╌>

The Impact of Killing Qassem Suleimani

  
By:  al Jizzerror  •  4 years ago  •  411 comments


The Impact of Killing Qassem Suleimani
Trump just killed the second most powerful figure in Iran

Sponsored by group SiNNERs and ButtHeads

SiNNERs and ButtHeads


I think everyone considers Qassem Suleimani to be a fucking asshole who deserved to die.  He was responsible for thousands of deaths in the region including hundreds of Americans.  Butt is killing that murdering prick worth a war with Iran (and their proxies)?  Are American troops in the region in more danger as a result of the action?  Will there be more Embassy attacks in the region?  Will there be an increase in terrorist attacks here in the U.S.?

Naturally, Trump did not consult with, nor did he inform congress of this military action.  Trump did not even bother to invoke the War Powers Act.   The U.S. Constitution gives war powers to congress, not to the president.   The president did not obtain congressional approval.  Butt Trump does NOT recognize congress as a co-equal branch of the government so he has again usurped Congressional power.

800

How will Iran react?  Iran considers Trump's killing of Qassem Suleimani an act of war and they vow retaliation.  Qassem Suleimani is the equivalent of the head of their Joint Chiefs of Staff.  He was a very powerful Iranian political figure who will now be considered a martyr. 

Here is the Iranian reaction to Qassem Suleimani's death:


Iran's Khamenei says 'vigorous revenge is waiting for the criminals' following Soleimani's death.

US-Iran tensions after Soleimani killing: All the latest updates


Qassem Soleimani, head of Iran's elite Quds Force, killed in an air strike as tensions between US and Iran escalate.

Tensions between the United States and Iran escalated on Friday after a US air strike killed Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran's elite Quds Force, and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of Iran-backed militias known as the Popular Mobilization Forces, or PMF.

The Pentagon confirmed the strike, saying it came "at the direction of the president". 

More:

Soleimani and al-Muhandis's deaths are a potential turning point in the Middle East and are expected to draw severe retaliation from Iran and the forces it backs in the region against Israel and US interests.

Here are all the latest updates amid the heightened tensions as of Friday, January 3:

Iraq's Sadr mourns Soleimani, reactivates  Mahdi army


Iraq's prominent Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said the killing of Soleimani was targeting Iraq's opposition and Jihad, adding that it will not weaken its resolve.

In a statement, Al-Sadr called on his militias (Army of Imam Mahdi) and "other national and disciplined" armed groups to be prepared to protect Iraq. He also sent his condolences to Iran.

Pro-Hezbollah newspaper Al-Akhbar: 'It is war'


Lebanese pro-Hezbollah newspaper Al-Akhbar is leading with a comment by its contributor Hassan Alaiq on the killing of Soleimani.

The Arabic article has a simple headline: The martyrdom of Soleimani: It is war

Who was Qassem Soleimani, Iran's IRGC leader?


Soleimani acquired celebrity status at home and abroad as the leader of the foreign arm of Iran's elite forces Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ( IRGC and for his key role in fighting in Syria and Iraq.

He survived several assassination attempts against him by Western, Israeli and Arab agencies over the past 20 years. Read more  here .

Al Jazeera's Charlotte Bellis reports on the life of Iran's most important general.

Former top Iranian commander: 'We will take vigorous revenge'


"He joined his martyred brothers, but we will take vigorous revenge on America," Mohsen Rezaei, a former commander of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ( IRGC ) who is now the secretary of a powerful state body, said in a post on Twitter.

Khamenei warns of harsh revenge


Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called for three days of mourning, saying Major General Soleimani's killing will double the motivation of the resistance against the US and Israel.

According to Iranian state television, Khamenei said harsh revenge awaits "criminals" who killed Soleimani.

Top House Democrats: Strikes not authorised by Congress


US Democratic congressional leaders issued statements condemning President Donald Trump 's ordered strikes that killed  Soleimani, saying the president did not obtain the congressional approval. 

"American leaders' highest priority is to protect American lives and interests. But we cannot put the lives of American servicemembers, diplomats and others further at risk by engaging in provocative and disproportionate actions," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

"Tonight's air strike risks provoking further dangerous escalation of violence. America - and the world - cannot afford to have tensions escalate to the point of no return," she added. "The Administration has conducted tonight's strikes in Iraq targeting high-level Iranian military officials and killing Iranian Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani without an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iran. Further, this action was taken without the consultation of the Congress."

She called for a briefing on the situation.

Another top Democrat, Adam Schiff, took to Twitter, saying the "American people don't want a war with Iran". 

Oil prices surge after  Soleimani's killing


Oil prices jumped more than 4 percent on Friday after news of Soleimani's death.

Brent crude futures were up by nearly $3 at $69.16 per barrel, their highest since September 17, as markets feared Iran could retaliate against the killing of its top militiamen by attacking assets of the US and their allies in the Middle East.

Read more here .

Biden: Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite in a tinderbox


Former Vice President and Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden said while Soleimani deserved to be brought to justice, Trump "just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox".

Biden posted the statement on Twitter.

"The Administration's statement says that its goal is to deter future attacks by Iran, but this action will almost certainly have the opposite effect," he said. "President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox, and he owes the American people an explanation of the strategy and plan to keep safe our troops and embassy personnel, our people and our interests, both here at home and abroad, and our partners throughout the region and beyond."

800

Pompeo tweets video he says is of Iraqis dancing in the streets 


"Iraqis - Iraqis - dancing in the street for freedom; thankful that General Soleimani is no more," Pompeo tweeted along with a video. 

More members of US Congress react to US strikes in Iraq


Several members of Congress took to Twitter to react to Trump-ordered raids that killed Soleimani. Republicans praised the move, while many Democrats questioned the US president's ability to order such an attack.

Senator and Democratic presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren said: "Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans. But this reckless move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict. Our priority must be to avoid another costly war."


Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said: "Soleimani was a terrorist. President Trump and our brave servicemembers just reminded Iran - and the world - that we will not let attacks against Americans go unpunished."

Independent Representative Justin Amash said: "There's a reason our Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war: Every American may be intimately affected by a violent conflict. Soleimani was evil. But our system demands consent for war from the people, acting through their representatives and senators in Congress."

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham tweeted: "Thank you, Mr. President, for standing up for America."

Democratic Senator Ed Markey said on Twitter: "Trump's apparent assassination of Soleimani is a massive, deliberate, and dangerous escalation of conflict with Iran. T he President just put the lives of every person in the region - U.S. service members and civilians - at immediate risk. We need de-escalation now."

Iran's Zarif: US 'act of terrorism ... is foolish escalation'


Iran's Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohammad  Javad Zarif  warned on Twitter that the US "bears responsibility or all consequences" of its attack killing  Soleimani. 

"The US' act of international terrorism, targeting & assassinating General Soleimani - THE most effective force fighting Daesh (ISIS), Al Nusrah, Al Qaeda et al - is extremely dangerous & a foolish escalation," Zarif tweeted. "The US bears responsibility for all consequences of its rogue adventurism."

PMF spokesman: 'US and Israeli enemy responsible'


Ahmed al-Assadi, a spokesman for the PMF blamed the US and Israel for Friday's strikes. 

"The American and Israeli enemy is responsible for killing the mujahideen Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and Qassem Soleimani," he was quoted by Reuters news agency as saying.

Iran state broadcaster confirms Soleimani was 'martyred'


Citing a Revolutionary Guard statement, Iranian state television said Soleimani was "martyred" in an attack by US helicopters near the airport, without elaborating.

Pentagon confirms  Soleimani killed at 'direction of the president'


The Pentagon confirmed in a statement that Soleimani was killed "at the direction" of President Trump. 

"At the direction of the President, the US military has taken decisive defensive action to protect US personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani," a Pentagon statement said.

"This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world."

SOURCE: AL JAZEERA AND NEWS AGENCIES



Was this attack designed to replace the buzz about impeachment?

Does The Donald think this will help him get re-elected?

Remember this?



Trump repeatedly predicted Obama would 'attack Iran' to 'get re-elected'


12:26 a.m.




President Trump may well have chosen to order the killing of Iran's international military commander on Thursday, sharply escalating near-boiling tensions with Tehran because, as the Pentagon said , he wanted to "protect U.S. personnel abroad" by "deterring future attack plans" by Iran and its proxies, but his twitter feed suggests that's not the lens through which he views military strikes against Iran.

When Trump was tweeting his prediction that then-President Barack Obama was gearing up to "attack Iran in order to get re-elected," Obama was actually secretly working on a deal with Iran, China, Russia, and European allies to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, actively de-escalating tensions with Tehran. Trump has decimated that deal, which he called terrible, paving the path toward today's U.S.-Iran antagonism.

From:  the week.com





Is that true?  Did Trump accuse Obama of planning do do exactly what he just did?



Did Trump Tweet Multiple Predictions That Obama Would Attack Iran?


Failed prognostications don't fade away -- they gain immortality in the digital age.



  • PUBLISHED 2 JULY 2019

Claim



On multiple occasions Donald Trump tweeted predictions that President Obama would order an attack on Iran.

Rating




rating-true.png

True

From:  snopes.com










My primary concern, as usual, is about the safety of American soldiers.  I hope this action does not cost American lives.






Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1  author  al Jizzerror    4 years ago

I'm glad that murdering asshole is dead.

I just hope American soldiers don't pay the price.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  al Jizzerror @1    4 years ago
I'm glad that murdering asshole is dead.

It's true, this guy deserved to die. He had the blood of many innocents on his hands. But the fact is, so does Putin. So does Kim Jong Un. So does Erdogan. So does Duterte. So does Mohammed bin Salman. Are we going to just start assassinating other governments military leaders because we believe they are murderers and have blood on their hands regardless of consequences? Or was it that this guy was just an easy target for Trump to try and wag the dog and distract everyone from his impeachment by engaging us in an active 'tit for tat' conflict with Iran? It seems eerily similar to what Bill Clinton tried to pull.

"Is this President Clinton's "Wag the Dog"? With his credibility at a historic low -- and his need to look Presidential at a historic high -- the timing of Thursday's surprise attack on suspected terrorists in two countries is a cynics' dream . Remember: this is a White House that, Beltway veterans say, is capable of doing anything . "Of course you don't want to think that the President would launch this attack just as a distraction," says TIME White House correspondent Karen Tumulty. "But you can certainly expect Clinton's opponents to try to make that point." - August 20, 1998

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  al Jizzerror @1    4 years ago

Live by the sword, die by the sword!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
1.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  al Jizzerror @1    4 years ago

Sadly, they probably will.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
1.4  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @1    4 years ago
I just hope American soldiers don't pay the price.

Unfortunately......they will be the primary ones to pay the biggest price. They always are. 

But.....there are plenty more where they come from. Right?   /sac

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.5  cjcold  replied to  al Jizzerror @1    4 years ago

Pretty sure that the response will be an attack on American civilians. Soft targets.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.6  Tessylo  replied to  al Jizzerror @1    4 years ago
1b6142c0-ffe6-11e8-95ef-ef7dbc441cec January 7, 2020, 8:11 AM EST
ABC News' Martha Raddatz sits down with Iran's foreign minister

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif says the United States "will pay" for its actions and must "be prepared for the consequences" in the wake of the   death of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani , the head of Iran's elite Quds Force who was killed by an American airstrike in Iraq last week.

In a sit-down interview with Zarif in Tehran on Tuesday, ABC News Chief Global Affairs Correspondent Martha Raddatz asked, "Are you concerned that a strong response from Iran will end in an all-out war?"

"That depends on the United States," Zarif said. "The United States took an act of war against Iran; it will have to be prepared for the consequences. Then it will have to decide whether it wants to get itself into a quagmire or whether it wants to stop."

MORE: World braces for 'dramatic escalation' in tensions after key Iranian general killed: Analysis

Zarif said his country is a "very patient" one and will take action "after necessary deliberation" and "at a time of our choosing." He added that Iran will announce and claim responsibility for whatever counteraction it decides to take.

iran-funeral-qassem-soleimani-reuters-20
PHOTO: In this photo taken in Kerman, Iran, on Jan. 7, 2020, Iranian people attend a funeral procession and burial for Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, head of Iran's elite Quds Force, who was killed in an air strike at Iraq's Baghdad International Airport. (Mehdi Bolourian/Fars News Agency/West Asia News Agency via Reuters)

"The United States committed three great mistakes, and they will pay for all three mistakes," Zarif said. "The first mistake was they violated the Iraqi sovereignty and territorial integrity, and because of that they received a response from the Iraqis -- they   cancelled their agreement , which the United States had already violated by not informing the Iraqis."

Zarif may have been referring to the Iraqi Parliament's weekend vote to kick foreign forces out of the country.

"Second," he continued, "they had the emotions of a large number of people from India to Russia, not to mention Iran, Iraq. The popular reaction to that I think will be the end of U.S. presence in this region, and that would be a very high price to pay for the adventurism of a couple people. Third, they killed and claimed responsibility for murdering in a   'terrorist'   operation one of our highest ranking generals in a foreign territory. The government of Iran is responsible for protecting the lives of its citizens and its officials, and so it's obvious that we will respond."

As for the  nuclear deal  negotiated by the international community with Iran and signed under then-U.S. President Barack Obama in July 2015, Zarif said his country is "entitled to take certain remedial measures and we did that." Over the weekend, the Iranian government announced it will no longer abide by any of the operational restraints on its nuclear program under the deal, from which the Trump administration withdrew the United States in May 2018.

