We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
FIFTY SENIOR REPUBLICAN national security officials issued a stinging rejection of their party’s White House nominee Donald Trump today, warning he would be “the most reckless president in American history” if elected.
The group, some of whom had already announced they would not vote for Trump, included former homeland security chiefs, intelligence directors, senior presidential advisors and a former US trade representative. They served under Republican presidents from Richard Nixon to George W Bush.
“We are convinced that he would be a dangerous president and would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being,” they wrote in a statement published in The New York Times.
While they did not say they would vote for Democrat Hillary Clinton – indeed they expressed “doubts” about her – they were clear in stating that “none of us will vote for Donald Trump.”
The experts essentially declared the brash billionaire unfit for office, echoing Clinton’s criticism by saying that Trump “lacks the character, values, and experience to be president” and displays “alarming ignorance of basic facts” of international politics.
Impetuous
The New York real estate mogul also has shown no willingness to learn about foreign affairs or national security threats, “acts impetuously” and lacks self control, the statement said.
“He is unable or unwilling to separate truth from falsehood,” the group wrote, saying Trump possesses a set of “dangerous qualities” that should disqualify him from the presidency.
“We are convinced that in the Oval Office, he would be the most reckless president in American history.”
They warned that the political neophyte’s “erratic behavior” has alarmed America’s closest allies and that he fails to recognise the indispensible nature of such diplomatic relationships.
The signatories include Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff, the first and second homeland security secretaries under president George W Bush, former director of National Intelligence John Negroponte and Bush-era CIA director Michael Hayden.
Also in the group are former US Trade Representative and World Bank president Robert Zoellick and Eric Edelman, former national security advisor to vice president Dick Cheney.
The group joins members of the security establishment who have already come out against Trump, including former CIA director Michael Morell, who last Friday accused Trump of being an “unwitting agent” of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
If they didn’t hide the outcomes to save their own mistakes than it should not have been a problem. Dishonesty from the HSE is the problem.
@Hans Vos: no the problem, as with cervical screening is that NO test is 100% accurate and you will always have false negatives. It’s nobody’s ‘fault’.
@Ciaran Bolger: I agree that no test is 100% accurate. But hiding the results so woman didn’t know their test was suspicious and ultimately ended up in full blown cancers was.
@Ciaran Bolger: false negatives might be nobody’s fault but covering up certainly was somebody’s fault.
@Hans Vos: In a blame culture like ours, informing a patient of a false negative will likely result in a legal action and collapse of the service- thats what they were afraid of , and that is what is going to happen.
The breast screening program was hit with 15 solicitors letters- best course of action would be to stop “look back” audits -to protect the programs.
@paul kelly: So you saying that women who are in the past willingly misleaded can’t have their rights executed?
@Hans Vos:
Of course you can , it just will cost millions.
@paul kelly: Don’t you think that being honest from the beginning could have avoided all the hassle. That’s the problem with the HSE . There are people, and don’t get me wrong not everybody, who think that they are more important than the truth. When it’s going wrong than they blame : 1 Somebody else.
2 Politics
.3 The system.
4 The cost.
And I can get on and on but they never blame them self.
@Hans Vos: No, being honest with a look back audit showing the screen to be a false negative will lead to a substantial payout.
Solicitors are looking at a definite new income stream.
@paul kelly: contrary to you I like to be honest.
@Hans Vos: Oh I believe honesty is the ideal , but it will cost hundreds of millions, the collapse of screning and the deaths of far more women.
@paul kelly:
Make that 16 from Monday next. There will be no collapse of the service that’s scaremongering. I never knew there was a look back service nobody ever mentioned it OR A REVIEW
I really hope that this is not:
A) Another case of our healthcare system failing women
B) People jumping on the bandwagon hoping to make a few euro!
@Jenny Kelleher: I have to disagree with your statement about looking for a few quid… in most cases including the cervical cancer cases the hse deny everything and in fact try to cover up what has happened…. nobody goes to jail, nobody is held responsible… the only retribution these people receive is a pay out… and let me tell you that it’s not an easy decision to make about bringing a case because it is a long and very difficult process.. and is even more so difficult when all you can think is,what if people think I’m doing this just for money !!
@Tommy Byrne: There was no cover up. There were false negative results discovered retrospectively (an inevitable feature of any screening programme), some women were told of this others weren’t due to failure of HSE procedures. There is no suggestion that the women’s outcomes were adversely affected as the prior false negatives were only discovered on review after a diagnosis of cancer had been made. The lawsuits pertain to the false negatives themselves. If a situation emerges where there are payouts for every false negative result then the screening programmes will be driven to bankruptcy as false negatives are an inherent statistical feature of large scale screening programmes.
@Damon16: in the cervical cancer cases it most definitely was a cover up … and who is to say there isn’t something similar happening here ? We don’t know the facts of any of the future cases that may come of this. All we are hearing is one side of the story so far… so to judge people as only in it for a few quid is very wrong
@Tommy Byrne:
Indeed ..very wrong
The medical profession and the Gov need to do a better job explaining to the public the difference between a screening test and a diagnostic test. A screening test such as breast check will invariably have some false negatives results. The Gov need to introduce legislation capping or limiting claims in the context of screening programmes. If they don’t the HSE is the HSE are going to stop running screening tests and or not bring in new screening tests due to legal exposure. This will cost many lives.
Alternatively, push for a national Irish healthcare system that looks after patients to internationally recognised, excellent standards. Adopt a class action suit with one aim; justice and improved medical standards. Don’t force individuals to take individual cases and slog through alone. Too many people end up going abroad – men who need hip replacements badly, and have been waiting in pain on long lists, for example. Don’t inflict symphysiotomy on women while the rest of the world is not crippling their own citizens with decades-old clumsy practices. Don’t sweep the outcomes under the carpet until a few suffering families have to spend all their resources to highlight real and ongoing issues and appeal to higher courts separately until they die and the files are closed.
There are lots of pros and cons to screening. Some medics (and not crackpots) would argue against most kinds of screening and a lot of unnecessary screening takes places privately (ie a money spinner). Total transparency and full disclosures are needed in public and private health care.
Do they not have ambulances to chase?
It’s no good in trying to shift the blame for problem onto women who had smear checks carried out on systemic failure on the HSE full stop.
The circus continues with the legal profession rubbing their hands with glee ,the government have to take responsibility ,this has been kept back from the media to prevent the effects it may have on the referendum .again no accountability ,put your trust in LEO and simon everything will just be fine
My god,these people think the public are fools.
@@mdmak33: Clearly some are.
Where were the tests carried out?
Were they the cheapest option?
@The Irish Bull: tested in Ireland and results read in Ireland. Totally different process to cervical screening.
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
have your say