Trump says Iran appears to be ‘standing down’ after strike
By: Zeke Miller and Deb Riechmann
So ends the war that the never began. The conventional wisdom of an overly hysterical journalism and political Washington has once again shown itself to be driven by fear rather than facts.
President Trump never beat war drums and never threatened war with Iran. The President did not call for removal of a rogue government, did not lambaste the Iranian Revolutionary regime for oppression, and did not promise to liberate the Iranian people so they could become democratic. President Trump only threatened Iran with tit or tat retaliation. President Trump threatened to do to Iran what Iran has been doing to others. War was a choice that Iran would have to make.
The war hysteria wasn't flamed by the White House. That war hysteria was the result of sycophantic conformity to conventional wisdom that has proven to be unwise. President Trump has challenged the status quo once again and has emerged victorious.
For all of Donald Trump's failings, what we should have learned over the past week is that the conventional wisdom of the status quo does not serve us well. The buffoon in the White House has shown greater wisdom and restraint than have all the experts, truth tellers, fact checkers, and defenders of conventional wisdom.
Perhaps we really should listen to the fool and question the superior intellect. How can those who declare themselves so right have been so wrong?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The U.S. and Iran stepped back from the brink of possible war Wednesday, as President Donald Trump indicated he would not respond militarily after no one was harmed in Iran’s missile strike on two Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops.
Speaking from the White House, Trump seemed intent on deescalating the crisis, which reached a new height after he authorized the targeted killing last week of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s elite Quds Force. Iran retaliated overnight with its most direct assault on America since the 1979 seizing of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, firing more than a dozen missiles from its territory at the U.S. installations.
Trump credited an early warning system “that worked very well” for the fact that no Americans or Iraqis were killed. He added that Americans should be “extremely grateful and happy” with the outcome.
Trump, facing one of the greatest tests of his presidency, said Wednesday that Iran appeared to be “standing down” and said the U.S. response would be to put in place new economic sanctions “until Iran changes its behavior.”
Trump opened his remarks by reiterating his promise that “Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon,” even as that country announced in the wake of Soleimani’s killing that it would no longer comply with any of the 2015 nuclear deal’s limits on enrichment that had been put in place to prevent it from building a nuclear device.
But he seized on the —at least temporary — moment of calm to call for new nuclear negotiations to replace the 2015 deal from which he withdrew the U.S., objecting that it didn’t limit Iran’s ballistic missile programs or constrain its regional proxy campaigns like those led by Soleimani.
The president spoke directly to Iran, saying, “We want you to have a future and a great future.”
Tags
Who is online
284 visitors
How can those who declare themselves so right have been so wrong?
Trump is never "wrong"-- those statements were just " negotiating tactics "!
"The conventional wisdom of an overly hysterical journalism and political Washington has once again shown itself to be driven by fear rather than facts."
With the "Media", it's all about "Seconds" counting. One Upping each other. First to the Plate.
They should at least wait a few hours before putting things out.
* Let me be explicitly clear -I do not support Iran. Now that's out of the way. Iran called President Trump's bluff.
As Trump placed destruction of 52 Iranian cultural sites and sounds on the table, Iran placed its stakes on the table: Destruction of Dubai, Israel, and Haifa. A raining down of missiles.
Through what has transpired Iran may have discovered it is not without options in this war of words with the American President. Much like North Korea, Iran has learned what matters to Trump and I fear will use the dread of it to turn aside any major wrath of President Trump.
Much like South Korea, nations in the Middle East can not relocate away from the reach of Iran's weapons. Trump may have exposed his Iranian cards—to our chagrin and Iran's exploitation.
* Shared on another article.
So Iran didn't blink first?
Still haven't taken a look at the BS the Iranian government is feeding their people. 80 American terrorists killed, helicopters & vehicles destroyed.
Propaganda is propaganda: Expected, and received. We receive it from this president and Fox News on a daily basis. I note your deflection and raise you a question:
I don't think they blinked first but this has certainly backfired from a technical point of view.
They were willing to partially show the range of their new missiles
but only 7 functioned properly out of 12 ?
The other five came down nearly intact into American and Iraqi hands
No more guessing. within a few weeks we will know the real range and capability of this missile with a 41.66% failure rate.
Thanks Khomeini
SP! There is talk of this being the old 'vintage' stuff being cleared out in a low-brow opportunity of "Heads up!"
possibly, that's what one would expect them to say, right?
If we weren't sure how to jamb them electronically before, we will now.
Just part of the human game I suppose.
The "human game." Again, a nice way to articulate this. Yes I agree, it is how the game across the centuries is played. And just like we will look into "best practices," so will the Iranians too (if they are serious 'players').
Yeah. And though I can't prove it but it could be a fact, "Chairman Kim" Jung Un (May Stuff Flow From His Name) played our 'dotard' president a game of who could appear the most inept while taking action simultaneously to corral and surpass a frenemy.
Still waiting for that "holiday cheer" from North Korea to arrive. "I wonder what it can be?!" Said one little boy with a twinkle in his eyes.
So you are all in for war right? Time to flatten Iran?
An off target minor missile attack that doesn't kill or injure any US personnel in Iraq is grounds for war; but Iran supporting, arming, and training Iranian terrorist militias operating in Iraq and Syria attacking US personnel since we have been in those countries isn't? But that of course would put both Bush & Obama to blame as well. Can't have that.
In case you missed it more sanctions are coming against Iran. Want to bet which side NATO and our allies will fall on in honoring those sanctions? Nothing we can do about Russia or China.
Also, Iran was never going to abide by the non binding nuclear agreement. Israeli intelligence already proved that.
So please tell us all what you want done? What will it take?