"As soon as Europe recognizes its own interest and decides to stand up for its own interest, we can reverse all of the measures we have taken," Zarif said. "The deal is in a very difficult situation, but the deal can be maintained and must be maintained."

MORE: Pompeo says world is safer because of Iranian commander's death

Zarif said the American government "has been compounding mistake upon mistake," and that U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Pompeo "is a personification of [the] mixture of arrogance and ignorance."

"The U.S. has already started paying for its crimes in Iraq, in the region and in Iran," Zarif said. "I think before making more mistakes, before compounding the mistakes that they already have, the current U.S. regime has to acknowledge that they have adopted the wrong policy, that their policy was based on basically ignorance. Arrogance and ignorance when combined, it's [a] disaster, and this is what's happening in the United States."

india-protest-us-killing-iranian-general
PHOTO: In this photo taken near the U.S. embassy in New Delhi, India, on Jan. 7, 2020, Indian Shiite Muslims burn a banner of U.S. President Donald Trump during a protest against the American drone strike that killed Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani. (Altaf Qadri/AP)

Hundreds of thousands of people   took to the streets   of Tehran and other cities across Iran Monday for a day of mourning for Soleimani and in a show of support for the Iranian government. The crowds voiced anger at the U.S. drone strike and hailed the slain general as a national hero.

The crowds flocked to Soleimani's hometown of Kerman on Tuesday ahead of his burial, which was subsequently postponed due to a stampede that reportedly killed over 30 and injured nearly 200.

MORE: Crowds in Iran mourn death of Iranian general, call for revenge against US

Soleimani was designated a terrorist by the Obama administration in 2011. As the powerful and elusive commander of the influential Quds Force in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps for over 20 years, Soleimani had led its fighters in operations throughout the region, backing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and supporting Shiite militia groups in Iraq, including against U.S. troops during the Iraq War. The U.S. Department of State said Soleimani's forces are responsible for the deaths of over 600 American troops because of the kind of explosive devices they helped bring to Iraq.

The Trump administration has argued that Soleimani's death was critical to thwarting "imminent attacks" the Iranian commander was helping to plot against U.S. personnel in the region. Pompeo has said that Soleimani was a "bad guy" and that   the world is "safer" without him , given the hundreds of American soldiers whose deaths his forces are responsible for. The Trump administration, however, has provided no evidence of those imminent attacks.

abc-martha-raddatz-interview-mohammad-ja
PHOTO: Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, left, sits down for an interview with ABC News Chief Global Affairs Correspondent Martha Raddatz in Tehran, Iran, on Jan. 7, 2020. (Cindy Smith/ABC News)

"We have nothing against the American people," Zarif said during Tuesday's interview with ABC News, adding that Soleimani "did a lot to protect the American people and the rest of the world from the scourge of Daesh," using the Arabic acronym for ISIS.

"But their government is taking them into the abyss and they should take charge of their own destiny," he continued.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2  author  al Jizzerror    4 years ago

Hezbollah and Hamas (Iranian proxies) may attack Israel again.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1  Ronin2  replied to  al Jizzerror @2    4 years ago

What else is new? That is their whole reason for existence. 

If they weren't attacking Israel, the Iranians wouldn't be paying/backing them.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.1.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1    4 years ago
That is their whole reason for existence.

That's true.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3  Kavika     4 years ago

Glad the bastard is dead. No matter how you look at it this is a major escalation of the tension with Iran. It should be expected that they will strike back and it may not be in the middle east. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
3.2  cobaltblue  replied to  Kavika @3    4 years ago
. It should be expected that they will strike back and it may not be in the middle east. 

You're right. To the Iranis, it is the equivalent of what happened to us with the Twin Towers. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.2.1  Ronin2  replied to  cobaltblue @3.2    4 years ago

Right.

1 Iranian terrorist equals 2977 innocent US civilians.

Those innocent US civilians were on US soil when they were killed. The Iranian terrorist was on Iraqi soil; and was organizing terrorist groups to attack US soldiers and personnel. The very same soldiers and personnel that helped the Iraqi government and Iranian militias defeat ISIS/ISIL in Iraq.

This is beyond grotesque. The left needs to get some damn perspective. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
3.2.2  cobaltblue  replied to  Ronin2 @3.2.1    4 years ago
1 Iranian terrorist ...

You apparently didn't notice that I said, "To the Iranis,". And it is grotesque. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.2.3  Ronin2  replied to  cobaltblue @3.2.2    4 years ago

Frankly, I don't give a damn about what the Iranians think. 

I am not sure if Trump's reaction was due to the backlash he received for the faux pullout from Syria from our allies, Neocons, and chicken hawks; but he only had two choices:

Either pull out of Iraq completely and let them and whatever remaining allies we have there fend for themselves; and face the wrath from the same factions.

Or, do whatever it takes to protect US personnel; which Trump has chosen to do. This shithead deserved to die. As does the one that takes his place, and the next on after that, and so on for however long it takes for them to run out of people that want the job.  Which the left now seems to have a problem with.

If Iran is dumb enough to start a war; then let the US military fight to win. And no damn nation building afterwards!

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
3.2.4  cobaltblue  replied to  Ronin2 @3.2.3    4 years ago
If Iran is dumb enough to start a war; then let the US military fight to win.

If an American is captured, tough shit for them. Trumplethinskin doesn't like people who are captured. 

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
3.3  Krishna  replied to  Kavika @3    4 years ago

Glad the bastard is dead. No matter how you look at it this is a major escalation of the tension with Iran. It should be expected that they will strike back and it may not be in the middle east. 

While attacks on U.S. installations in the Middle east will probably continue to happen, I imagine they will launch some major attacks elsewhere. For example . . .we have a large number of embassies throughout the world....

My guess is that they will launch at least one attack on mainland America. 

It could be a standard terror attack (set off a bomb or dynamite). But there are other nightmarish scenarios:

1. A really damaging cyber attack. Apparently the Iranians are quite skilled in that area. 

2. Another possibility we haven't been hearing about much in recent years-- using a Manpad ( "MAN-Portable Air-Defense system ) to down a civilian airliner. ) Apparently Ghaddafi had a large number of theses stored in warehouses in Libya. After he was assassinated, they apparently "disappeared". In all probability they went on the black market....

If one civilian airliner is shot down it would be pretty terrible. But think about what would happen to the world economy if the Iranians or their proxies could down 2 or 3...especially if the airlihes were American or European...

3. Nukes! No the Iranians don't have"the bomb" yet. But they could release radiation over an American airbase...or possibly in the American mainland?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.3.1  Ronin2  replied to  Krishna @3.3    4 years ago
1. A really damaging cyber attack. Apparently the Iranians are quite skilled in that area. 

If they are smart they will stick to something like this. We can respond in kind to them. Pretty sure we are better at this than they are.

From his first months in office,secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run’s main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America’s first sustained use of cyberweapons, according to participants in the program.

Mr. Obama decided to accelerate the attacks — begun in the Bush administration and code-named Olympic Games — even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran’s Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet. Computer security experts who began studying the worm, which had been developed by theand, gave it a name:.

At a tense meeting in the White House Situation Room within days of the worm’s “escape,” Mr. Obama, Vice Presidentand the director of theat the time,, considered whether America’s most ambitious attempt to slow the progress of Iran’s nuclear efforts had been fatally compromised.

“Should we shut this thing down?” Mr. Obama asked, according to members of the president’s national security team who were in the room.

Told it was unclear how much the Iranians knew about the code, and offered evidence that it was still causing havoc, Mr. Obama decided that the cyberattacks should proceed. In the following weeks, the Natanz plant was hit by a newer version of the computer worm, and then another after that. The last of that series of attacks, a few weeks after Stuxnet was detected around the world, temporarily took out nearly 1,000 of the 5,000 centrifuges Iran had spinning at the time to purify uranium.

Again, only hope Iran keeps it at that level.

2. Another possibility we haven't been hearing about much in recent years-- using a Manpad ( "MAN-Portable Air-Defense system ) to down a civilian airliner. ) Apparently Ghaddafi had a large number of theses stored in warehouses in Libya. After he was assassinated, they apparently "disappeared". In all probability they went on the black market.... If one civilian airliner is shot down it would be pretty terrible. But think about what would happen to the world economy if the Iranians or their proxies could down 2 or 3...especially if the airlihes were American or European...

That would instantly start a war. Not just with the US; but would drag NATO into it. Iran can't handle the US, much less NATO. Iran will find out the hard way what it felt like to be Iraq. Serbia, and Libya when tangling with NATO.

3. Nukes! No the Iranians don't have"the bomb" yet. But they could release radiation over an American airbase...or possibly in the American mainland?

Iran would be a sheet of glass. No other response would be acceptable. The Iranians had better hope their government isn't that stupid.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  JohnRussell    4 years ago

If this guy were the only bad man in Iran , or one of a few, it would make more sense to assassinate him.  But someone else in Iran will take his place, with the now increased motive of revenge for this act they will consider a sacrilegious affront to Iran or some such shit. 

The United States has just assassinated a high ranking leader in a country we are not at war with. 

Although neocons may like what's to come, I thought all the libertarians on Newstalkers (and Donald Trump for that matter) wanted us to leave the middle east. If we leave now it will appear it is because we are afraid of Iran's retribution. That being the case, I don't think we will be leaving. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
4.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  JohnRussell @4    4 years ago
Although neocons may like what's to come, I thought all the libertarians on Newstalkers (and Donald Trump for that matter) wanted us to leave the middle east.

Leaving the "endless wars" was just a campaign promise to Trump.  He needs a shiny new war for the 2020 campaign.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  al Jizzerror @4.1    4 years ago
GettyImages-1190364618-1578059254.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90&w=1024&h=683

US President Donald Trump makes a video call to the troops stationed worldwide at the Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach Florida, on December 24, 2019.

 

Photo: Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images

-

-

-

IN SEPTEMBER 2015,  then-Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump  appeared on the syndicated radio show  of conservative media star, Hugh Hewitt, to talk foreign policy.

“Are you familiar with General Suleimani?” Hewitt asked the real estate mogul from Queens.

Yes,” said Trump, before hesitating. “Go ahead, give me a little … tell me.”

When Hewitt told Trump that Suleimani “runs the Quds Forces,” Trump responded: “I think the Kurds, by the way, have been horribly mistreated by us.”

“No, not the Kurds, the Quds Forces,” Hewitt interjected. “The Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Quds Forces. The bad guys.”

“I thought you said Kurds,” a sheepish Trump replied.

Related

Leaked Iranian Intelligence Reports Expose Tehran’s Vast Web of Influence in Iraq

Got that? Candidate Trump  confused  the Quds Force, an elite Iranian military unit then led by high-profile Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, with the Kurds, a high-profile ethnic group in the Middle East.

Now, fast forward four years and four months to yesterday, when President Trump  ordered  the assassination of Suleimani  from his golf course . In an official statement that  misstated the name  of the organization that Suleimani was in charge of, the Pentagon  said  the strike was “aimed at deterring future Iranian retaliation plans.”

This is not a column, however, about the consequences of the United States government assassinating the second-most powerful man in Iran (spoiler: they’re going to be  dire !). Nor is it a column about the legality of such a deadly strike on a foreign official on foreign soil (spoiler: it’s hard to  justify !).

Rather, this is a column that allows me to express my ongoing astonishment that Donald Trump is  president of the United States ; my ongoing bewilderment with a world in which an unhinged, know-nothing former reality TV star and property developer, with zero background in foreign affairs or national security, may have just kicked off World War III. (From his golf course, no less.)

It’s also a column that allows me to revisit what I have long considered to be the most unforgivable take of the 2016 presidential race:  “Donald The Dove, Hillary the Hawk.”  That was the ridiculous headline to the New York Times column from Maureen Dowd in April of 2016, in which she falsely claimed that Trump had opposed the Iraq war “like Obama,” and then credulously suggested that, in contrast to Clinton, “he would rather do the art of the deal than shock and awe.”

Plenty of people across the political spectrum foolishly bought into the ludicrous premise that Trump would be some sort of dove.

A reminder: Trump  pulled out  of the landmark Iran nuclear deal less than 18 months after assuming office. He replaced his predecessor’s nuclear diplomacy with a  “maximum pressure”  campaign on Tehran, which had pushed the United States and the Islamic Republic  to the brink of war  even before this latest dangerous escalation.

Dowd was wholly, utterly, and embarrassingly wrong — as  some of us  tried to explain at the time. But it wasn’t just her. Plenty of other people across the political spectrum foolishly bought into the ludicrous premise that Trump would be some sort of  dove ; a  non-interventionist ; an old-fashioned  isolationist .

And plenty of my colleagues in the media  continue  to push this deluded view. Remember: Trump has  twice bombed  the Assad regime in Syria; reduced  Mosul and Raqqa  to rubble;  vetoed  a congressional attempt to end U.S. involvement in the Saudi bombardment of Yemen; and overseen a  five-fold increase  in drone strikes throughout the region and beyond. Yet on New Year’s Eve, the New York Times still insisted on  bizarrely referring  to “the president’s reluctance to use force in the Middle East.”

That line, of course, hasn’t aged so well. Less than 72 hours later, the commander of Iran’s Quds Force and the  deputy head  of the Iran-backed militias in Iraq, are dead. Killed  via drone .

