has been accorded exactly the treatment that he deserves as a Republican foe of Trump during the campaign. And I made that point yesterday before I had ever heard of him or his remarks.

“Cohen, who last week had urged career officials to serve in Trump’s administration, said in an interview that a longtime friend and senior transition team official had asked him to submit names of possible national security appointees. After he suggested several people, Cohen said, his friend emailed him back in terms he described as ‘very weird, very disturbing.’

“It was accusations that ‘you guys are trying to insinuate yourselves into the administration…all of YOU LOST.’…it became clear to me that they view jobs as lollipops, things you give out to good boys and girls,” said Cohen, who would not identify his friend.” The “lollipop” remark is ridiculous. Cohen knows damn well that he and Trump have unbridgeable policy differences.

Cohen’s account is self-serving. It’s designed to make himself look like an innocent victim whose hand was bitten by some rabid dogs, when he was the one who bit Trump’s hand in the campaign. “He [Cohen] was a driving force behind an open letter last spring — eventually signed by 122 Republican national security leaders — who opposed Trump’s candidacy.” This being the case, why did he expect that his advice would be embraced? His “friend” who solicited his advice was not doing Trump any good by asking for recommendations from an anti-Trump source!

We are told in this article one more favorable piece of news. “Inside Trump Tower in Manhattan, where the president-elect is planning his government, the shift [in transition team] is seen as a clear signal that Trump will govern more in line with the populist, hardline campaign he ran…”

The reason for this blog is not to keep up with the Trump presidency or the transition. Although it’s minor, the Eliot A. Cohen story is the main reason. That’s an example of how to twist the truth until it becomes a lie. The rest was convenient to comment upon, and it took over.

The Best of Michael S. Rozeff