I note this comment and will get back to it sometime today. (Smile.) I have to look over your links. Although, Netanyahu is quite the mischievous player himself on the world's stage. Not sure I blame him; but let me take a deeper dive into this one.
I have now perused the links you supplied and several overall key points stick out to me:
Importantly, I do not intend to be boxed into making a defense on behalf of Iran. That is not a purpose for me in this discussion, and I won't accept it. Your links do not satisfactorily answer the question of whether Iran would abide by its 2015, instead it lapses into jumping to conclusions between Netanyahu and Trump, in my opinion.
My questions:
Iran was already in the midst of a 15 year deal agree to by the sitting US president at the time. What's Iran supposed to do? Start over with new negotiated long-term contracts every time a signatory has a whim to change or weasel out on it?
Lastly, what role behind the scenes will Israel play in any US/Trump sanctioned Iran Nuclear Deal of the future?
I have only two comments about your comment.
The combination of self-inspection of military nuclear development sites and takiyyah.
I believe in Israeli intelligence.
Hi Buzz, I have a disclaimer upfront. I have never been to Israel. I am not a Muslim. (I am Christian.) I don't have a side in this specific discussion. I am looking for proper answers like others here. With that stated clearly:
Iran deal represents ‘significant verification gain’ – UN atomic energy chief
Speaking the day after the United States withdrew from an international agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme, the head of the United Nations atomic watchdog agency made it clear that Iran has consistently stuck to its commitments.
"The head of the United Nations atomic watchdog agency made it clear that Iran has consistently stuck to its commitments."
Source :
Stuck to its commitments? Right, like not permitting IAEA to inspect the Iranian military nuclear development sites, but to "self-monitor" (LOL)
Much has happened since Yukiya Amano retired from the IAEA.
In the past I have posted on NT examples of Iran's non-compliance over the years as discovered by Israeli intelligence, seeds that you most likely missed and the rest of the world ignored.
Previous US administrations (and most of the rest of the world) have ignored realities concerning Iran's sponsorship and funding its terrorist proxies, as indicated in a seed I have just posted on the Front Page: Iran and America Are Suddenly Both Naked.
Interesting then that it could be so accurate as to find an American base and be able to do some damage without actually harming anyone there. Seems pretty accurate to me for a vintage missile.
Don't make to much of it coming from me, I am only sharing something verbalized with any foundation off yesterday AM cable coverage. Mere anchor speculation.
Well, actually since 5 of them didn't explode does justify some criticism of them, but at least Iranian missiles were accurate enough to shoot down a Ukrainian passenger airliner and kill a lot of civilian foreigners.
Buzz, this is sourced back to the day after Trump removed the U.S. from the 'pact.' What should be of first concern to this discussion is what evidence did the U.S. verify (or use as pretext?) to exit from the Iran Nuclear Deal.
To that point, the Director General of the IAEA has stated:
Statement by IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano
The IAEA is closely following developments related to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). As requested by the United Nations Security Council and authorised by the IAEA Board of Governors in 2015, the IAEA is verifying and monitoring Iran’s implementation of its nuclear-related commitments under the JCPOA. Iran is subject to the world’s most robust nuclear verification regime under the JCPOA, which is a significant verification gain.
As of today, the IAEA can confirm that the nuclear-related commitments are being implemented by Iran.
The Question: The IAEA Director General was tasked by the United Nations Security Council and IAEA Board of Governors to
speak to the process and stated commitments of Iran under the JCPOA. What reason did President Donald Trump give to dispute
the IAEA's conclusions?
Russian SA-15 Tor (Gauntlett) missile launching system on a tracked vehicle,
highly accurate within their specified range.
Unfortunate for those innocents aboard the aircraft. The fog of war-like activities. There but for the grace of God goes I. —John Bradford.
The "deal" was rotten from day one, but that has aleady been covered long ago and I'm not going to get into repeating all the reasons again.
That is the question I asked.
You can research that on the internet yourself - why must I do it for you?
You joined the discussion and express a point of view, forgive me for concluding you are willing to, go back, engage, and guide the topic forward!
President Trump threatened Iran in the same manner that Iran threatens others. Trump threatened to retaliate against state sponsored terror with state sponsored terror. Iran threatens Israel; Trump threatens Iran in the same manner.
President Trump ordered the drone strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. That was an unpredictable move. And Trump threatened an unpredictable response to any Iranian retaliation. Trump didn't threaten Supreme Leader Khamenei or President Rouhani; Trump threatened cultural sites. That unpredictability was the game changer that broke the status quo .
Trump's unpredictability forced the Iranian Revolutionary regime to retaliate using conventional weapons against conventional targets. The Iranian regime warned of their missile launches, struck relatively insignificant targets, and then announced they were done. The Iranian response incorporated as much predictability as possible. It was clear that the Iranian regime could not predict how President Trump would respond; the Iranians feared Trump's unpredictability. Again, that unpredictability was the game changer that broke the status quo .
In a word, no. Iran has been threatening the region with heavy artillery and missiles for decades. Iran fired missiles into Saudi Arabia striking oil facilities. Iran has been supplying rockets to Hezbollah for use against Israel for decades. Iran threatening the region is not new or novel.
Forcing Iran to use those missiles against conventional targets as a retaliatory response is something new. In the past Iranian response has been to arm proxies and conduct terror raids. Iran couldn't target significant targets because those are defended with anti-missile batteries. Israel has demonstrated the effectiveness of anti-missile weapons against Iranian rockets and missiles. Iran had to choose insignificant targets that would be less heavily defended.
Iran is learning that its nuclear program is not an advantageous bargaining chip. The only reason Iran's nuclear program has been a bargaining chip is because Europe and the United States has been responding in a predictable manner; the conventional wisdom has been to avoid conventional war with Iran. President Trump has changed the conventional wisdom by threatening unconventional tit for tat retaliation against Iran. Nuclear bombs won't protect Iran against truck bombs.