THE UNITED STATES  has now  effectively declared war  on Iran. This is no longer a  “cold”  war or a  “shadow”  war. It’s a war-war. And here’s what so terrifying about it: The current commander-in-chief of the United States military as it readies for open conflict with Tehran is the guy who last week  accused  Canada’s prime minister of cutting him out of a Canadian TV version of “Home Alone 2;” who regularly retweets  QAnon, Pizzagate,  and  white nationalist  accounts on Twitter; who  believes  Ukraine is in possession of a non-existent Democratic National Committee server; who  thinks  climate change is a Chinese hoax; who  wants to use  nuclear weapons to stop hurricanes; and who is willing to  take a Sharpie  to an official government map in order to prove he was right about the weather (when he was, in fact,  100 percent wrong ).

Here’s the twist, though: There were two recent amendments to the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, in the House of Representatives that might have prevented this week’s escalation with Iran — Rep. Ro Khanna’s  amendment  to block funding for any military action against Iran that lacks Congressional approval, and Rep. Barbara Lee’s  amendment  to repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF. Both of these amendments, however, were  stripped  from the final NDAA that passed the House and Senate — with the approval of elected Democrats in both chambers.

Shame on those Democrats.

And God help the rest of us.

WAIT! BEFORE YOU GO on about y
 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
4.1.2  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    4 years ago
Now, He May Have Kicked Off WWIII.

Let me know when he actually does.....won't you ? jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    4 years ago

New Year, SOS.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4.1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    4 years ago

A kinda hysterical response don't ya think? Your juvenile reasoning is always ridiculed for just cause

If president Hillary Clinton had done this very same thing, the left would bowing down praising her wise and resolute decision.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
4.1.5  cobaltblue  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.4    4 years ago
Your juvenile reasoning is always ridiculed for just cause

Can you call someone's reasoning 'juvenile' here? And "always ridiculed"? Why don't you just avoid John's articles then? I've never understood the reasoning behind John's faithful trolls. Aren't you the same guys that love tranny articles? Too fuckin' funny. What a load ... talk about juvenile reasoning. It seems you have even less reasoning by following someone you don't agree with just to bitch and moan. Don't you have something better to do, like write articles or comment on those articles you have something in common with? 

I guess I can say you have inferior reasoning on NewsTalkers.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.1.6  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    4 years ago
Four Years Ago, Trump Had No Clue who Iran’s Suleimani Was.

So what? He knows his name now and he had his ass killed. It's not as if experts who did know his name considered Suleimani a peaceful person before Trump came along.

Rather, this is a column that allows me to express my ongoing astonishment that Donald Trump is  president of the United States ; my ongoing bewilderment

Then maybe it's more urgent that you [author] learn to come to terms with reality instead of freaking out over everything that Trump does.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
4.1.9  Krishna  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.2    4 years ago
Let me know when he actually does.....won't you ?

Watch what happens next-- within a week to a week and a half. (Probably not an actual "World War"-- but it will be really nasty stuff). 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
4.1.10  cobaltblue  replied to    4 years ago
Can't you ever respond without the personal snark?/

Omigosh. I can't tell you how many men have literally cried and said to me "can't you be serious about anything??!?!" Ugh. Yeah. I'm serious about you never calling me again. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
4.2  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @4    4 years ago

Just like someone took the place of Bin Laden, al-Baghdadi, or any other terrorist leader.

The United States has just assassinated a high ranking leader in a country we are not at war with. 

Have news for you. We may not be at war with Iran, but Iran is at war with the US. Otherwise they wouldn't be killing US personnel in Iraq.

thought all the libertarians on Newstalkers (and Donald Trump for that matter) wanted us to leave the middle east.

I thought all the Democrat neocons and new minted chicken hawks were dead set against Trump pulling out troops from anywhere? Now the left is changing their minds again?

If we leave now it will appear it is because we are afraid of Iran's retribution. That being the case, I don't think we will be leaving. 

We were never leaving to begin with. The neocons and Democrats would never allow it. Just like with Syria, the backlash will be even more than Trump can handle.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
4.3  Krishna  replied to  JohnRussell @4    4 years ago

Although neocons may like what's to come, I thought all the libertarians on Newstalkers (and Donald Trump for that matter) wanted us to leave the middle east.

What Donald trump wants (IMO) is to distract attention away from Impeachment proceedings. 

Hence the timing-- the American military could've offed this guy years ago...

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
4.3.1  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  Krishna @4.3    4 years ago
What Donald trump wants (IMO) is to distract attention away from Impeachment proceedings.

  there are no impeachment proceedings... LOL

and there won't be any "proceedings to distract from" until pelosi sends it to the senate.  

too funny :)

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
4.3.2  Krishna  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @4.3.1    4 years ago

there are no impeachment proceedings... LOL

WTF???

Trump becomes third U.S. president to be impeached as House approves both articles against him.

The House of Representatives voted on Dec. 18 to impeach President Trump on charges that he abused his office and obstructed Congress. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
4.3.3  Raven Wing  replied to  Krishna @4.3.2    4 years ago
The House of Representatives voted on Dec. 18 to impeach President Trump on charges that he abused his office and obstructed Congress. 

Trump and the Repubs are trying their best to convince the American people that he was not actually Impeached, when in fact, he has been, and always will be. They 

Trump and the Repuns can deny it all they want, but, the fact is, even if the Senate trial finds he won't be removed from office, he is still legally Impeached, now, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, and will stand as long as our country exists. Period. ALL STOP. 

Denying it just shows the stupidity and desperation of those who refuse to accept the fact that can not ever be refuted or overturned.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
4.3.4  Raven Wing  replied to  Krishna @4.3    4 years ago
What Donald trump wants (IMO) is to distract attention away from Impeachment proceedings. 

That is so obvious it isn't even funny. Every time things get to warm for Trump he comes up with some dicey way of distracting attention away from himself and this time is no different, other than it could create a unnecessary way of killing off more of our brave men and women in uniform, who are themselves Fathers, Mothers, Brothers, Sisters, Sons, and other beloved family members, just to satisfy Trumps new detraction whim. 

And the Creator will not look upon him kindly.

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
4.3.5  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  Krishna @4.3.2    4 years ago
The House of Representatives voted on Dec. 18 to impeach President Trump on charges that he abused his office and obstructed Congress.

this is january 3, and nothing has happened since 18dec

in other words... old news.

  there are no impeachment proceedings going on right now to distract from

but hey, when pelosi gets off her ass....    let everyone know k?

just curious... how long do you think the left is going to sit idly by waiting around for pelosi to get off her ass before they realize they have been played like fools?

week? month?  year?   matters not, your going to find out :)

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
4.3.6  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @4.3.2    4 years ago
there are no impeachment proceedings... LOL

WTF???

Trump becomes third U.S. president to be impeached as House approves both articles against him.

The House of Representatives voted on Dec. 18 to impeach President Trump on charges that he abused his office and obstructed Congress. 

Sometime the sheer uninformed stupidity LOL of the comments on this sites is truly amazing LOL! :-(

(Oh and then there's that "LOL"...laughing at...what exactly?)

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
4.3.7  Krishna  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @4.3.5    4 years ago

Impeachment proceedings happened. And IIRC correctly, our Chicken-Hawk-in Chief is only the third American president in history to be impeached.

And that fact will go down in history.

But more immediately, if his ill-advised action do start a war or even a serious attack on us, it would change the odds of his getting re-elected. So this attack was obviously an attempt at distraction.

(IMO the recent ill-advised attack on an important Iranian hero will have some nasty consequences-- within, probably a week to a week and a half...)

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.3.8  Texan1211  replied to  Krishna @4.3.6    4 years ago

I believe he meant that there is nothing going on on impeachment NOW. Nancy has the ball. What is she going to do? What is the holdup for "the most important vote of our lifetimes" and the "Constitutional crisis"?

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
4.3.9  Raven Wing  replied to  Krishna @4.3.7    4 years ago
Impeachment proceedings happened.

Exactly. It is already a done deal. What has not happened yet is jut the Senate trial. But, what the Repubs are trying so hard to convince others is that Trump has not been Impeached. And that is a lie. One they may believe, however, intelligent Americans, and others around the world, are not so stupid as not to understand and believe that fact.

President Donald Trump has been Impeached. And that is true today, and he will be Impeached tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, and every year there after. That a fact. 

A fact that the Repubs hate to admit, but, a fact none the less. And the more they deny it, the bigger idiots they they look. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
4.3.10  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Raven Wing @4.3.9    4 years ago
But, what the Repubs are trying so hard to convince others is that Trump has not been Impeached. And that is a lie.

It's fucking hilarious.

Here's what happens when someone says Trump has been impeached:

800

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
4.3.11  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @4.3.10    4 years ago

Yep. And the only ones that look stupid are those that try to convince others that it is not true. Truly laughable.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
4.3.12  Ronin2  replied to  Krishna @4.3.2    4 years ago

Sorry, until Nancy submits the articles of impeachment to the Senate- Trump is not formally impeached in the House.

But an indefinite delay would pose a serious problem. Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial. Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial.

If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all.

That’s because “impeachment” under the Constitution means the House sending its approved articles of to the Senate, with House managers standing up in the Senate and saying the president is impeached.

As for the headlines we saw after the House vote saying, “TRUMP IMPEACHED,” those are a media shorthand, not a technically correct legal statement. So far, the House has voted to impeach (future tense) Trump. He isn’t impeached (past tense) until the articles go to the Senate and the House members deliver the message.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
4.3.14  author  al Jizzerror  replied to    4 years ago

Why is that second sentence posted as a quote?

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
4.3.15  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @4.3.14    4 years ago
Why is that second sentence posted as a quote?

Wally does that all the time. He's not yet mastered citing on the site. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5  Trout Giggles    4 years ago

I'm going to post a comment that's probably going to make me unpopular, but so what.

It's time to pull our troops out the ME and close our embassies. Let them kill each other but protect Israel as much as we can.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
5.2  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Trout Giggles @5    4 years ago
It's time to pull our troops out the ME

Trump promised to do that in his 2016 campaign.

It was just another lie.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
5.2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  al Jizzerror @5.2    4 years ago

Events have not allowed him to do so. Not another lie.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
5.2.2  cobaltblue  replied to  Greg Jones @5.2.1    4 years ago
Events have not allowed him to do so. Not another lie.
In July, President Trump  said he believes   the U.S. Constitution gives him “the right to do whatever I want as president.” On Constitution Day, students learn otherwise.

Okay. He's sometimes is not lying. Sometimes he's just plain stupid. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
5.2.3  Split Personality  replied to  Greg Jones @5.2.1    4 years ago

When events prevented Obama, he supposedly was a liar, lol.

You cannot have it both ways.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
5.2.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Split Personality @5.2.3    4 years ago
You cannot have it both ways.

Sure you can. You just have to not only accept monumental levels of hypocrisy, you have to champion it. When their guy pulls troops out of somewhere it was the right thing to do at the right time and made us safer. When their opponent does the same it was the wrong thing at the wrong time that made us all less safe. When their opponent takes executive action to kill terrorists in a foreign country without congresses approval it's a constitutional crisis. When their President does the same it's "necessary action" and an "appropriate response". When their opponent gets accused of sexual assault or misconduct the accuser must be believed, even if the accusers recant their testimony. When their President is accused by five times more women it's all a vicious plot by liars against their cherubic dear leader who wouldn't even grab a fly by the pussy. When their opponent uses things like quantitative easing to boost the economy after a massive recession, they refuse to give credit to the recovered economy that results. When their President does the same even when we're already seeing a record high stock market they credit him for any and all growth that results even if he had nothing to do with it.

And when their President orders a secret attack on a foreign governments military leader that we are not currently engaged in a war with risking starting a full blown war, they only see the positives, the fact that another bad guy is dead. When their opponent does the same he's called out for wagging the dog and attacked for not going to congress to first get approval for such unilateral actions pushing us closer to a hot war in the middle east.

If you have no shame, no morals, no conscience, no sense, very little intelligence coupled with mountains of bitter partisan misinformation, it's rather easy to have it both ways as proven by many Trump supporters daily.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
5.2.5  igknorantzrulz  replied to  cobaltblue @5.2.2    4 years ago

Okay. He's sometimes is not lying. Sometimes he's just plain stupid. 

Sometimes ??? C'mon, he's almost ALWAYS LYING, especially when sitting up  in bed, and he's not plain stupid, he's an EVERYTHING Bagel kind of STUPID !

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.2.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.2.5    4 years ago

Well, I used to like everything bagels....

Thanks a lot, Izzy

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
5.2.7  cobaltblue  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.2.5    4 years ago
he's an EVERYTHING Bagel kind of STUPID !

Hahahahaha!!!

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
5.2.8  Ronin2  replied to  al Jizzerror @5.2    4 years ago

Trump promised to do that in his 2016 campaign.

It was just another lie.

So did Obama while campaigning. After two surges, and a disaster of a SOFA agreement, we are still in Afghanistan. Obama reinserted troops back into Iraq to aid a government that is loyal to Iran. Obama gave us some new conflicts in Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Ukraine to mess around with as well.

Getting US troops out once they set foot on foreign soil is damn well near impossible. 

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
5.2.9  Krishna  replied to  Split Personality @5.2.3    4 years ago

When events prevented Obama, he supposedly was a liar, lol.

Good point!

Whatever criticism anyone could make about Obama, we must keep in mind that he had no "free will"-- those dastardly "events" forced him to do everything he did while in office!

/sarc

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
5.2.10  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @5.2.9    4 years ago

When events prevented Obama, he supposedly was a liar, lol.

Good point!

Whatever criticism anyone could make about Obama, we must keep in mind that he had no "free will"-- those dastardly "events" forced him to do everything he did while in office!

/sarc

Hillary too-- BTW! Yes-- she is a victim of "Events"!

