The Red State Republicans betrayed Winston Church, and Sir Ian Easton. While elected lawmakers let Putin off the hook. His killer goons attacks Putin’s enemy in Britain, ignoring their armed forces, indeed, telling them they are impotent to stop him! Trump did not go on Fox News and tell Putin Britain is our ally, and this attack is an attack on NATO, and the U.S.A. Instead, he celebrated his victory over sixty million voters who did not vote for him. Once again, he gets to call them crybaby snowflakes – thanks to Putin!
There is a movie and a series or two about Churchill aimed at a third generation of young people who know nothing about him. Rena Easton’s late husband was in charge of the British Defense Staff in America. His job was to make sure these two nations will be there for each other when taking on – yet another mutual foe!
(CNN)Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee announced Monday they found no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia and that they are shutting down their yearlong investigation.
The committee’s Republicans are also disagreeing with the intelligence community’s assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin was trying to help the Trump campaign over Hillary Clinton, a notion that aligns with President Donald Trump’s viewpoint on election meddling.
In 1922 a cabinet committee under Winston Churchill, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, recommended the formation of the College. The college was founded in 1927 as the Imperial Defence College and was located at 9 Buckingham Gate until 1939. Its objective at that time was the defence of the Empire. In 1946, following the end of World War II, the college reopened at Seaford House, Belgrave Square and members of the United States forces started attending courses. It was renamed the Royal College of Defence Studies in 1970 and in 2007 the Queen and Prince Philip visited the college.
The British Defence Staff – US, which was previously known as British Defence Staff (Washington), is the home of the Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom) in the United States of America and its purpose is to serve the interests of Her Majesty’s Government in the USA. The British Defence Staff – US is led by the Defence Attaché and has responsibility for military and civilian MOD personnel located both within the Embassy and in 34 states across the USA.
British Defence Staff – US alongside the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and other Government Departments collectively serve the interests of Her Majesty’s Government in the USA.
The great war leader went on to outline his hope for the outcomes of the Marshall Plan and the formation of global organizations committed to peace-keeping. The subsequent history of these, one fears, would have left Churchill sadly disappointed. Of particular note, the United Nations and the European Union, with their sovereignty-leeching tendencies to stifle nation states and great bi-lateral friendships such as that of the U.S. and United Kingdom, would have confounded as well as disappointed Churchill.
Notably, he coined a phrase in this speech, “THE Special Relationship”—referring to the Anglo-American alliance— which suggests the importance it deserves. At Fulton, Churchill highlighted the need, for the whole world, of our great alliance—a relationship based upon a compassionate world view underpinned by “the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world,” undergirded by the resources of our combined military might.
While he would have been let down by the trajectory of many global organizations, Churchill would have been reassured by the achievements of the Special Relationship, which endures to help stabilize the world, notwithstanding new global threats and all manner of heads of government in both countries.
Indeed, thank heaven for a bi-lateral alliance that has not only the strength, but the resolve to take on the world’s great menaces, undeterred by the voices of protest.
If not for leadership like that of Churchill, and Reagan and Thatcher after him, freedom would surely not prevail today.
What if, for instance, Churchill had bent to public opinion favoring appeasement in Britain before she entered the war? The period of darkness and inhumanity unleashed by the Nazis likely would have penetrated the whole world, including our own shores.
Even with his legacy of having saved the free world, and his great oration, Churchill’s speech earned scorn from many sides, unsurprisingly fueled by the media, both American and British. The New York Times said Churchill had painted “a dark picture of post-war Europe.” He was accused after the speech for positing “poisonous doctrines” that were tagged as alarmist, racist, and imperialist. Even Truman initially backed away, but once again, under Stalin’s leadership, events proved Churchill prophetic.
Contemporary detractors wail against the American Exceptionalism embodied by President Trump’s approach and protest on the streets of San Francisco and elsewhere. In the UK socialist-embracing Corbynistas and American Sandersites wail against capitalism and free markets and wring their hands over holding our enemies in the Middle East and North Korea to account.
Happily good sense still prevails in some quarters. The stirring new film “Darkest Hour” is an example. It portrays for a new generation Churchill’s stand against the whirlwind of adversity and reminds us just how close we came to losing everything we fight for. And for its part, Fulton, Missouri, has a museum dedicated to the inspiring statesman.
In the end, Churchill’s instincts were right—about nearly everything that counts. Thank you, Winston for Fulton and for your courage and resolve.
LONDON — British Prime Minister Theresa May said on Monday it was “highly likely” that Moscow was to blame for the poisoning of a former Russian spy who was attacked with a nerve agent near his home in southern England.
Mrs. May’s remarks, delivered in an address to Parliament, were an unusually direct condemnation of a country that Britain has, in the past, been loath to blame for attacks on its soil. British authorities took what critics said were only modest countermeasures after a similar incident in 2006, when Russian agents poisoned a former MI6 informant with a rare and toxic isotope, polonium 210.
The prime minister, who resisted an open inquiry into Russia’s role in that case, was under pressure to show more resolve this time. The March 4 nerve agent attack on Sergei V. Skripal, who was an informant for Britain’s foreign intelligence service, and his daughter, Yulia, occurred in and around public spaces in the city of Salisbury, and risked exposing hundreds of bystanders to lethal chemicals.
“It is now clear that Mr. Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia,” Mrs. May said in the House of Commons. “The government has concluded that it is highly likely that Russia was responsible for the act against Sergei and Yulia Skripal.”
She said that either the poisoning was a “direct act of the Russian state against our country” or that Moscow had lost control of its nerve agent and had allowed it to get into the hands of others. The prime minister said the government had summoned the Russian ambassador to London to ask which of those two possibilities had occurred, and that Britain expected a response from Russia by the end of the day on Tuesday.
WASHINGTON — Top Democratic leaders in the House and Senate implored President Trump on Monday to employ “all resources available” to extradite 13 Russians charged last month with subverting the 2016 presidential election after Russia’s president raised the possibility of Jewish involvement.
“Ensuring these Russian nationals stand trial in the United States is imperative for deterring Russia from future attacks on our democracy and would be a signal to those who seek to meddle with our election that such actions are not without consequences,” Senator Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in his chamber, and Representative Nancy Pelosi, the top Democrat in the House, wrote in a letter to the White House.
Jewish groups in the United States and officials in Israel also joined in an uproar over comments by the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, in which he appeared to suggest that Jews might have been behind the hacking attack on the 2016 election in the United States.
In an interview broadcast on NBC News over the weekend, Mr. Putin was asked about the 13 Russian citizens charged by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, looking into the election interference. The question prompted a long, meandering response from Mr. Putin.
“Maybe they are not even Russians,” Mr. Putin mused, “but Ukrainians, Tatars or Jews, but with Russian citizenship, which should also be checked. Maybe they have dual citizenship or a Green Card. Maybe the U.S. paid them for this. How can you know that? I do not know either.”