Nuclear bombs will protect the Iranian Revolutionary government. But Trump did not threaten the Iranian government with invasion or regime change. Trump's threat was the same as Iran's past threats. Nuclear weapons are a geopolitical deterrence; they aren't effective for fighting terrorism.
Trump's threat was more "shock" than "awe." Remember that occasion from Iraq 1991?
It would incur an international war-crime to target historic cultural sites in the world, and Trump backed away from his statement later. My question goes to did President Trump inadvertently give Iran cause to realize they have some leverage when threatening bombardments of significant Middle East cities of relevant interests to the United States? It is something I am not sure of. Consequently, I pose the concept. Note, it is a development @7.1.4 coming out of Iran.
Did President Trump with his outlandish comment about attacking Iranian cultural sites precipitate Iran becoming aware that they are not without an option to attack cultural and financial interests in the Middle East. A newer development that Iran can exploit to begin its nuclear weapons program in earnest without fear of U.S. launching attacks. Does Iran now see its strategy to be one following the North Korea model of nuclear weapons development. Do keep in mind President Trump also removed the United States from the Iran nuclear deal and it has been 'petering' out to its lowest working level since I am told.
It's way too early to reach that conclusion. Again, I remind you. North Korea 'played the fool' and hid its hand while visiting and massaging palms with the U.S. president. There is no agreement and it appears there will be no nuclear reduction in North Korea. But as you tell, these dramas play out in their own time.
Precisely the point.
The Twin Towers was a cultural site. The fact that Washington D.C. is cultural site won't provide any protection.
The United States could create a crater in the court yard of a mosque without damaging the mosque. That would be the same type asymmetrical psychological warfare as terrorism. Targeting cultural sites doesn't require destroying those sites.
What you are suggesting is that lobbing rockets and missiles into Dubai, Israel, and Haifa are international war crimes. Making the threat is a war crime. When will the Iranian Revolutionary regime be tried for war crimes?
And what has North Korea gained? Have the sanctions been lifted? Has the United States abandoned demands for denuclearization? Has the United States withdrawn from the demilitarized zone?
Kim Jong Un has gotten an 8x10 glossy of himself shaking hands with President Trump. What has changed?
1. It was a shocking lie then? Because the sitting president had walk it back. Or commit an offense had he not walked it back. Issued. It would have been an unlawful order from the President. His advisors should have explained it to Donald before he made such a diabolical statement. Moreover, Trump made the foolish and unlawful statement x 2!
2. Targeting cultural sites is prohibited by international conventions signed in Geneva and at the Hague. In 2017, the United Nations security council passed unanimously a resolution condemning the destruction of heritage sites.There are legal prohibitions on attacks on civilian, cultural and religious sites, except under certain, threatening circumstances.
The Twin Towers were destroyed not by a state or signatories to this international agreement/s.
3. Go ahead charge Iran, if you can make it stick. I am not a defender of Iran. I am a American who is concerned about this nation's actions in the world, primarily.
4. What has "Chairman Kim" Jung Un (May Stuff Flow From His Name) lost from meeting with the first United States President ever? Those pics are 'a disaster' for Trump. Don't downplay it - you are sophisticated enough to the game, methinks.
Trump's change of the "status quo" to unpredictability is comprehensibly propounded in this seed:
Just because Iran is backing down today doesn't mean they are backing down totally. It might not be today, next week, or even next year, but eventually the shit will hit the fan. Unlike Trump who attacks without a long term plan and who blows off his own experts, Iran is far more methodical and will be taking time to lay out an effective strategy. We have to become hyper vigilant and if we see something, we need to say something.
Some might consider an attack killing an American and an attack on our embassy as "the shit hitting the fan" already.
Of course, I suppose we could have simply ignored those attacks like we have previously.
Seems like the attacks finally stopped after we ignored them long enough, huh?
You realize, of course, that she's only still putting on her lipstick, eh?
I was referring, of course, to the proverbial "Fatlady".
Please keep in mind that:
It ain't over 'till its over.
(I could be wrong, but currently my best guess is that the next step in Iran's plan is to switch over to cyber...)
Ignoring what Iran has been doing through its proxies has been a long-time unwritten rule, but that rule is now over. This seed explains it:
We traded some damaged property in Iraq for Iran’s terrorist mastermind responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans.
Anyone who says that’s not a great deal for America is a liar.
Masterminds are a dime a dozen as far as masterminds go. So we got this one, it is not as though there is no one else. Sadly, his slot will be filled and whatever the game—resumes. Now then:
What makes you think its over?
Who pens such drivel as this? When has it ever been wise to take the words of a fool to heart? President Donald Trump with that er, "exotic" entrance into the room:
(Triumphant entry? As if a demi-god was stepping out into the world of man?)
No, it is a just a man using stagecraft he wishes to see go viral. The generals and vice-president are merely props, hopefully comprising the silent "superior intellect" of this "demi-god."
your pic of todays briefing explains why it started late.
i'm betting, for F X, his team had him wait till they felt the sun was streaming in just right, so as he looked like Gandolf the White, entering the room
Dastardly and Muttley- Muttley's Laugh
I imagine in my mind's eye Trump thinking: "Hollywood eat your heart out."
"Cut and that's a wrap!"
This scene is probably going to be in all the Trump: Made for Television Specials. /s
Because no President before has ever made an dramatic entrance.
No, see you are wrong. Let me see if i can help you get to their train of thought.
Trump has, Dubya and HW both have, Ronnie did it and tricky Dickie. Its said that Abraham Lincoln was fond a dramatic entrance as well.
So yeah, thats about it.
Get it?
Well there is the state of Trump going "God-mode." However, I accept your point. (Smile.)