(Hehehe :-)

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
5.2.11  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.2.5    4 years ago

What's wrong with bagels?  A little cream cheese and smoked salmon on one is delicious.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
5.2.12  Krishna  replied to  Ronin2 @5.2.8    4 years ago
So did Obama while campaigning.

Whether or not you're aware of it, Obama is no longer in office and has little if any power to start a war with Iran. But Trump does-- and that's the topic we are discussing.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
5.2.13  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Ronin2 @5.2.8    4 years ago
Obama reinserted troops back into Iraq

Yes because of the rise of ISIS.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.3  Sparty On  replied to  Trout Giggles @5    4 years ago

We don't agree on much but we agree here.  

Normally i'm very wary of "isolationism" considering the last time we went into that mode we got a cool little ditty called World War Two but i think this is different.   We've done our best (albeit not always perfectly) to help that region out and its clear they do just want to kill each other off.    Pull out and stockpile MOAB's and Cruise Missiles in Diego Garcia and other surrounding bases for quick and liberal application if needed.

Either they can learn to live with each other or they can't.   Either way, the US is clearly spinning it's wheels trying to help them get there.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
5.3.1  Krishna  replied to  Sparty On @5.3    4 years ago
Either they can learn to live with each other or they can't.   Either way, the US is clearly spinning it's wheels trying to help them get there

And yet our Chickenhawk Bone-Spur-Challenged president continues to send more kids there to die. (I'm still trying to figure out why he's keeping troops in Afghanistan... )

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.3.2  Sparty On  replied to  Krishna @5.3.1    4 years ago

That comment might actually make some sense if it weren’t so TDS ridden.

Liberals ... feeding the dark side by letting the hatred flow copiously since November 2016

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
5.3.3  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Sparty On @5.3.2    4 years ago
That comment might actually make some sense if it weren’t so TDS ridden.

Gotta love that TDS bullshit.

800

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
5.3.4  Raven Wing  replied to  Sparty On @5.3.2    4 years ago
Liberals ... feeding the dark side by letting the hatred flow copiously since November 2016

And.....Repubs feeding the dark side by letting the hatred flow copiously since November 2008 to November 2016.

How convenient the right forgets its own endless hate infested attacks on Obama the entire time of his Presidency. 

Pot...Kettle?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.3.5  devangelical  replied to  Raven Wing @5.3.4    4 years ago

no conscience works best with no memory

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
5.3.6  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  devangelical @5.3.5    4 years ago
no conscience works best with no memory

And no sense.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
5.3.7  Raven Wing  replied to  devangelical @5.3.5    4 years ago

Very true. And Repubs seem to have both. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.3.8  XXJefferson51  replied to  Raven Wing @5.3.7    4 years ago

"Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have 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," Trump said Saturday, explicitly laying out that the U.S. will act if Iran retaliates.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.3.10  Sparty On  replied to  Raven Wing @5.3.4    4 years ago

Any serious inspection of the topic at hand clearly shows how much worse the hatred has been towards Trump than it was towards Obama.     You’d have to be deaf, dumb, blind or in serious denial to not recognize the disparity.

TDS is real, ODS not so much or least nowhere as prolific or intense.     It’s hilarious how some are attempting to turn it around now.   Trying to project TDS on others and not where it belongs on themselves.    It’s an almost childlike attempt to shield the truth.

“The best trick the devil ever played was to convince the world he didn’t exist.”

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.3.11  Sparty On  replied to  devangelical @5.3.5    4 years ago

So true and people regularly only remember what they want to remember.    Libs are channeling that malfunction in a big way these days.

“It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into”

There is little “reason” in some of you these days, only hatred and anger.    In other words ..... rampant TDS

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
6  It Is ME    4 years ago

"Naturally, Trump did not consult with, nor did he inform congress of this military action.  

I wouldn't consult with those morons either. They're "Unhinged" Looney tunes. jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

"Trump did not even bother to invoke the War Powers Act. "

The Bombing and destruction of Libya comes to mind ! jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

This was all about one guy, and one guy only ! Big Deal ! jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
6.2  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @6    4 years ago
"Naturally, Trump did not consult with, nor did he inform congress of this military action.   I wouldn't consult with those morons either. They're "Unhinged" Looney tunes.

I guess you think the U.S. Constitution is worthless.

I guess that's why you love The Donald.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
6.2.1  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2    4 years ago
I guess you think the U.S. Constitution is worthless.

The miniscule 24% approval rated members of congress , aren't the constitution !

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
6.2.3  It Is ME  replied to    4 years ago
Clarification would be welcome

It was VERY self explanatory. Did you miss it....AGAIN ? jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
6.2.4  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @6.2.1    4 years ago
The miniscule 24% approval rated members of congress , aren't the constitution !

That's one of the lamest responses I ever seen.

The U.S. Constitution gives war powers to Congress regardless of any approval rating.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
6.2.5  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.4    4 years ago
The U.S. Constitution gives war powers to Congress regardless of any approval rating.

There comes a time, when CEO's of this country, should be called out !

As for this "War Powers" thingy...… Presidents before Trump, haven't needed to follow what the TDS groups are now saying Trump MUST follow ! 

Make up your mind …… Won't you ? jrSmiley_89_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2.6  Tessylo  replied to    4 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
6.2.8  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.6    4 years ago

Quick ….…. What does "Waste" mean ? jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
6.2.9  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.6    4 years ago
Don't hold your breath for clarification from It Is ME.  Complete waste of time.

That's the fucking truth.

Trollish comments are always worthless.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
6.2.10  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.9    4 years ago
Trollish comments are always worthless.

In real words...… your stumped for a worthy response ? jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

Maybe a "MEME" is warranted now so you won't find "Troll'ish" as a go to ? 

384

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
6.2.11  1stwarrior  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.4    4 years ago

Actually no it doesn't.  The War Powers Resolution of 1973 gives them that power which, as usual, Congress is too chicken shyte to use.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
6.2.12  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @6.2.10    4 years ago

Thanx for posting another trollish comment.

A comment designed to elicit a CoC violation from another member is considered "trolling".

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
6.2.13  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.12    4 years ago
A comment designed to elicit a CoC violation from another member is considered "trolling".

Like this ?

"That's the fucking truth."
"Trollish comments are always worthless." jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

Asking a "Question" about a "Stupid" Response....isn't Trolling !

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2.14  Tessylo  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.9    4 years ago
'That's the fucking truth. Trollish comments are always worthless.'

That's his MO
Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
6.2.15  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.14    4 years ago
That's his MO

I do like Mail Orders. Do it all the time on the Internet !

Saves Money !

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
6.2.16  Greg Jones  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2    4 years ago

You need to study up on the powers of the presidency.

So you saying that Obama's numerous civilian killing drone strikes were unconstitutional?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
6.2.17  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  1stwarrior @6.2.11    4 years ago
Actually no it doesn't.  The War Powers Resolution of 1973 gives them that power which, as usual, Congress is too chicken shyte to use.

For your edification:

War Powers

Overview

This guide is intended to serve as an introduction to research on the War Powers Resolution, Public Law 93-148, 87 Stat. 555, passed over President Nixon's veto on November 7, 1973. The War Powers Resolution is sometimes referred to as the War Powers Act, its title in the version passed by the Senate. This Joint Resolution is codified in the United States Code ("USC") in Title 50, Chapter 33, Sections 1541-48.

The term "Resolution" can be misleading; this law originated as a Joint Resolution and was passed by both Houses of Congress pursuant to the Legislative Process , and has the same legal effect as a Bill which has passed and become a law. For more information on Bills and Joint Resolutions see this explanation of Congressional Forms of Action .

The Constitution of the United States divides the war powers of the federal government between the Executive and Legislative branches: the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces ( Article II, section 2 ), while Congress has the power to make declarations of war, and to raise and support the armed forces ( Article I, section 8). Over time, questions arose as to the extent of the President's authority to deploy U.S. armed forces into hostile situations abroad without a declaration of war or some other form of Congressional approval. Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in the aftermath of the Vietnam War to address these concerns and provide a set of procedures for both the President and Congress to follow in situations where the introduction of U.S. forces abroad could lead to their involvement in armed conflict.

Conceptually, the War Powers Resolution can be broken down into several distinct parts. The first part states the policy behind the law, namely to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities," and that the President's powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States ( 50 USC Sec. 1541).

The second part requires the President to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent, and to continue such consultations as long as U.S. armed forces remain in such situations ( 50 USC Sec. 1542). The third part sets forth reporting requirements that the President must comply with any time he introduces U.S. armed forces into existing or imminent hostilities (50 USC Sec. 1543) ; section 1543(a)(1) is particularly significant because it can trigger a 60 day time limit on the use of U.S. forces under section 1544(b).

The fourth part of the law concerns Congressional actions and procedures. Of particular interest is Section 1544(b), which requires that U.S. forces be withdrawn from hostilities within 60 days of the time a report is submitted or is required to be submitted under Section 1543(a)(1), unless Congress acts to approve continued military action, or is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Section 1544(c) requires the President to remove U.S. armed forces that are engaged in hostilities "without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization" at any time if Congress so directs by a Concurrent Resolution (50 USC 1544 (external link) ) . Concurrent Resolutions are not laws and are not presented to the President for signature or veto; as a result the procedure contemplated under Section 1544(c) is known as a "legislative veto" and is constitutionally questionable in light of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha , 462 U.S. 919 (1983). Further sections set forth expedited Congressional procedures for considering proposed legislation to authorize the use of U.S. armed forces, as well as similar procedures regarding proposed legislation to withdraw U.S. forces under Section 1544(c) ( 50 U.S. 1545-46a).

The fifth part of the law sets forth certain definitions and rules to be used when interpreting the War Powers Resolution (50 USC 1547 (external link) ) . Finally, the sixth part is a "separability provision" and states that if any part of the law is held (by a court) to be invalid, on its face or as applied to a particular situation, the rest of the law shall not be considered invalid, nor shall its applicability to other situations be affected (50 USC 1548 (external link) ) .

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
6.2.18  Greg Jones  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.4    4 years ago

But....this isn't war, or an act of war, or a declaration of war.

It's a military strike to kill an enemy asset, just like Obama proudly claimed to have killed Osama bin Laden.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
6.2.19  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @6.2.13    4 years ago
Like this ? "That's the fucking truth." "Trollish comments are always worthless."

Feel free to flag any and every comment I post.

I never flag comments so please continue spewing stupid comments all over this thread.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
6.2.20  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2.16    4 years ago
You need to study up on the powers of the presidency.

Please read comment #6.2.17

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
6.2.22  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2.18    4 years ago
Obama proudly claimed to have killed Osama bin Laden.

Osama was not a general in any country's army.

He was a fucking terrorist.

I'm surprised to hear anyone criticize Obama for killing that fucking asshole.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
6.2.23  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.19    4 years ago
Feel free to flag any and every comment I post.

Why ?

"so please continue spewing stupid comments all over this thread."

Trolling ? ( A comment designed to elicit a CoC violation from another member is considered "trolling" .) jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
6.2.24  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.4    4 years ago
That's one of the lamest responses I ever seen.

I'm still laughing my ass off. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
6.2.25  Greg Jones  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.22    4 years ago

It was the right decision, even though bin Laden was all that involved in terrorism at that point.

Just making the comparison that what Trump did was no different.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
6.2.26  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2.25    4 years ago
what Trump did was no different.

Trump killed the second highest ranking government official in Iran.

Osama was not a government official.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
6.2.27  igknorantzrulz  replied to  It Is ME @6.2.15    4 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.2.29  Sparty On  replied to  It Is ME @6.2.10    4 years ago

Lol .... stop teasing the kitties with that laser pointer

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
6.2.30  It Is ME  replied to  Sparty On @6.2.29    4 years ago
Lol .... stop teasing the kitties with that laser pointer

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.2.31  Sparty On  replied to  It Is ME @6.2.30    4 years ago

Reminds me of the Donkey Sanctuary on Bonaire .... or [ deletedjrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
6.2.32  It Is ME  replied to  Sparty On @6.2.31    4 years ago
or (deleted)

Mascots are GREAT ! jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
6.2.33  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @6.2.32    4 years ago
Mascots are GREAT !

800

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
6.2.34  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.33    4 years ago

384

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.2.35  devangelical  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.26    4 years ago

Lol .... stop peeing on the floor in front of the knuckle dragger parade

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
6.2.36  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  devangelical @6.2.35    4 years ago
Lol .... stop peeing on the floor in front of the knuckle dragger parade

Is pooping okay?

One of my all time favorite paintings:

800

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.2.37  Tacos!  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.4    4 years ago
The U.S. Constitution gives war powers to Congress

We haven't declared war on anyone since 1942. We've done a hell of a lot of fighting since then, though. Are you prepared to condemn all of that just to justify being mad at Trump?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
6.2.38  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Tacos! @6.2.37    4 years ago

I think Trump should at least had the "gang of eight" briefed.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.2.39  Tacos!  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.38    4 years ago

I'd like to see that kind of thing, but I don't think he trusts those people to not leak the information.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.40  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.38    4 years ago
I think Trump should at least had the "gang of eight" briefed.

Perhaps as a small courtesy, but not required. It simply wasn't their decision to make.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.41  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @6.2.39    4 years ago
I'd like to see that kind of thing, but I don't think he trusts those people to not leak the information.

Would you trust it wouldn't be leaked somehow?

I wouldn't.

I always think it rather stupid that we as a country, no matter who is charge, often signal our intentions beforehand to our enemies, and that the media helps to do it.

