01-16-2017 (Photo: ) http://JohnBatchelorShow.com/contact http://JohnBatchelorShow.com/schedules http://johnbatchelorshow.com/blog Twitter: @BatchelorShow

Trump’s Tillerson Exaggerates US Capability in the South China Sea. @JedBabbin @AmSpec

“…T-Rex stumbled badly on the Nine Dash line which circumscribes China’s claims of sovereignty over most of the South China Sea. Speaking about China, he began well, saying that China’s construction of military bases on islands contested by Vietnam, the Philippines, and other nations was akin to Russia’s seizure of the Crimean Peninsula. But he went on, “We’re going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed.” China, of course, reacted with threats of war. Two Chinese government-controlled newspapers threatened a large-scale war if the U.S. tried to block China’s access to the islands. Tillerson broke Trump’s rule against telling the adversary what we intended to do. What Tillerson proposed would, obviously, be an act of war. As CEO of Exxon, he couldn’t have made threats like that (not that any CEO could do anything remotely as serious) without checking first with his board of directors. If Tillerson made that statement without clearing it first with Trump — and Generals Flynn and Mattis and Rep. Pompeo — he went far beyond what a secretary of state should ever do. T-Rex, if he made the statement in error, will be chastened in private conversation with Trump. If he intended to begin a battle over Trump’s control of foreign policy, T-Rex should be retired quickly from the position of secretary of state. Tillerson’s statement wasn’t only improper: it was very unwise. At this moment in history we don’t have a vital national security interest in those South China Sea islands. That means we don’t have a sufficient reason to go to war over them. What Tillerson evidently doesn’t realize is that we not only lack the reason to do so, we lack the strategy and forces that would be required….”

https://spectator.org/t-rex-stumbles-on-the-9-dash-line/

Masha Gessen’s “The Man Without a Face,” describes how the KGB promoted Mr. Putin from relative obscurity to great power and that he is as thin-skinned as a rhinoceros. Walter Laquer’s “Putinism,” details how and why Mr. Putin’s philosophy is a combination of calculated incitement of Russian nationalism and a determined quest to restore Russia to superpower status. Mrs. Clinton’s memoir shows how she engineered the risible “reset” with Russia and, by implication, how she and Mr. Obama were manipulated by Mr. Putin into an arms treaty that disadvantages America. From all of that, it’s very hard to see how Mr. Putin would hold a grudge against Mrs. Clinton, or why he would prefer Mr. Trump to her. There are many reasons to believe the IC report is politically-motivated. In December the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) requested an IC briefing on the alleged Russian election cyberattacks. HPSCI was refused the briefing, which indicates an IC desire to avoid scrutiny. Two days before the Jan. 6 report was released, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, New York Democrat, warned Mr. Trump of a political backlash from the IC because of his questioning the legitimacy of the IC probe into Russia’s alleged attempts to interfere in the election. Had he already seen it?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/15/fake-news-from-the-intelligence-agencies/