'No, it is a just a man using stagecraft he wishes to see go viral. The generals and vice-president are merely props, hopefully comprising the silent "superior intellect" of this "demi-god."
Oh wow, that's really something CB. You got it, spot on.
Did you see how prick Pence didn't take his eyes off the 'president' the whole time. Vomit, gorge inducing, pathetic.
I take your point too. I accept Ronin2's point @6.2. These moments do have to be looked at individually, nevertheless. Pence always projects a "too cool for school" appearance to me. I will have to go back and check out his 'stare.'
Nice article. First I want to congratulate Zeke Miller for his transformation into something of a journalist. Some may recall when he worked for Time Magazine and President Trump had just moved into the White House, Zeke had trouble seeing the MLK statue. In a terrible cheap shot invoking "race", Zeke implied that Trump must have moved the statue out!
Here is the sad retraction:
"On the evening of January 20, TIME White House correspondent Zeke Miller incorrectly reported that the bust of Martin Luther King Jr. had been removed from the Oval Office. Zeke quickly issued a correction. In the hours that followed, he sent multiple emails and tweets taking responsibility for his mistake, and apologized in person, on email and on Twitter. During further conversations over the weekend, he asked a White House advisor to pass along his apology to the president as well."
Next I want to address those on the left who have been wishing & hoping for a war that would ruin the President's re-election chances. Too bad for you traitors! It worked out so well for America and the President. Iran got it's exit ramp to save some face. They walk away with their tails between their legs and the President played it all perfectly.
Today Congress got a briefing on the Soleimani intelligence. As expected the Republicans said the President acted responsibly and the democrats say he didn't. Congress remains polarized and it is not the fault of both sides. It is totally the fault of the hateful ideologues on the left, who do not belong in a position of authority.
You are so, . . .giving. It's a new year and you are just full of. . .giving. Because you are so amazing full of . . .giving, when and where should we meet up to hang the republican, "Mission Accomplished" banner?
Go ahead, bluster and bluffing, string up ye old "Mission Accomplished" banner right here on NT.
Just happen to have a question here in my back pocket for you:
First of all, CB, please use your computer skills to call up a map of Israel so you can see that Haifa and Israel are not two different places - I would guess you have never been to Israel. The fact that Iran threatened to attack those places is SUCH an empty threat, because they know damn well that had they done it, Iran would immediately become a large desert, or as the expression goes, a glass parking lot.
Secondly, you have fulfilled my prediction that when Trump actually resisted escalating the game being played the Democrats have to scramble to find some way to change their story in order to discredit Trump. I predicted that the Democrats would switch their story about Trump the warmonger starting WW3 to Trump the chicken-shit coward backing down from inciting a war to trying to be a peacemaker with the terrorist-backing Iran. You found a less hypocritical method to smear Trump no matter WHAT he does.
LOL. Good work, CB. You should apply for a job as an American journalist.
No. They asked to save face with their people,Trump let them play it out. The rest of us know who won this little episode. Trump will win the next election. Iran, which is at the breaking point under sanctions, will struggle to keep it's satellite states. Turkey is the new player they will have to deal with. If the US is still there during Trump's second term, it will be with a far less menacing Iran.
Oh, and by the way, CB. Kim is full of hot air and the South Koreans know it. Kim cannot use nukes on SK or the fallout and radiation would kill him and all his followers, and besides China won't let him do it because China doesn't want the fallout and radiation either. So if Kim were to bomb SK, then the USA who pledged to defend SK will then bomb the shit out of NK, and Kim is not THAT stupid that he doesn't know that. I doubt that China would come to Kim's defence if he were to attack SK, because SK is not threatening NK and in fact have recently been making pleas with Kim for peace between the two Koreas.
I don't accept your insult against American journalists. Anymore than you might accept mine against Israelite journalists as the case may be .
First off . I 'reported' what Iran stated in its statement:
Are you suggesting that Israel will go to nuclear weapons so soon in any fight? Why? And how does its possibility make it any less of a real threat? Israel has defended itself against rocket attacks many times before. Albeit, missiles can do more harm. I am not sure how my quoting and opining on what Iran states is suggestive of any personal "journalistic" sense, feelings, or integrity.
Second off . You wrote this:
I don't have to be a hypocrite to talk about Donald Trump; Trump tweets his way into a box that he won't occupy and his "friends" will enable him to never settle into for the long haul:
Consider this from the Official Twitter statements channel of President Donald Trump:
..targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
President D. Trump 2:52 PM - Jan 4, 2020
And this from the Official Twitter statements channel of President Donald Trump:
If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!
Please explain my hypocrite now.
Spot on Buzz.
And we call it "Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) for a reason.
However, that rationale of having these weapons alone is not why North Korea is being asked to give them up! It is a fear (as it was feared by President Harry Truman - 1945) that an irrational world leader would without discernment trade in this weaponry with irresponsible players, such as state-sponsored terrorists. Or sell such "materials" to other such willing unregulated buyers at top dollars!
As for "Chairman Kim" Jung Un (May Stuff Flow From His Name) has evidenced he is not foolish enough to disarm in the face of the United States and its allies—unless he has a death wish. I believe he does not have a death wish. Therefore, his deterrence is already in full bloom on the Korean Peninsula. Hey! He even got pictures and a "vacation" out of parts of Asia with the U.S. president without losing a single weapon/thing.
How is that MAD working for North Korea. Sad, though I agree it is.
Read on down the page. . . don't stop there! Waiting on my "that-a-boy!" Sparty On! (Smile.)
I admit that I wasn't aware that you were quoting what Iran had said when you wrote about Israel and Haifa - if you look at your own comments you see that you use italics a lot, not necessarily for quotations.