Can you even imagine some momentous event--like D-Day, for example--occurring in today's world?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.2.42  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.41    4 years ago

It would be nice to see better communication and trust between the White House and congressional leadership. I do think those leaders often have experience and insight that could be useful.

But we also have to remember that the president doesn't need to consult them on everything. He does have advisors and authority for a reason: so that he can act.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
6.2.43  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2.38    4 years ago
I think Trump should at least had the "gang of eight" briefed.

I am sure he informed Putin before hand so that he could have time to prepare a great response when the time is ripe. Trump would not dare act in any way such as that without informing his Master Putin first. He likely even asked Putin's permission first.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.44  Texan1211  replied to  Raven Wing @6.2.43    4 years ago
I am sure he informed Putin before hand so that he could have time to prepare a great response when the time is ripe. Trump would not dare act in any way such as that without informing his Master Putin first. He likely even asked Putin's permission first.

So you think Putin is screwing one of his most important economic and military allies?

Why would he do that--to what possible end?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.2.45  XXJefferson51  replied to  al Jizzerror @6.2    4 years ago

Trump activated the war powers act this very evening.  It was not required in the context of responding to the embassy attack. Now it is engaged.  Trump also told Iran that we have 52 targets one for each of the 52 hostages from 1979-81 of varying value to be at risk if Iran retaliates for their terrorist mastermind being taken out.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.2.46  Ronin2  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.44    4 years ago

TDS is the only answer. 

Putin is so smart he as a Manchurian candidate that is acting against Russians best interests./S

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
6.2.47  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.2.45    4 years ago
Trump activated the war powers act this very evening.

He also threatened to attack 52 target in Iran.

Because he doesn't want a war.

800

 
 
 
user image
Freshman Silent
7      4 years ago

Oh no! We should be terrified of war with Iran.....

Sorry progressives. This president doesn't bend over and send hundreds of thousands of dollars to the largest state sponsor of terrorism, behind congresses back no less. I know, I know, you guys are really missing Obama by now....

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/06/the-obama-administration-secretly-sought-to-give-iran-access-to-the-us-financial-system.html

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1  Tessylo  replied to  @7    4 years ago

Nah, he bends over for Putin and other dictators.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.1    4 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.1    4 years ago

We all know who tRump bends over for.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
7.1.4  cobaltblue  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1.1    4 years ago
I believe that was Obama bending over reaching for the crotch of the Russian President

Fucking hilarious given trump's love for dictators. Remember ... he and Kim were "in love." They wrote "love letters" to each other. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  cobaltblue @7.1.4    4 years ago

The 'president' has a tramp stamp of Putin just above his big fat ass.

Insert here.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.5    4 years ago
The 'president' has a tramp stamp of Putin just above his big fat ass.

Been getting up close and personal with the President's ass, have you?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.6    4 years ago

Naw, I leave that up to his supporters and Ms. Lindsey.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.7    4 years ago

Seems like YOU are the one who knows all about his ass and what he has tattooed there.

I haven't heard anyone else claiming to know it, so I will assume you have personal, up close-and-personal knowledge of it since you would never, ever, ever post a deliberate lie, right?

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
7.1.9  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.6    4 years ago
Been getting up close and personal with the President's ass, have you?

Hell, anyone who stands next to you in queue somewhere, at the grocery store, bank, etc., knows what's trump's ass tastes like. Your breath reeks. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.8    4 years ago

You can have the last word now, I know how important it is to some gals.  

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
7.1.11  cobaltblue  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.10    4 years ago
I know how important it is to some gals.

I know! They blame women for that. Tex puts them to shame.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
7.1.12  Split Personality  replied to  Tessylo @7.1    4 years ago

To everyone in this thread

This has become way too personal

The thread ends here or else tickets for everyone.

Thanks in Advance, SP

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
7.1.13  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.7    4 years ago

deleted

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
7.1.14  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Split Personality @7.1.12    4 years ago
To everyone in this thread This has become way too personal

I sincerely apologize for my role.

As the author, I feel obligated to reply to comments.

I will try to ignore the bullshit in the future. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
7.1.15  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @7.1.14    4 years ago
I feel obligated to reply to comments.

I just assumed that if someone said someone else said "seems like YOU are the one who knows all about his ass and what he has tattooed there" that everyone could respond in kind. My bad. It just seems that there are those who only spew insults rather than rational, insightful comments. We never expect to change anyone's mind, but we certainly hope to expand it. However, that's something that several people can't fathom. It quickly dissolves into name calling and insults. But of course how could one expect anything less given their love for their double digit IQ president. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
7.1.16  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  cobaltblue @7.1.15    4 years ago
It just seems that there are those who only spew insults rather than rational, insightful comments.

When I publish an article reasonable people post interesting comments.

Unfortunately, many unreasonable people just cum just to attack the reasonable comments.

It tends to make things a little sticky.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
7.1.17  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @7.1.16    4 years ago
Unfortunately, many unreasonable people just cum just to attack the reasonable comments.

Actual "On Topic" Comments ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

Sometimes..... "The STUPID really does BURN" !

"I'm the one guy who says don't force the stupid people to be quiet. I want to know who the morons are."

Mark Cuban

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
7.2  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  @7    4 years ago
Oh no! We should be terrified of war with Iran....

Do you actually want a war with Iran?

You must be smocking covfefe.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  al Jizzerror @7.2    4 years ago
Do you actually want a war with Iran?

According to your logic, we should have showed some restraint after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. No need for our involvement in WWII.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
7.2.2  1stwarrior  replied to  al Jizzerror @7.2    4 years ago

Wonder what Bush was smoking when he axed Saddam?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
7.2.3  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.2.1    4 years ago
According to your logic, we should have showed some restraint after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. No need for our involvement in WWII.

Congress declared war after Pearl Harbor.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
7.2.4  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  1stwarrior @7.2.2    4 years ago
Wonder what Bush was smoking when he axed Saddam?

Saddam was turned over to the Iraqi government.

They conducted a trial and then they "axed Saddam".

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.2.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  al Jizzerror @7.2.3    4 years ago
Congress declared war after Pearl Harbor.

In other words wars aren’t avoided by hoping a growing threat goes away. I'm glad to hear it!

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
7.2.6  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @7.2    4 years ago
Do you actually want a war with Iran?

They couldn't even beat Iraq in a "War" ! jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

Those "Mini-Boats" of theirs, are "Hell on Earth" ! jrSmiley_103_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
7.2.7  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @7.2.6    4 years ago
They couldn't even beat Iraq in a "War" !

We can turn Iran into a fucking ashtray, butt I don't want to.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
7.2.8  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @7.2.7    4 years ago
butt I don't want to.

I hear "Go-Fund-Me" is popular !

Gotta watch out for the "Scammers" though. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
7.2.9  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @7.2.7    4 years ago
We can turn Iran into a fucking ashtray, butt I don't want to.

True, it would be such a shame to kill so many innocent people like we did in Hiroshima. However, there comes a time then the enemy makes any other choice impossible. 

I pray that is never comes to that again, but, I do not want to have that happen to our country either. So if once again given no other choice by the enemy, then we have no choice but to respond. 

It's not anything the world wants to see, only those to whom human life means nothing, only their own and their egotistical desire to rule the world. And that includes Trump. 

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
7.3  lady in black  replied to  @7    4 years ago

Crooked donnie just pee pees on them

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  lady in black @7.3    4 years ago

The 'president' prefers to be peed on.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
7.3.2  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @7.3.1    4 years ago
The 'president' prefers to be peed on.  

hmmmmmmm…… jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
7.3.3  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Tessylo @7.3.1    4 years ago
The 'president' prefers to be peed on.

800

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
8  pat wilson    4 years ago

This was so predictable. trump needed a distraction from his impeachment and he got it !

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
8.1  It Is ME  replied to  pat wilson @8    4 years ago
trump needed a distraction from his impeachment and he got it !

Billy Clintons Iraq "Special Bombing" comes to mind ! jrSmiley_68_smiley_image.png

Trump actually "Accomplished" something in what he approved !

What did Billy "Accomplish" ?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.2  Texan1211  replied to  pat wilson @8    4 years ago

Distraction?

Are Democrats so easily distracted from "the vote of our lifetime" and "Constitutional crisis" or is it simply Democrats are incapable of doing more than one thing at a time?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
8.2.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2    4 years ago
is it simply Democrats are incapable of doing more than one thing at a time?

The House of Representatives has been very productive.

House Democrats have passed nearly 400 bills. Trump and Republicans are ignoring them.

Legislative paralysis gripped Capitol Hill well before impeachment started.

By Ella Nilsen ella.nilsen@vox.com Nov 29, 2019, 7:00am EST
 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
8.2.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2    4 years ago

They are using a moral victory as a distraction point. Fortunately, for Mr. Obama going into second term elections, had Hurricane Sandy for a crutch.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.2.1    4 years ago

Then it isn't  a distraction, as claimed.

Got it, thanks for simply admitting it so easily.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
8.2.4  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.3    4 years ago
Then it isn't  a distraction, as claimed.

You claimed this (comment # 8.2   Texan1211   ):

Are Democrats so easily distracted from "the vote of our lifetime" and "Constitutional crisis" or is it simply Democrats are incapable of doing more than one thing at a time?

I posted a headline that blew your premise out of the fucking water.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.2.4    4 years ago

I can't bring myself to argue anymore with anyone who thinks that if the govt. takes in $4 trillion  and then spends $4 trillion and one dollar (which we had to borrow), that makes the entire $4 trillion 'deficit spending" instead of the one dollar.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
8.2.6  pat wilson  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2    4 years ago

It wasn't democrats that needed distracting, it was trump's idiot base. And it obviously worked.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
8.2.7  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.5    4 years ago
I can't bring myself to argue anymore with anyone who thinks that if the govt. takes in $4 trillion  and then spends $4 trillion and one dollar (which we had to borrow), that makes the entire $4 trillion 'deficit spending" instead of the one dollar.

I'm glad you don't want to argue anymore.

Now please stop lying about what I said.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.2.4    4 years ago
I posted a headline that blew your premise out of the fucking water.

I posted no premise. I asked a question.

See the little question mark at the end of the post you quoted?

BTW, thanks for agreeing with me--this isn't a distraction from anything--as was claimed.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  pat wilson @8.2.6    4 years ago

Distracting from WHAT, EXACTLY?

The articles of impeachment Nancy has sitting on her desk?

Do you really think Trump supporters are that concerned about the Democrats' little clown show?

LMMFAO!

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.2.7    4 years ago
Now please stop lying about what I said.

Not a lie at all. I got it from you personally.

Learn what deficit spending is then get back to me--or not. I don't give a shit about educating you on what a deficit is. I have tried and tried--there is no sense talking to a brick wall.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.11  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.10    4 years ago
'I have tried and tried--there is no sense talking to a brick wall.'

Wow, the projection is strong with some.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
8.2.12  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @8.2.11    4 years ago
Wow, the projection is strong with some.  

Projecting ?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.13  Tessylo  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.2.7    4 years ago
'Now please stop lying about what I said.'

That's all she has.  

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
8.2.14  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2    4 years ago
Democrats are incapable of doing more than one thing at a time?

On republicans can't do anything at any time. President Obama was a criminal and wiretapped. Nothing. Hillary was a crook and deserved to be locked up. Nothing. More indictments in his administration than in any other. republicans always talked about what a disgrace President Obama and Hillary were and they committed high crimes. Nothing. Not a subpoena, even. What happened? Are the repubs now the Do Nothing party? The Keystone Kops party? He totally fucked up the republican party. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.15  Tessylo  replied to  It Is ME @8.2.12    4 years ago

Speaking of brick walls.  

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
8.2.16  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.9    4 years ago
LMMFAO!

You should be. LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
8.2.17  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @8.2.15    4 years ago
Speaking of brick walls.  

How much did it cost you ?

Just curious. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.2.18  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @8.2.11    4 years ago

Let's play, Tessy.

What do YOU consider "deficit spending" to be?

Do you know what a deficit is?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
8.2.19  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.18    4 years ago
What do YOU consider "deficit spending" to be? Do you know what a deficit is?

That's fucking off topic (as usual).

Please don't troll Tessylo.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
8.2.20  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.18    4 years ago
What do YOU consider "deficit spending" to be? Do you know what a deficit is?

Let the deficit shit show die. You are wrong about deficits so let's not go there. Unless you want me to point out how wrong you are. Stay on this topic. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.2.21  Vic Eldred  replied to  pat wilson @8.2.6    4 years ago
It wasn't democrats that needed distracting

The Daily Caller: "Ilhan Omar, Liberals Accuse Trump Of Killing Terrorist Soleimani As A ’Distraction’

UqAkKDbZ?format=jpg&name=small

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.22  Tessylo  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.2.19    4 years ago
'That's fucking off topic (as usual). Please don't troll Tessylo.'

That's all she and It Is Me have.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.2.23  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @8.2.20    4 years ago
Unless you want me to point out how wrong you are.

I was already ticketed for that, but would absolutely love to hear what you think on that subject. PM me!!!

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
8.2.24  pat wilson  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.9    4 years ago

I don't know, you're the one posting in caps.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
8.2.25  pat wilson  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.2.21    4 years ago

No body cares about Ilhan Omar.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
8.2.26  1stwarrior  replied to  pat wilson @8.2.25    4 years ago

Then, why did you quote her?

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
8.2.27  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.2.1    4 years ago
House Democrats have passed nearly 400 bills. Trump and Republicans are ignoring them.

You should read what they are. Bunches of Re-Naming something or another. Not anything Great....that Re-naming stuff that is.