As for the media in the USA, speaking as having been the editor-in-chief of my university's prize-winning newspaper for almost two years and being fully aware of the methods and use of bias in news reporting I know damn well and have criticized and given examples here on NT of the American media's bias more than once. I know damn well what I'm talking about, and I have no respect for the media that does it. Back then, and it was about 6 decades ago, we used The Christian Science Monitor as our model for both its format and its lack of bias. It had won the national award back then year after year for being the most unbiased news medium in the USA. It's obvious to me why they don't provide that award any more, and even The Christian Science Monitor has succumbed to being leftist.
And as well, why is it that nobody ever heard of the words "fake news" before more recent times? Now one must rely on "fact check" and "snopes" and other such sites to determine if what they are reading is true or not. Even then a person still can't be sure because of the bias of the fact-checkers. So the expression "Don't believe anything you read or hear, and only half of what you see" has become a requirement. And in this day of expert photoshopping, anything is possible.
Sometimes, I, even I, am guilty of wanting to acquire a statement or two and not do the laborious work of sourcing it, which I don't have a problem doing, nevertheless. I have the sourcing as 'back-up" as needed. (It's in the interest of expediting a comment; or not to 'brow-beat' my fellow commenters with too much comment "formality.")
Moreover, often there can be a clean-up process called for sometimes when quoting from online articles. E.g., formatting changes, large swaths of empty space, anchor tools holding objects on the page,etceteras. These steps can be time-consuming in their own right.
The problem with President Donald Trump is his unrelenting "riding shotgun" over the lives of every republican under his control. Trump has captured the republican thinking process and somehow convinced his followers that he is the right "governor" for all things republican. That may be true in a broad sense of republicanism, but this president requires unrestricted loyalty and a devotion which does not allow any standing negative word to escape into or dwell long in his circle of friends and professionals.
Donald Trump is bias personified, Buzz!
Interestingly, the first time I heard the term "fake news" it was being uttered by Donald Trump in that one of kind voice of his: "Fake news, Folks!"
After the 2015-16 campaign cycle, it turns out Russia's Putin is a big user of the term too! (He uses it in his conference interviews and with journalists.) Moreover, I gather Trump had an alter-ego (John "X") back in the day who used to phone in statements to New York columnists, or some such places of his choosing. And somewhere along the way, he learned and shared with us, the public, some "insider" journalistic word terminology.
If you remember, Donald Trump in his 2015-16 campaign season was "delighted" to come to the microphone and shock us, the public, with many insider phrases and tidbits, which the rank and file citizens had no true knowledge of who and what high-society was and its true "nature." Of course, Donald Trump's perspective is lop-sided as I mentioned above. We, the public, got more that we bargained for in this one man.
Lastly Buzz, I want you to know I do not come about my opinion of Donald Trump lightly. I used to like Donald Trump as the personality on television. The way I would the Hilton family shows (Paris Hilton/her mother's show can't call its name off the top right now), before I became acquainted with his 'rough treatment' of a contestant on a by-gone show where he, Trump, played Banker: Deal or No Deal.
Of course, that was trivial and a momentary show event which puzzled me about this mythical man I had been hearing about for years who could be so hard and cheap to a contestant trying to win more! I finally took a full measure Donald Trump when he challenged President Barack Obama over his own birth certificate. As if Barack Obama and the State of Hawaii to boot did not know enough about Obama to lie about his birthplace!
And then I saw Trump exposed when he videotaped an apology where he accepted ownership of his words in the infamous 'Trump-Billy Bush bus video escapade" and then walked it back saying regrettably that it did not 'sound' like his voice.
Let's be frank: That voice of Donald's - his style of speech - who else would own it outright?
See Buzz?! Now this is bias. Vic Eldred, where is your evidence for NT that Iran "asked to save face with their people, [and] Trump let them play it out."
Share that portion of evidence right now; I want to see if to agree with you that it is real news. Not fake news.
Sanctions? A perceptible breaking point? How did that sanctions breaking point work on North Korea? Did North Korea 'roll' over for dead and lay in its rhetorical grave? If North Korea did die a 'hard sanctions death' who was it that played "Chairman Kim" Jong Un (May Stuff Flow From His Name) and pal-ed around with this U.S. president in Singapore and for pics on the North/South Koreas DMZ?
Moreover, why would our president think it proper or fashionable to be expecting any form of gift from a heavily sanctioned dictator without anything meaningful or of value to his name?
Did you notice that Russia has suffered heavy financial sanctions from this American president and still has a washed face, his hold on the 'kingdom,' and has not gone begging in the streets?
Sanctions apparently can't get the job done alone!
Okay, you're being too civil with me, CB. I never particularly liked Trump since I thought he was mean as hell on The Apprentice. Contrary to my being accused of being a "Trumpster", the only thing he has done that pleases me (and you must take into consideration the fact that I am one of the very few people on this site who can honestly and accurately say "He's not MY president") is his support of Israel. However, I will take into consideration the fact that he may have done some things right that are a benefit to the USA notwithstanding that many would rather drink poison than admit that. But some of the things he's done have cost me money and I don't appreciate that, and I do feel as well that as a POTUS he lacks the dignity of certain previous ones, such as John F. Kennedy, whom I did admire and was devastated, notwithstanding my not being an American, by his assassination.
For a good work I will never deny President Donald Trump his due. However, Donald Trump is the embodiment of an authoritarian who has inscribed on his mind, "Donald Trump is always right." Once such a man has made his choice in idea or course of action he has expectation that all other debate should cease. Of course, problems arise when Trump's choices are false alternatives and whims. Because his ambassadors, his staff, and his supporters are shaped "copies" of the leader's brain.