Most of the rest are just "Socialist" type wants.....for the "Green Dingbat" vote. jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

Repetition of "Already There" ...… is another Biggy in their WONDERFUL "Passings". jrSmiley_89_smiley_image.gif

Actually "Buckle Down" and read what the Dims passed.....and there Maybe is ...… 20 or so of that 400, that actually "Help" this country !

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
8.2.28  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  It Is ME @8.2.27    4 years ago

And you know, with those 400, it doesn't seem to me like anything is deathly needed. I know of nothing that has changed or any detriments been perpetrated on the citizenry because they are sitting there. It's passing for the sake of passing. You know...........FEELINGS.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.2.29  Texan1211  replied to  pat wilson @8.2.24    4 years ago

You claimed it was a distraction, not me.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
8.2.30  It Is ME  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.2.28    4 years ago
And you know, with those 400, it doesn't seem to me like anything is deathly needed

Nope....or the Dims would have been all over it from the beginning, letting us all know what they've done. Instead.... It's  "Impeachment" 24 hrs a day since 2016. Now that's something they really CAN get behind...….Literally..... GET BEHIND ! jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

I guess the so called 400, wasn't really soooooo "Important" after all. jrSmiley_32_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
8.2.31  pat wilson  replied to  1stwarrior @8.2.26    4 years ago

Please show me where I quoted her.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
8.2.32  cobaltblue  replied to  1stwarrior @8.2.26    4 years ago
Then, why did you quote her?

She didn't that I could see. Can you direct us to that comment?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
8.2.33  1stwarrior  replied to  pat wilson @8.2.31    4 years ago

Your comment in 8.0 - This was so predictable. trump needed a distraction from his impeachment and he got it !

Omar's comment - 

Despite the statement from the Pentagon and the clear reasoning behind the attack, Omar responded by suggesting that Trump secretly carried out the strike to provide a “distraction” from the upcoming Senate impeachment trial.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
8.2.34  pat wilson  replied to  1stwarrior @8.2.33    4 years ago

See 8.3.1

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
8.2.35  1stwarrior  replied to  pat wilson @8.2.34    4 years ago

Doesn't cover your prior comment in 8.0

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
8.2.36  pat wilson  replied to  1stwarrior @8.2.35    4 years ago

My comment is my comment only. If you want to double-down on stupid I can't help ya.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
8.2.37  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  pat wilson @8.2.36    4 years ago
My comment is my comment only.

It's sad but many people on this site do not even know what a "quotation" is.

I've been accused of using "copy&pasties" on my original content even though I cite sources when I do a copy&pastie. 

I'm not sure if they're reading impaired or just being gigantic assholes.

800

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
8.2.38  sandy-2021492  replied to  1stwarrior @8.2.33    4 years ago

Omar was hardly the only person to reach this conclusion, so there is no reason to suspect that anyone who did so must be quoting Omar.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
8.2.39  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.2.38    4 years ago
Omar was hardly the only person to reach this conclusion, so there is no reason to suspect that anyone who did so must be quoting Omar.

Can I quote you on that?

Trump has vilified Ilhan Omar so Trumpsters want to paint all Democrats with the "Omar brush".  And they're also fond of using the "AOC brush".

800

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
8.2.40  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.2.37    4 years ago
just being gigantic assholes.

Ding, ding, ding, ding! We have a winner, folks! Step up and claim your prize, al. 

2210655_original.png

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
8.2.41  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  cobaltblue @8.2.40    4 years ago
Step up and claim your prize, al.

You know I find blue irresistible.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
8.3  1stwarrior  replied to  pat wilson @8    4 years ago

And you believe Ilhan Omar ?  Do you live in her district?

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
8.3.1  pat wilson  replied to  1stwarrior @8.3    4 years ago

I know very little about Omar and couldn't care less what she says.

I said it was a distraction for trump from his impeachment. Anyone with any common sense can figure that out.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  pat wilson @8    4 years ago

Right! He should have sent them a pallet of cash!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.4.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.4    4 years ago

That same debunked nonsense again?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.4.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @8.4.1    4 years ago

It's been debunked?  Who debunked it?  CNN?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.4.3  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @8.4.1    4 years ago

Debunked?

You honestly going to claim that we did NOT send a bunch of cash to Iran?

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
8.4.4  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.4.2    4 years ago
It's been debunked?

The "pallet of cash" was returned to Iran because it was Iranian money that they sent us to pay for weapons (mostly aircraft) that we refused to deliver (because of their revolution).

In return they signed an agreement to curtail their nuclear program.  The inspectors confirmed that they were complying with the agreement until it was shredded by Trump.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
8.4.5  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @8.4.1    4 years ago

You need to go check your history of the Obama presidency. Pallets of cash were flown to Iran in an unmarked plane in the dark of night as a ransom to get some prisoners released. Iran has never slowed down in their quest for nuclear weapons because they have never allowed legitimate inspectors access to all their sites.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.4.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.4.4    4 years ago
The "pallet of cash" was returned to Iran because

That verifies THERE WAS A PALLET OF CASH!

So how can it be debunked?  You can't have it both ways!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.4.7  Tessylo  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.4.4    4 years ago

SSDD with these folks.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.4.8  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @8.4.5    4 years ago

That debunked nonsense again?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.4.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.4.4    4 years ago
d to Iran because it was Iranian money that they sent us to pay for weapons (mostly aircraft) that we refused to deliver (because of their revolution)

So it wasn't the Ayatollahs' money. Which is why all the  Presidents of both parties  since Carter refused to give it to them, until Obama decided to make a donation to the Quds exporting terrorism fund. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
8.4.10  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.4.6    4 years ago
That verifies THERE WAS A PALLET OF CASH!

It was cash that belonged to the Iranians.

The World Court ruled that it had to be returned so Obama used it to get the Iranians to curtail their nuclear program.  That was a good move.

The Trump shredded the agreement and the Iranians have restarted their nuclear program.  That was a stupid move.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
8.4.11  cobaltblue  replied to  Greg Jones @8.4.5    4 years ago
Pallets of cash were flown to Iran in an unmarked plane in the dark of night as a ransom to get some prisoners released.

Wrong. 

Back in late 1979, after Iranian revolutionaries took 52 Americans hostage at the US Embassy in Tehran, the United States severed diplomatic relations with Iran and froze Iranian assets in America. Among those frozen assets was a $400 million delivery of fighter jets from the U.S. that Iran’s previous government had already paid for.

Although the American hostages were finally released a year later, issues such as the frozen Iranian assets (including that $400 million) were not settled at that time. Instead, an international court based in the Hague, the   Iran–United States Claims Tribunal   was established to deal with such legal claims. The tribunal process dragged on for years and years without a ruling on the $400 million being issued, and finally, when arbitration process was apparently about to wind up (quite possibly not in American’s favor), the U.S. agreed to pay Iran back the $400 million principal along with $1.3 billion in interest. If the issue had gone to the tribunal for a decision, as was expected, the U.S. could have been on the hook for the full $10 billion in compensation Iran was seeking.

It is true the U.S. agreed to the settlement at the same time it was negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran and for the return of four U.S. citizens who had been detained by Iran. However, the negotiations over these these issues were conducted by completely separate teams in order to avoid any overlap or suggestions of connections between them.

As   Vox   noted, charges that the U.S. had paid “ ransom ” to Iran for the release of hostages didn’t even make logical sense:

Cite

384

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
8.4.12  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @8.4.3    4 years ago
You honestly going to claim that we did NOT send a bunch of cash to Iran?

See my 8.4.11. Are you suggesting that we sent a bunch of cash to Iran in exchange for prisoners? 

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
8.4.13  lady in black  replied to  cobaltblue @8.4.11    4 years ago

Don't post those pesky things call FACTS...they are a distraction to Crooked donnie's supporters truth. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
8.4.14  1stwarrior  replied to  cobaltblue @8.4.12    4 years ago

Learn before you speak -

" It was also a lie. Obama lied, and so did others in his administration.

That's the conclusion of a report by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. It alleges Obama officials pushed the U.S. Treasury to let Iran convert the equivalent of $5.7 billion of funds held in Oman's Bank of Muscat from rials into dollars and subsequently into euros.

It required a special license by the U.S. Treasury, which was granted in February of 2016. But it was never disclosed, either to Congress or the American people.

OK, you say, $5.7 billion. What is that, when big economies like the U.S., Britain, Germany and France have economies trillions of dollars in size?

Apart from the lie, which is bad enough for an administration that claimed repeatedly to be "scandal-free," this money did not have innocuous uses. Far from it.

Our own State Department characterizes Iran as the No. 1 terrorist-supporting state on Earth. Every dollar it gets from us has an ultimate use that is highly questionable, which is the reason why the U.S. imposed sanctions in the first place.

The disintegration of Libya, the collapse of Egypt, and Turkey's embrace of radical Islam, all took place under Obama's watch. None of them were in the U.S.' interest.

The Mideast has been a mess for decades, but things got  markedly worse under Obama . A big reason is the Iran nuclear deal didn't make anyone in the Mideast, Europe or U.S. safer. But it did empower the terrorist-supporting mullahs in Tehran.

The mullahs are now funding terrorism on Israel's border. They're biding their time until they can get another anti-Israel president in the White House. Mullahs with a nuclear weapon will be a nightmare. President Trump has a big job still ahead of him, but in his first year and a half in office he  has undone much of Obama's damage .

All of this because the Obama administration signed a deal that not only didn't end Tehran's nuclear program, but merely postponed it for a decade, all while doing nothing about its terrorist activities. Now we find that Obama also helped finance that.

Paying to support terrorism, and not telling the American people about it. Still think the Obama administration was "scand al-free"?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.4.15  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @8.4.12    4 years ago
See my 8.4.11. Are you suggesting that we sent a bunch of cash to Iran in exchange for prisoners? 

No.

Why would you even think that?

I said absolutely nothing to lead you to believe that is what I suggested.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
8.4.16  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @8.4.15    4 years ago

It sounded good though ! jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
8.4.17  cobaltblue  replied to  1stwarrior @8.4.14    4 years ago
Paying to support terrorism, and not telling the American people about it. Still think the Obama administration was "scand al-free"?

First of all, that's an opinion piece. Which is fine. Buy you're telling me that no one did anything about it? The repubs did nothing about it? The Keystone Kops party??

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.4.18  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @8.4.17    4 years ago
First of all, that's an opinion piece. Which is fine. Buy you're telling me that no one did anything about it? The repubs did nothing about it? The Keystone Kops party??

What were Republicans supposed to do? Jump on the tarmac and stop a plane they didn't even know was going to Iran filled with cash?

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
8.4.19  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @8.4.18    4 years ago
Jump on the tarmac and stop a plane they didn't even know was going to Iran filled with cash?

Are you saying they couldn't do anything about it after the fact? We didn't know trump was going to try to bribe Ukraine but we did something about it. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
8.4.20  It Is ME  replied to  cobaltblue @8.4.19    4 years ago
but we did something about it. 

Maybe STOPPING Russia in the "First Place"....woulda worked much better ?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
8.4.21  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @8.4.20    4 years ago
Maybe STOPPING Russia in the "First Place"....woulda worked much better ?

WWWIII ?

Great idea!

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
8.4.22  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.4.21    4 years ago
WWWIII ?

I thought the Iran thingy was gonna be WWIII ? jrSmiley_103_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
8.4.23  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @8.4.22    4 years ago
I thought the Iran thingy was gonna be WWIII ?

I hope you're wrong.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
8.4.24  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.4.23    4 years ago
I hope you're wrong.

I didn't coin it.

The TDS "Media" has brought that forth.

Did you know that Nostradamus Predicted "Trump" would start WWIII ?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.4.26  Tessylo  replied to    4 years ago

It wasn't a bribe or quid pro quo 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
8.4.27  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Greg Jones @8.4.5    4 years ago
"Iran has never slowed down in their quest for nuclear weapons because they have never allowed legitimate inspectors access to all their sites. "

Iran was permitted to "self-inspect" their military sites.

Self-inspect...................... .. .jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

Zarif-laughing.jpeg

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
8.5  cobaltblue  replied to  pat wilson @8    4 years ago
trump needed a distraction from his impeachment

Doesn't he realize that asterisk by his name in history books is there FOREVER??? Another failure for trump. Trump Airlines, Trump Vodka, Trump University, Trump Mortgage, Trump Steaks, Trump Casinos, goTrump.com, Trump Magazine, etc., etc., etc. Fucking failures, every last one of them.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.5.1  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @8.5    4 years ago
Doesn't he realize that asterisk by his name in history books is there FOREVER??? 

Yeah, most people aren't going to give a good rat's ass that a bunch of demented Democrats attempted to remove a President from office because they lost an election to him, and can't seem to field a decent candidate against him.

Doesn't seem to have hurt Bill Clinton--having that oh-so-dreaded (gasp!!) asterisk behind his name!

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
8.5.2  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @8.5.1    4 years ago
Doesn't seem to have hurt Bill Clinton

So true .... in 2001?   Broke.    In 2020?   Estimated net worth over 200 million.   Not bad for an Arkansas hillbilly .....

The Clintons are laughing their asses off at their supportive minions.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
8.5.3  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @8.5.1    4 years ago
Doesn't seem to have hurt Bill Clinton

Yeah. He got impeached for lying about a blowjob. trump is a traitor. A liar, a traitor and a guy who wants to screw his daughter.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.5.5  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @8.5.3    4 years ago

Aw, that's so cute--you deflecting and stating lies in your statement!

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
8.5.6  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @8.5.5    4 years ago
stating lies in your statement!