We, the people of the United States, have to be grounded and deliberate in our decision-making, for we are a great people and our judgements and actions carry over and around the girth of this planet. For example, if it appears to other nations that the citizens of this country are possibly content with a leader who is 'flighty" in telling official lies, uses his intellect to secret away documents and people from the discover of the truth by the citizenry, and can manipulate an entire side of the House and Senate representatives set forth as the people's voice in self-governance those nations will step back from stepping up themselves to a higher standard. The message will be even the United States got tired of striving after and acting on its Rule of Law. "Look! Doing what was right and proper was too much for even them. The great people are reverting to tribalism."
Shortly after the missiles were launched, Iran signaled its desire for a diplomatic resolution to the crisis through a tweet sent out by its Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif, who described the attacks as “ proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter .” Zarif concluded by noting that “ We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression .”
The fact that the President didn't strike back speaks for itself.
Share that portion of evidence right now; I want to see if to agree with you that it is real news.
It's called an opinion.
Sanctions? A perceptible breaking point?
You don't think the Iranian people are suffering or that their economy is in shambles? You don't think that all of their actions have something to do with that?
They want the sanctions lifted.
Moreover, why would our president think it proper or fashionable to be expecting any form of gift from a heavily sanctioned dictator without anything meaningful or of value to his name?
I'm sure he didn't nor did I. Maybe you can explain how 15 ballistic missile fired off at two bases hit no one? You do remember how acurate they were when the Iranians fired them off into the Saudi oil fields. They know they can't beat the US military, particularly led by this President. They need to be able to show a win to their people.
Did you notice that Russia has suffered heavy financial sanctions from this American president and still has a washed face, his hold on the 'kingdom,' and has not gone begging in the streets?
I'm glad you brought it up. Yes, President Trump imposed sanctions on Russia over attempted interference in the 2018 midterm elections. There are also Ukraine-related sanctions aim to deter further Russian aggression against Ukraine and encourage Russia to comply with the Minsk ceasefire agreement. They haven't driven Russia anywhere near the point that the sanctions imposed on Iran have.
Sanctions apparently can't get the job done alone!
No, they can't, but they have had a devastating effect on Iran. I'll so glad to hear a progressive admit it.
BTW:
Donald Trump is bias personified , Buzz!
No, but I see plenty of bias in what you have written.
Oh, is that how you formed your opinion of Trump? I really wonder about that.
You see for me it was just the opposite. I remember the younger Trump being interviewed on various TV shows years ago, but I paid little attention. I recall that he had a TV show, that I never watched. I remember there were rumblings about Obama's place of birth, which had 0 effect on the campaign, thus I gave it 0 attention.
Then came the Trump candidacy in 2016. I was a Rubio man then. When I first heard Trump speak, I noted how blunt he was and how he spoke the language of the common man. The centerpiece of his campaign was border security. I liked what he was saying and I knew he meant every word but based on his demeanor I thought he had little chance. Then I noticed something strange. The msm seemed to feel he had no chance (like every one in the know) and they were obviously hoping he would be the GOP nominee. Remember the democrats supposedly voting for Trump in open primaries? After Rubio had his famous meltdown (Cruz faded) and it became clear that Trump would be the nominee, I only knew I would have to vote for him, resigning myself to the notion that he was destined to lose the election. I was so happy that night when he staged that monster upset, yet twice as happy on inauguration day to see Obama usher Trump into the White House. It was a turning point in modern US history.
Yes, dishonest Donald is very fluent in dumb shit, I'm just saddened by the fact that such a language is apparently so common in some some places.
Hillary? Is that you?
Get used to the sadness. Straight talk always Trumps the disingenuous.
That would be Obama and his "clingers" or Hillary and her "deplorables" or the democratic party and it's identity politics. They divided this country long before there was a candidate Trump.
Own up to it!
More like lowest common denominator
He speaks the language of the mentally deficient, low IQ, no one can tell me anything language.
President Obama and Madame Secretary Clinton were so spot on.
Some cling so desperately to the bibles, guns, and ignorance.
Is that a tv show? There isn't much question who those jerks were glorifying is there?
Some cling so desperately to the bibles, guns, and ignorance.
And they heard it. They vote!
Yes, it is an opinion. Thank you for admitting it. You attempted to overstate a point and it did not work.
The rest of what you wrote is republican par for the course, in my opinion. Why did you leave out this from your comments?
What say you on these hard sanctions and their devastating effects? We have this evidence - sanctions alone do not break regimes who have an ability to end-run around them. Clearly, "Chairman Kim" Jong Un (May Stuff Flow From His Name) prefers life and limb and weaponry over and beyond imaginative dreams of prime beach real estate condominiums temporarily under his control.
If you can't see Donald Trump has strong authoritarian tendencies, maybe you should check to see if you are perfectly aligned with him.
Well, while he's never been to Israel, I bet he's been to Haifa!
You are entitled to your Trump "moments" as I am entitled to mine. And in context this is what I wrote:
The man came on the political scene lying, cheating (remember his close association and work with the gossip magazine National Enquirer (David Peck, former owner)), and rigging systems in his unusual cutthroat style. He continues to "win" now unpacking all the tricks of his trade, but there are moments now where people have seen all of his antics, and no longer "amazed." Trump, the man and the myth, is actually quite mediocre.
I like his good works, but I dislike his deceptions, lies, obstructions, false classifications of unclassified information, and for heaven-sake, does your president have an Obama obsession or what?
One more thing: Why would democrats be endeared to a man who cheats and casts down their ideas and opinions as worthless?
Who uses his power to disregard federal judges who are moderate in their decisions for judges 'detailed' from the Federalist Society?
Who pretends there is no climate problem to take stock of and stewardship over even as other lesser nations are patterning their policies based on our 'trek' to prosperity?