Please don't accuse people of lying.

You should try a different bait when you troll.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.5.7  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.5.6    4 years ago
Please don't accuse people of lying.

It was not an accusation. It is a fact.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
8.5.8  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sparty On @8.5.2    4 years ago

The Clintons are laughing their asses off at their supportive minions.

and what is Trump doing, with his "Mensa" members ...

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
8.5.9  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @8.5.7    4 years ago
It was not an accusation. It is a fact.

Bullshit.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
8.5.10  Sparty On  replied to  igknorantzrulz @8.5.8    4 years ago

Right now his job .... well that and occupying many TDS ridden minds .....  24/7 365.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.5.11  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @8.5.10    4 years ago

TDS , as you put it, does not exist. 

It is not derangement to be concerned about having a lying buffoon representing one's country, it is patriotism. 

"TDS" is a figment of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh's imagination.  and evidently yours. 

Maybe they have a cream or whatever for your affliction. If I see anything at Walgreens' I'll let you know. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
8.5.12  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  JohnRussell @8.5.11    4 years ago

800

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
8.5.13  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @8.5.11    4 years ago
TDS , as you put it, does not exist. 

Yes, i do understand that's what you believe ..... which is a huge part of the issue in this case

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.5.15  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @8.5.14    4 years ago

The only medication I need is for Trumpsters to stop believing in a KNOWN liar, crook, bigot, and moron.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
8.5.16  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.5.6    4 years ago
Please don't accuse people of lying.

Did you read the comment? What would you call it?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
8.5.17  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.5.16    4 years ago
Did you read the comment? What would you call it?

Accurate.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
8.5.18  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @8.5.15    4 years ago
The only medication I need is for Trumpsters to stop believing in a KNOWN liar, crook, bigot, and moron.

And you KNOW that is not going to happen. But you keep trying if it helps you cope.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.5.19  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.5.18    4 years ago

I guess they are the obsessed ones then, right? They are obsessed with keeping a known liar, crook, bigot, and moron in power, arent they? 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
8.5.20  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @8.5.19    4 years ago

Nope. They are obsessed with the duly elected POTUS having to be defended on a daily basis. And all it does, just like the run up to 2016 and all the negative press he got (some of which he deserved) is empower him even more. It doesn't matter what you think John. You and some others here are under the delusion that the comments here get out to the whole of the US and you are making an impression on them. That being the case, I just don't think the impression they see is necessarily the one you want them to.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
8.5.21  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @8.5.19    4 years ago

Sorry John - Clinton nor Pelosi are in power.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
8.5.22  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  1stwarrior @8.5.21    4 years ago
Clinton nor Pelosi are in power.

Pelosi is the Speaker of the House.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.5.24  Tessylo  replied to    4 years ago

Yes Wally please hush up now

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
8.5.25  1stwarrior  replied to  al Jizzerror @8.5.22    4 years ago

"known liar, crook, bigot, and moron in power"

Like I said - neither of them are in power.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
8.5.26  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @8.5.19    4 years ago

The “Projection” is strong in this one.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
8.5.27  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @8.5.7    4 years ago
It is a fact.

Prove it. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
8.6  Tacos!  replied to  pat wilson @8    4 years ago
trump needed a distraction from his impeachment and he got it !

No, you want to distract from the fact that Trump is defending American lives and ordered the killing of a known terrorist. That's why you're here to talk about impeachment.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.6.1  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @8.6    4 years ago

Defending American lives?

😂😂😂😂😂😂

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
8.7  Krishna  replied to  pat wilson @8    4 years ago
This was so predictable. trump needed a distraction from his impeachment and he got it !

Yes. 

 After all these years of Soleimani's action action-- why now ?

512

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.7.1  Texan1211  replied to  Krishna @8.7    4 years ago

Are Democrats distracted by this? Is that why Nancy wouldn't send the articles to the Senate before this attack occurred? Will that be her excuse now?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9  Vic Eldred    4 years ago

For those reading all this, there is a lot to take in, isn't there?  Sudden concern by some for the troops who btw have performed admirably, as they always do! Then there is the fact that Trump, the President who ordered the strike, should have consulted congress, asked for a congressional consensus and/or shown even more restraint. Others claim the President only acted as a "distraction" from those devastating articles of impeachment. What were they again?  Let's see, "abuse of power" & "obstructing congress." I'm not sure if those are actual offenses or cliches. So the President is either a war monger or acting politically?

I'll let those reading this decide whether the President acted appropriately in American interests or not. 

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
9.1  lady in black  replied to  Vic Eldred @9    4 years ago

Crooked donnie just wiped his ass with OUR constitution, but that's okay because it's Crooked donnie and the RULES don't apply to the scumbag.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  lady in black @9.1    4 years ago

Could you explain that for those who may be new here?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
9.1.2  1stwarrior  replied to  lady in black @9.1    4 years ago

Hmmmm - sorry, but don't see a "D" behind his name.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
9.1.3  cobaltblue  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.1    4 years ago
Could you explain that for those who may be new here?

I think it would be better to explain the Constitution to trump because he's new to the presidency. 

In July, President Trump  said he believes   the U.S. Constitution gives him “the right to do whatever I want as president.” On Constitution Day, students learn otherwise.

* * * * 

Trump made his comments on July 23 while addressing teenagers and young adults at the Turning Point USA Teen Student Action Summit in Washington. He was criticizing the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election led by Robert S. Mueller III, who was special counsel. “Then, I have an Article II, where I have to the right to do whatever I want as president," he said. "But   I don’t even talk about that.”

Students who study the Constitution learn that   Article II, Section 1   does not, in fact, give the president unlimited power. It grants the president “executive power” but also says Congress has oversight responsibilities, including over the office of the presidency, and details how a president can be removed.

Cite

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
9.1.4  It Is ME  replied to  cobaltblue @9.1.3    4 years ago
the U.S. Constitution gives him “the right to do whatever I want as president.”

Actually....he's correct....until "Congress" legally finds otherwise.

"I FEEL", isn't a legal "Otherwise" thingy. "I FEEL", is an "Ideological VOTE GETTER" Only !

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
9.1.5  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @9.1.4    4 years ago
Actually....he's correct....

I see that you know as much about the Constitution as The Donald doesn't.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
9.1.6  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.1.5    4 years ago
I see that you know as much about the Constitution as The Donald doesn't.

Comment 9.1.,3 spelled it out. Didn't you read that comment ?

" Article II, Section 1,  grants the president “executive power” but also says Congress has oversight responsibilities, including over the office of the presidency"

Since you forgot:

Executive Power:

Sections 2 and 3 enumerate specific powers granted to the president, which include the authority to appoint judges, ambassadors, and other high-ranking government officials; Veto legislation; call Congress into special session; grant pardons; issue proclamations and orders; administer the law; and serve as commander in chief of the armed forces.

It doesn't say …. at "Congress's behest" !

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
9.1.7  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @9.1.6    4 years ago
Comment 9.1.,3 spelled it out. Didn't you read that comment ?

Here are the highlights of comment #9.1.3

In July, President Trump  said he believes the U.S. Constitution gives him “the right to do whatever I want as president.” On Constitution Day, students learn otherwise.

* * * * 

Trump made his comments on July 23 while addressing teenagers and young adults at the Turning Point USA Teen Student Action Summit in Washington. He was criticizing the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election led by Robert S. Mueller III, who was special counsel. “Then, I have an Article II, where I have to the right to do whatever I want as president," he said. "ButI don’t even talk about that.”

Students who study the Constitution learn that Article II, Section 1 does not, in fact, give the president unlimited power. It grants the president “executive power” but also says Congress has oversight responsibilities, including over the office of the presidency, and details how a president can be removed.
Let's examine Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:

Section 8: Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises , to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;-And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

President Trump  said he believes the U.S. Constitution gives him “the right to do whatever I want as president.”

Please tell me where that appears in the Constitution.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
9.1.8  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.1.7    4 years ago

Did you forget.....congress can't just "Say they are going to do" in what you listed ?

Does congress not have to go through a voting and approval process for them to accomplish your list ?

" President Trump  said he believes the U.S. Constitution gives him “the right to do whatever I want as president.” 
"Please tell me where that appears in the Constitution."

Again .....……….. jrSmiley_103_smiley_image.jpg

"Executive Power:
Sections 2 and 3 enumerate specific powers granted to the president, which include the authority to appoint judges, ambassadors, and other high-ranking government officials; Veto legislation; call Congress into special session; grant pardons; issue proclamations and orders; administer the law ; and serve as commander in chief of the armed forces."

No votes or approval process's required for the "President of these United States".. 

The Constitution calls it “the vesting clause” - meaning all the complicated administrative actions associated with the day-to-day operations of the government.

Still meaning..…"No Congressional Approval" REQUIRED !

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
9.1.9  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @9.1.8    4 years ago

Okay, like Trump, you think he is an all powerful dicktator.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.1.10  devangelical  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.1.9    4 years ago
  • original
 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
9.1.11  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  devangelical @9.1.10    4 years ago

OMG!

That must be the "root of all evil".

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.12  Vic Eldred  replied to  cobaltblue @9.1.3    4 years ago

Are you the stand-in explainer?

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
9.1.13  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.1.9    4 years ago
you think he is an all powerful dicktator.

The "Constitution" doesn't note that word anywhere. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
9.1.14  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @9.1.13    4 years ago
The "Constitution" doesn't note that word anywhere.

Thanks for noticing, please tell The Donald.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
9.1.15  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.1.14    4 years ago

I give you one "Erection" for that comment.

Hold onto it longer.....it may Grow to a likeable size. jrSmiley_101_smiley_image.gif

It was the summer when a president's penis was on everyone's mind, and life, in all its shameless impurity, once again confounded America. 

— 2001The Human Stain. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
9.1.16  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @9.1.15    4 years ago
I give you one "Erection" for that comment.

I did not know that trolling is a side effect of Viagra.

That you for that edification.

512

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
9.1.17  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.1.16    4 years ago
I did not know that trolling is a side effect of Viagra.

Your "I got nothin'" Go-To.....Again ? jrSmiley_54_smiley_image.gif

You're the one that brought up "Dicks". jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
9.1.18  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @9.1.17    4 years ago
You're the one that brought up "Dicks".

I said Trump wants to be a "dicktator".

You brought up Trump's penis (comment # 9.1.15   It Is ME   ):

It was the summer when a president's penis was on everyone's mind, and life, in all its shameless impurity, once again confounded America.
 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
9.1.19  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.1.18    4 years ago
I said Trump wants to be a " dick tator".

There ya go ! jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
9.1.20  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @9.1.19    4 years ago
There ya go !

And it's true.

And it doesn't change what YOU posted:

It was the summer when a president's penis was on everyone's mind, and life, in all its shameless impurity, once again confounded America.

We can all see what what you're infatuated with.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
9.1.21  It Is ME  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.1.20    4 years ago

Your "Fumbling around with comments", doesn't change the fact "YOU" were the FIRST , that brought up "Dick" ! jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
9.1.22  Sparty On  replied to  It Is ME @9.1.21    4 years ago

Dick .... johnson, weiner, beaver log, skin boat, skin flute, one eyed trouser snake, rumpleforeskin, womb broom, pud, prick and penis, penis, penis ......

Hope that helps!

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
9.1.24  It Is ME  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.22    4 years ago

jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
9.1.25  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  It Is ME @9.1.21    4 years ago
"YOU" were the FIRST , that brought up "Dick" !

I said Trump wants to be a "dicktator".

You brought up Trump's penis.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
9.1.26  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.1.20    4 years ago
We can all see what what you're infatuated with.

Oh yeah. We can all see exactly what's up with that. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
9.1.27  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.1.25    4 years ago

256

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
9.1.28  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.22    4 years ago
Dick .... johnson, weiner, beaver log, skin boat, skin flute, one eyed trouser snake, rumpleforeskin, womb broom, pud, prick and penis, penis, penis ......

Okay, okay.

We know what you crave.

512

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
9.1.29  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  cobaltblue @9.1.26    4 years ago
Oh yeah. We can all see exactly what's up with that. 

It's a new phenomena called "presidential penis envy".

512

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
9.1.30  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @9.1.27    4 years ago

I ain't eaten' that!

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
9.1.31  Sparty On  replied to  al Jizzerror @9.1.28    4 years ago

Like usual, you know jack-shit.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10  devangelical    4 years ago

cool. too bad the Constitution prohibits trumpski from taking out the scumbag that facilitated iran into producing weapons grade nuclear material by selling replacement parts for their old french nuclear reactor thru a shell company to avoid sanctions.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
10.1  1stwarrior  replied to  devangelical @10    4 years ago

Who?   The Clintons?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.1.1  devangelical  replied to  1stwarrior @10.1    4 years ago

sorry. no cigar.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
10.1.2  cobaltblue  replied to  devangelical @10.1.1    4 years ago
no cigar.

Bwahahahaha! 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
12  Jeremy Retired in NC    4 years ago
Naturally, Trump did not consult with, nor did he inform congress of this military action.

Actually there is no need to.  Suleimani was killed in Bagdhad IRAQ.  An active combat zone for the US (thanks to Democrats and Obama).  

Iran considers Trump's killing of Qassem Suleimani an act of war and they vow retaliation. 

If he wasn't in Iraq then they would have something worth listening to.  Since Suleimani was in Iraq (causing problems for US Forces) Iraq can STFU.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
12.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @12    4 years ago
Bagdhad IRAQ.  An active combat zone for the US (thanks to Democrats and Obama).  

Reminder:  DuhBya got us into Iraq and I guess we're still looking for the WMDs.  Saddam must have done a hellva job stashing those nukes.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
12.1.1  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @12.1    4 years ago
Reminder:  DuhBya got us into Iraq and I guess we're still looking for the WMDs.  

How quickly they deliberately forget when it is one of their own President's screw up. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
12.1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  al Jizzerror @12.1    4 years ago
Reminder:  DuhBya got us into Iraq and I guess we're still looking for the WMDs

Reminder:  Obidiot pulled us out of Iraq then sent us back. And for what? 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
12.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @12.1.2    4 years ago

You will have to forgive them. The last 8 years ceased to exist for some once Trump took office.

Bush Jr was the moron that ended his father's and Clinton's containment of Iraq which was working.  He is also the one that agreed to the SOFA ending US troop involvement in Iraq- which the Iraqi government desperately wanted.

Obama was the moron that first offered to keep 10,000 US troops in Iraq for as long as the Iraqi government wanted. When they rejected that option; Obama then reinserted US troops. are rearmed and retrained the Iraqi military, to save an Iraqi government loyal to Iran. Iran must have found it hilarious when the US air force was providing cover for their militias that entered the country.

Bush Jr's stupidity in no way excuses Obama's stupidity.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
12.1.4  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @12.1.2    4 years ago
Obidiot pulled us out of Iraq then sent us back. And for what?

Obama sent a limited number of troops back in because of the rise of ISIS.  They tried to work with the Iraqi army butt the Iraqi army ran away from ISIS so they started working with the Kurds which went well until The Donald abandoned the Kurds.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
12.1.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  al Jizzerror @12.1.4    4 years ago
Obama sent a limited number of troops back in because of the rise of ISIS.

So what you are saying is this is Obama's clusterfuck and not Bush's.  

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
12.1.6  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @12.1.5    4 years ago
So what you are saying is this is Obama's clusterfuck and not Bush's

That is your erroneous position.

I guess you don't remember what I actually said when you said the same shit earlier ( al Jizzerror @ 12.1   ).

Reminder:   DuhBya got us into Iraq and I guess we're still looking for the WMDs.  Saddam must have done a hellva job stashing those nukes.
 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
12.1.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  al Jizzerror @12.1.6    4 years ago

It's not erroneous.  Obama "ended" Bush's war remember.  You all celebrated when Barry brought us all home.  So now that Barry sent the US BACK into Iraq and expanded the area of operations to Syria, it became OBAMA'S WAR.  

Reminder:   DuhBya got us into Iraq and I guess we're still looking for the WMDs.  Saddam must have done a hellva job stashing those nukes.

It's cute that you think it was about nuclear weapons.  You are forgetting that it was the US that sold Saadam chemical weapons that he subsequently used in his war with Iran.  You have to be pretty stupid to think that there weren't any.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
12.1.8  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @12.1.7    4 years ago
You have to be pretty stupid to think that there weren't any.

Colin Powell used bogus intel about Iraq's mobile chemical weapons labs at the UN.  We found an old stash of shit that probably couldn't have been used.  Butt DuhBya claimed that Iraq had a nuke program.  There was no evidence of that.

Do you still think GW was smart to invade Iraq?

Bush's biggest mistake was when he disbanded Saddam's army.  They formed ISIS which is why Obama had to send troops back in.  When they hooked up with the Kurds, they kicked some ISIS ass.  Now that Trump has abandoned the Kurd's, ISIS is making a comeback. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
12.1.9  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  al Jizzerror @12.1.8    4 years ago

That is a lot of spin.    

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
12.1.10  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @12.1.9    4 years ago
That is a lot of spin.

Okay.

Please tell me what you think is inaccurate. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
12.1.13  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  al Jizzerror @12.1.10    4 years ago

I already did.  

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
12.1.14  author  al Jizzerror  replied to    4 years ago
Foreign fighters also comprised a good part of ISIS

I guess you didn't notice I said this:

Bush's biggest mistake was when he disbanded Saddam's army.  They formed ISIS which is why Obama had to send troops back in.

After they formed ISIS they were able to recruit stupid foreign fighters (including some Americans) who hate us.

they found artillery shells filled with VX ,Mustard and Sarin nerve agents.

That's true butt the weapons, while still dangerous, weren't operational:

The secret casualties of Iraq’s abandoned chemical weapons

7 min read . Updated: 16 Oct 2014, 01:10 AM IST C.J. Chivers

At least 17 US service members, 7 Iraqi police officers were exposed to nerve or mustard agents after 2003

The soldiers at the blast crater sensed something was wrong.

It was August 2008 near Taji, Iraq. They had just exploded a stack of old Iraqi artillery shells buried beside a murky lake. The blast, part of an effort to destroy munitions that could be used in makeshift bombs, uncovered more shells.

Two technicians assigned to dispose of munitions stepped into the hole. Lake water seeped in. One of them, Specialist Andrew T. Goldman , noticed a pungent odour, something, he said, he had never smelled before.

He lifted a shell. Oily paste oozed from a crack. “That doesn’t look like pond water," said his team leader, Staff Sergeant Eric J. Duling .

The specialist swabbed the shell with chemical detection paper. It turned red—indicating sulphur mustard, the chemical warfare agent designed to burn a victim’s airway, skin and eyes.

All three men recall an awkward pause. Then Duling gave an order: “Get the hell out."

Five years after President George W. Bush sent troops into Iraq, these soldiers had entered an expansive but largely secret chapter of America’s long and bitter involvement in Iraq.

From 2004 to 2011, US and US-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein ’s rule.

In all, US troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and US officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

The US had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction programme. Instead, US troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programmes, built in close collaboration with the West.

The New York Times found 17 US service members and seven Iraqi police officers who were exposed to nerve or mustard agents after 2003. US officials said that the actual tally of exposed troops was slightly higher, but that the government’s official count was classified.

The secrecy fit a pattern. Since the outset of the war, the scale of the US’ encounters with chemical weapons in Iraq was neither publicly shared nor widely circulated within the military. These encounters carry worrisome implications now that the Islamic State, an al-Qaida splinter group, controls much of the territory where the weapons were found.

The US government withheld word about its discoveries even from troops it sent into harm’s way and from military doctors. The government’s secrecy, victims and participants said, prevented troops in some of the war’s most dangerous jobs from receiving proper medical care and official recognition of their wounds.

“I felt more like a guinea pig than a wounded soldier," said a former Army sergeant who suffered mustard burns in 2007 and was denied hospital treatment and medical evacuation to the US despite requests from his commander.

Congress, too, was only partly informed, while troops and officers were instructed to be silent or give deceptive accounts of what they had found. “‘Nothing of significance’ is what I was ordered to say," said Jarrod Lampier, a recently retired Army major who was present for the largest chemical weapons discovery of the war: more than 2,400 nerve-agent rockets unearthed in 2006 at a former Republican Guard compound.

Jarrod L. Taylor , a former Army sergeant on hand for the destruction of mustard shells that burned two soldiers in his infantry company, joked of “wounds that never happened" from “that stuff that didn’t exist". The public, he said, was misled for a decade. “I love it when I hear, ‘Oh there weren’t any chemical weapons in Iraq’, " he said. “There were plenty."

Rear Admiral John Kirby , spokesman for defence secretary Chuck Hagel , declined to address specific incidents detailed in the Times investigation, or to discuss the medical care and denial of medals for troops who were exposed. But he said that the military’s health care system and awards practices were under review, and that Hagel expected the services to address any shortcomings.

“The secretary believes all service members deserve the best medical and administrative support possible," he said. “He is, of course, concerned by any indication or allegation they have not received such support. His expectation is that leaders at all levels will strive to correct errors made, when and where they are made."

The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale.

After the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, Bush insisted that Saddam was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction programme, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. UN inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims.

Then, during the long occupation, US troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155mm artillery shells or 122mm rockets, they were remnants of an arms programme Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.

All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.

In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures. First, the US government did not find what it had been looking for at the war’s outset, then it failed to prepare its troops and medical corps for the aged weapons it did find.

As Iraq has been shaken anew by violence, and past security gains have collapsed amid Sunni-Shiite bloodletting and the rise of the Islamic State, this long-hidden chronicle illuminates the persistent risks of the country’s abandoned chemical weapons.

Many chemical weapons incidents clustered around the ruins of the Muthanna State Establishment, the centre of Iraqi chemical agent production in the 1980s.

Since June, the compound has been held by the Islamic State, the world’s most radical and violent jihadist group. In a letter sent to the UN this summer, the Iraqi government said that about 2,500 corroded chemical rockets remained on the grounds, and that Iraqi officials had witnessed intruders looting equipment before militants shut down the surveillance cameras.

The US government says the abandoned weapons no longer pose a threat. But nearly a decade of wartime experience showed that old Iraqi chemical munitions often remained dangerous when repurposed for local attacks in makeshift bombs, as insurgents did starting in 2004.

Participants in the chemical weapons discoveries said the Us suppressed knowledge of finds for multiple reasons, including that the government bristled at further acknowledgment it had been wrong. “They needed something to say that after September 11 Saddam used chemical rounds," Lampier said. “And all of this was from the pre-1991 era."

Others pointed to another embarrassment. In five of six incidents in which troops were wounded by chemical agents, the munitions appeared to have been designed in the US, manufactured in Europe and filled in chemical agent production lines built in Iraq by Western companies.

Nonproliferation officials said the Pentagon’s handling of many of the recovered warheads and shells appeared to violate the Convention on Chemical Weapons. According to this convention, chemical weapons must be secured, reported and destroyed in an exacting and time-consuming fashion.

The Pentagon did not follow the steps, but says that it adhered to the convention’s spirit.

“These suspect weapons were recovered under circumstances in which prompt destruction was dictated by the need to ensure that the chemical weapons could not threaten the Iraqi people, neighbouring states, coalition forces, or the environment," said Jennifer Elzea, a Pentagon spokeswoman.

The convention, she added, “did not envisage the conditions found in Iraq".

Nonetheless, several participants said the US lost track of chemical weapons that its troops found, left large caches unsecured, and did not warn people—Iraqis and foreign troops alike—as it hastily exploded chemical ordnance in the open air.

In early 2009, at US prodding, Iraq entered the Convention on Chemical Weapons. From that moment, its fledgling government assumed primary responsibility for securing and destroying any chemical munitions remaining from Saddam’s time.

Iraq took initial steps to fulfil its obligations. It drafted a plan to entomb the contaminated bunkers on the Al Muthanna site, which still held remnant chemical stocks, in concrete.

When three journalists from The Times visited Al Muthanna in 2013, a knot of Iraqi police officers and soldiers guarded the entrance. Two contaminated bunkers—one containing cyanide precursors and old sarin rockets—loomed behind. The area where the Marines had found mustard shells in 2008 was out of sight, shielded by scrub and shimmering heat.

The Iraqi troops who stood at that entrance are no longer there.

The compound, never entombed, is now controlled by the Islamic State.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
12.1.16  author  al Jizzerror  replied to    4 years ago

Should I toss that comprehensive article in the shredder?

Maybe you should write your own article since you're the expert.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
12.1.18  author  al Jizzerror  replied to    4 years ago

Were you in Kirkuk in 2003?

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
12.1.19  Krishna  replied to  al Jizzerror @12.1.14    4 years ago

We were lied to. The Bush administration was lied to-- but they believed the lies.

(Actually so did a lot of Democrats at the time)

Yes. Saddam did have banned WMDs at one point.

And in fact he actually used them. On civilian populations-- at least in 2 cases:

=He used poison gas on Kurdish civilians resulting in horrendous deaths.

-He sued them of Iranian civilians  in that war. (One of 2 wars that Saddam started).

But at the time of our invasion he did not have any useable WMDs.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
12.1.20  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @12.1.19    4 years ago

And he almost had nuclear weapons... except "somebody" destroyed his nuclear reactor while it was under construction. (The only people who are "willing to do the jobs that no one else in the Middle east is willing to do").

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
12.1.21  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @12.1.20    4 years ago

And then-- they did it again!

They destroyed the reactor that Syrian tyrant Bashar al Assad was building!

(Well, technically speaking, neither the Iraqis not the Syrians were actually building those reactors-- in the former case the French were building it, in the latter case it was the North Koreans.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
12.1.22  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Krishna @12.1.20    4 years ago
And he almost had nuclear weapons... except "somebody" destroyed his nuclear reactor while it was under construction.

Yep.

Israel took out the Iraqi and the Syrian nuclear sites.

It was justifiable self defense.

That's why the Iranian sites are underground. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
14  Paula Bartholomew    4 years ago

According to my local news, Iran announced that they will have no more restrictions of their nuclear programs.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
14.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @14    4 years ago
Iran announced that they will have no more restrictions of their nuclear programs.

Yep.

The Donald is making us safer.

They also announced that they have targeted 300 U.S. military installations.

The personnel at those installations are safer now too.

512

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
14.2  Krishna  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @14    4 years ago
According to my local news, Iran announced that they will have no more restrictions of their nuclear programs.

Yet another of our Neo-Con Chickenhawk President's many accomplishments!

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
14.3  Krishna  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @14    4 years ago
According to my local news, Iran announced that they will have no more restrictions of their nuclear programs.

Yet another of our Neo-Con Chickenhawk President's many accomplishments!

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
15  author  al Jizzerror    4 years ago

The Iranians fired over a dozen missiles at two U.S. bases in Iraq.

I'm glad that Trump made the soldiers at those bases safer by killing Soleimani. 

 
 

Who is online




72 visitors