Krishna? Inside joke? What did I miss?
just heard Trump state their are so many people walking around without arms or legs, ?
in his assassination defense the 'man' has a way with words, this much , is for sure
Maybe he is secretly an expert on prosthetics.
Straight talk? Dishonest Donald speaks in nothing but rhetorical circles, he has no specifics, he just boasts in generalities virtually all of which are easily proven false which is why nearly every news outlet now has to fact check him every time he opens his ignorant mouth. He does nothing but tell his loyal followers how great he is and how much he's doing for them while calling all his enemies childish names and claiming if they hate him they must be the "enemy of the people" or are "defending terrorists" which on the face of it is an obvious blatant lie. How dumb are these idiots to believe such total nonsense? He's not speaking truth, he's not speaking logically, he's appealing to his bases worst natures, feeding their fears while tickling their ears. Straight talk my ass.
'Straight talk'
Snort!
Funny, I heard just that snippet of his words too as I crossed from turning him off one television and clicking on the other and just before I turned the volume DOWN, wham! He said something about, ". . .without arms or legs. . . ." It's getting harder for me to listen to a man who has so much deceit dripping from his lips.
It wasn't until after lunch today for me to laugh out loud - because of that one - thanks.
Cute. However it is clear that I can not be insulted or laugh back if I don't know the meaning of the 'material.' So, I'm good!
Okay, let me explain. First of all you have to be familiar with Krishna's sense of humour and the style of his comments. He was my first friend on Newsvine (that was more than a decade ago) and I considered him my mentor.
What he did was play on the discussion we had about Haifa and Israel. I made a comment based on my lack of knowledge that you were actually quoting someone else and told you that you should use a map of Israel to realize that Israel and Haifa were not two different cities or countries, because in fact Haifa is a city in Israel. I had said that I guessed you had never been to Israel, or you would have been aware of that.
Krishna said: "Well, while he's never been to Israel, I bet he's been to Haifa!" so he was just playing on the fact that if you had been to Haifa, you would certainly have been to Israel. As I said, you have to understand his sense of humour.
Okay, I don't get it still. But I truly appreciate your sharing how you received it. (Smile.)
I believe a reference to a old Elvis Presley song called Never Been To Spain. Also redid and released by Three Dog Night.
Yeah TDN’s cover of that song is better than the original. No doubt!
I agree.
If the reports are true about no proof that the General was going to do what Trump used as justification for taking him out, break out the butter because he will be toast. I don't know if Trump if a leftist, but he definitely does not belong in a position of authority.
The intelligence officials at the briefing with congress gave limited details and took few questions. There has been limited coverage on that topic by major news outlets. We did know enough about the TERRORIST to take him out at any point. Other presidents considered it. The fact that he boldly flew into Iraq to direct attacks on at least 1 (maybe more) US Embassy is justification enough.
I really don't care about that. The man was a proven, clear and present danger to our troops and Americans around the world. This is an indisputable fact. That he wasn't sniped already for that alone is pretty amazing really and simply a testament to his carefulness and protection apparatus.
He let his guard down a little and finally got what he deserved. Maybe he had a death wish.
the left will not get their war, or their impeachment either.
but they are winning... lol
A lot can happen in 10 months. However, viewing what's happening from afar, not being an American and without a skin in the game - no loyalties for either Party, I'm seeing desperation on the part of the Democratic party, trying whatever they can. The only Democratic candidate I would consider worth voting for is Bloomberg, but I doubt that he will have the support of his party. We will have to wait and see what 100 million dollars worth of campaign advertising will achieve.
bloomberg can't win. but yepp, it will be fun to watch.
You never know .... he is trying to ride a pretty sharp fence.
Hard to do without getting splinters up you arse.
Up until recently, it seemed pretty obvious to me that Trump would get re-elected (regardless of who the Democratic candidate would be!)..
However as the events of the last few days unfold, now I think there's a strong possibility he won't have a second term. (Either he'll run and lose-- or more likely when it becomes apparent he can't win he'll probably avoid a humiliating defeat by "deciding" not to run for a second term).
I disagree. I think the Democratic Party is in "panic mode", absolute disarray, striking blindly wherever they can, trying desperately to find a way to win including disagreeing with Trump wherever possible and attacking him whenever possible. Let's consider that I, not being an American, and without loyalty to either party, had I been a Democrat at this point I would either switch sides or in the event that Trump was not my choice either, would vote for one of the independent parties or would not bother to vote at all. Unless some good reason for me to change my mind happens during the next 10 months, that's how I feel now.
[Buzz,Rude] You are 10,000 miles away and filter everything through how it effects China, Israel, or Canada.
[Derogatory]
In most of the elections held in the US since Trump took office, Trumps preferred candidates have underperformed 2016. In other words, voters across the country that have actually voted in contested elections have been rejecting Trump.
Buzz,
That is because you are a one issue guy. There are other issues you don't care about that other Americans do. And for the record, I am not a democrat.
I see it not so much than any particular Democratic candidate can win the election-- but rather that Trump could lose it.
As I mentioned, if the election were to be held today, IMO Trump would probably win.
I am not sure how things will turn out, but I see a strong possibility that events will occur as a direct result of Trumps ordering of the killing of Soleimani.. will may well result in Iranian retaliation that will cause Trump to not be re-elected.
Its not about the Democratic field being weak-- rather, it about the seriousness of the mistake Trump made in killing an Iranian hero..compounded by the other way he's escalating tensions (sending more troops to the region).
Many Americans (including many people who voted for Trump) are sick of these foreign wars. (And it doesn't matter to them who started any of those wars...they just want us to stop sending their kids abroad to fight and die (or get seriously maimed for life)...for no good reason. (And currently, its Trump who's running for re-election and who's sending troops into the Middle East-- not Elizabeth Warren, not Bernie Sanders, not AOC...)
Why do you think Trump would win? Are Americans truly that stupid?
There are NO polls that show Trump winning the 2020 election at this point, so why do you think that the most unfit president this country has ever had will be re-elected?
So what?
there weren't any polls that had Trump winning in 2016, either.
If Donald Trump has done such a great job, for three years, why has he been unable to add even a single percentage point to his percentage from the 2016 election? He got 46% of the vote, and since that day he has almost never seen 46% again. Why? Because people have seen him in the presidency. He lies, he is a buffoon, he acts recklessly. He bullies people, both famous and unknown.
Where is the evidence that Trump will win re-election? The majority of Americans think he is an asshole. We all know that.
All the Democrats have to do is get out their vote, and I believe that by November a majority of Americans will be enthusiastic about getting this clown out of our lives.
Again, so what? he already proved he can get enough votes to win.
I didn't claim he would win--I claim he can win. Where is the evidence he will lose?
Yeah, that is how elections are won. Are you trying to imply that Trump won last time because Democrats didn't vote?
At least I'm not blinded by a monumental bias.
I thought the economy was the most important factor influencing how Americans vote. Hasn't the Dow now exceeded 29,000 for the first time ever, and were not 145,000 jobs added in December to drop unemployment to 3.5%, the lowest it's been for half a century? I would think that if those levels could be maintained or improved for the next 10 months, killing Soleimani won't be much of a concern.
Or am I just talking about something that my "single-issue" mind doesn't fully comprehend?
I thought the economy was the most important factor influencing how Americans vote.
All Americans do not think alike. All do not have the same values-- or priorities.
Hasn't the Dow now exceeded 29,000 for the first time ever,
IIRC, the latest figures show that approximately half of the population here does not own stocks. But again-- even amongst those that do-- they don't all think exactly alike....
and were not 145,000 jobs added in December to drop unemployment to 3.5%, the lowest it's been for half a century?
There are people who are employed (and in many cases are unable to "make ends meet"). For most of those people hearing employment statistics is not particularly comforting.
(cont'd in next comment)
I would think that if those levels could be maintained or improved for the next 10 months, killing Soleimani won't be much of a concern.
For many Americans that killing is of little concern. However the measures Iran may take in retaliation may become quite concerning.
There is this belief amongst many uninformed people that the incident is finished. We killed him, the Iranians "retaliated" (by harmlessly firing some rockets at a military base resulting in no deaths and apparently not even any injuries)..and the incident is therefore over. End of story.
Based on what I know of the Iranian leadership, I'm pretty sure this incident is not over-- and that Iranian retribution will be quite unpleasant. Trump may have "stirred up a Hornet's Nest" to use a cliche.
Or am I just talking about something that my "single-issue" mind doesn't fully comprehend?
Actually what I've said is admittedly conjecture-- I do not know for sure what additional actions will result from the killing (although I have a hunch it may not be too long before this thing begins to escalate).
As I mentioned previously, all Americans do not have the same values or opinions.
For example, even amongst some Americans who were employed and have now found work, there may be major financial problems. One of which is unexpected medical bills.
For many Americans the economy is not the issue-- until they have unexpected medical bills. Healthcare costs in the country are outrageous-- and everyone's circumstances are not the same.
While some Americans have wonderful healthcare insurance, others do. And from what I've seen, some even put off having certain medical procedures because they can't afford them.
For these people the fact that the stock market hit an all time high is of little importance-- ditto the fact that an evil terrorist leader was killed in Iraq.
You're not the only person who thinks so .....
Buzz,
If you are going to talk to me, then talk to me, and not make a snarky remark to me via Krish.
I said YOU, and never addressed what Americans were thinking. The economy is one of many issues that they look at. So is SCOTUS, etc.
So if Hezbollah and/or Islamic Jihad/Hamas fire rockets and missiles at Israel, which as you know they have done before, will it be blamed on the assassination of Soleimani?
One only has to take a quick glance at the Front Page to realize that Trump is the single major issue for NT.
Well now the Iranians have to cope with their own internal domestic opposition who danced in the streets upon hearing of his death.
I put up some recent seeds including today that weren’t all about Trump. How is your host country reacting to the results of the democracy in action vote of the people of The Republic of China 🇹🇼?
You're just as capable as I am to use the internet and read the China Daily web site. You can also check my reply to your latest comment to me on your article about patriotism.
And it's getting sickening.
Trump has already been impeached.
Don't you ever watch (or read) the news?
Trump hasn’t been impeached.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the Constitution:
Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides:
The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.And in fact they exercised that power-- and they did indeed follow the mandate of the Constitution-- and in fact the House did impeach Trump.
This is from Fox News:
The House on Wednesday night voted to impeach President Trump for "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" related to his dealings with Ukraine, making Trump the third American president ever to be impeached.
Now I'm an open-minded reasonable sorta guy-- so if you can provide a link to an article alleging that that Trump was not impeached-- I'd be only to happy to look it over!
Apparently the Constitution of the United States of America is in disagreement with you:
Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides:
The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
I think folks are forgetting that impeachment is a multistep process , the house chamber has the sole power of impeachment yes , and all that is, is the house is the only place that the articles or charges of impeachment can origionate, the houses role under the constitution is to investigate , charge and prosecute .basically all the house can do is come up with the charges and present them to the senate who under section 3 of article 1,clause 7 i think it is has the sole power to try all impeachments, and it even goes on to say that in the case of impeachment of the president ,not any other federal officer being impeached , that the trial will be presided over by the chief justice of the USSC and that it will take a 2/3rds vote of the senate members present to convict, right now that means 67 senators have to vote to convict IF all members are in attendance pretty high bar to meet .
like everyone we are just waiting on the next step in the process to see whats going to happen next, because nothing is guarenteed.
You are correct.