Trump: ‘We Don’t Need Any More Wars’
I hope this article at Antiwar, about an article at the Wall Street Journal, emphasizes the divide between our military and the warmongers in the administration.
https://news.antiwar.com/2019/06/24/trump-rejected-attacking-iran-we-don...
Trump Rejected Attacking Iran: ‘We Don’t Need Any More Wars’
Gen. Dunford one of few officials said to back Trump's position
Jason Ditz Posted on June 24, 2019
The Wall Street Journal is reporting in increasing detail on President Trump’s Thursday decision to not attack Iran, providing reports from aides that described Trump as very reluctant to be dragged into another war.
Trump reportedly told one of his confidants of his inner circle that “these people want to push us into war… it’s so disgusting.” He added that in his view “we don’t need any more wars.”
Signs are that much of the cabinet was pushing for a US attack, but Gen. Joe Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, offered a more wary assessment of the outcome of such an attack. This is a surprising revelation since the Pentagon’s brass had been suggested to be hawkish as well.
Trump praised Dunford for calling for caution, calling him a “terrific man and a terrific general.”...
Comments
As polite and collegial as this sounds
There is no question in my mind that we are dealing with an unelected coup government with loyalities beyond this nation and far beyond the well-being of the American people — who are funding the entire affair. The floor could drop out from under Trump at any moment. And he'll pull all of us into hell with him. He's in way over his head, and there is no one who cares to intervene.
The elected government is made up of the clueless, the compromised, and the corrupt — and are useless in this matter.
As well stated
as your point is, and somewhat impossible to argue with, I still hope the American military, that part of it that isn't drunk on corporate koolaid, will open President Trump's eyes to what war is and that he will see it their way. I am hopeful if he actually used the word "disgusting" to describe his war mongers.
I'm skeptical of this
WSJ report, not buying that DT worried about 150 Iranians being killed (hah! Trump worried about innocent people being killed -- how touching!), not hopeful that the JCS will be the group to talk reasonable sense to him on questions of war, and generally not at all convinced that Trump won't play the Iran card as the election gets closer. Particularly if the economy shows signs of weakening or going seriously south. I suspect he wants another 4 yrs as it gives him time and added leverage against the day, if that should ever come, when he will have to face criminal charges in fed/state court.
And if he is repelled by the warmongers in his admin, Bolton, Pompeo and the rest, he has the power to get rid of them and bring in some relatively sane and sensible people, if sane people can be persuaded to go work in demented Donald's admin.
Doves??? This admin is full of hawks and uber hawks, and I doubt there is a single dove, not even of the moderate George Ball persuasion. What a joke to suggest otherwise.
I think there is a good cop/bad cop PR game being played here for political effect, with DT wanting to look both tough on foreign adversaries and compassionate about needlessly putting our troops in harm's way, starting another war. Reminiscent of the 2-faced game LBJ played ca August 1964 around Gulf of Tonkin time. Johnson held off for a while -- after all there was no urgency, he was running against the hapless Barry Goldwater and running with the ghost of the beloved JFK. He could phone it in and win in a landslide. But playing such a duplicitous game, Johnson was able to look both tough and reasonable. And we all know what Lyndon did shortly after being elected and sworn in.
Unlike LBJ, Trump however might need an ace up his sleeve to get reelected. I wouldn't advise it, as it will make Iraq look like a Sunday picnic, and Russia and China are unlikely to sit idly by, especially Russia. But Trump is crazy enough to do it, if he felt it would be needed to sustain his political career.
Nancy Pelosi needs to gather up the courage to act. The clock is ticking. And Donald is dangerous.
I'm not calling you Shirley
but you gotta be jesting.....
Useless alcoholic she is. Drunk on power.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
Thank you--kept me from having to say that. ;^D Actually,
don't believe DT wants a war. We watched all of the Repub debates last year, and, time and time again, he railed--especially at Jeb Bush--about Shrub's ventures in the ME.
Now, don't buy for a nanosecond that he's concerned about lives--probably, thinks that sounds good. IOW, I'm sure not saying that I think he's a humanitarian.
But, he was then, and still is, a fiscal or monetary 'tightwad.' He's fixated on it. (Just like on getting NATO to pay their fair share of dues, etc.) That is a consistent trait--just like his opposition to internationalism/free trade dates back to the 80's.
He has few (IMO) deeply held convictions. But, he's truly anti-free trade. And, I actually believe that he opposes throwing money down a rat hole on military ventures, unless, they yield a material benefit to the US.
As far as the hawks go--remember, this Dude has no government background, whatsoever, and, almost no political connections of his own, when it comes to so-called 'experts.'
IMO, Wokkamile nailed it--
My 'guess' is, they're not (willing to work for him or this Admin).
Mollie
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
humanitarian
Donald Trump is indeed a humanitarian, just like Jeffrey Dahmer and Alferd Packer before him! Vegetarians consume vegetables; humanitarians......
[ducking!]
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Hey, Sean. Great to see you; and, you don't have to duck!
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Whatever the reason, Trump made the correct move
Trump will not play the "Iran card", if what you mean is going to war with Iran. If he does, it's a lose-lose situation for the US, Iran, and Trump 2020. Your comment strikes me a more than a little cynicism about Trump, perhaps bordering on TDS. Trump is not stupid. He is learning how to play a game in which he had no experience. What criminal trials forthcoming after Trump's out of office? That statement reeks of Nervous Nancy Pelosi. How many presidents--or other politicians for that matter--could have undergone such total political war and survived? FDR, yes. A. Lincoln, yes. Name someone else who could do politically what Trump has done. I am not talking policy here. I am talking coup.
Cynical about Trump?
About a lying mob boss bully. Golly!
And yes, Trump is not stupid -- but not stupid only in narrow self-serving manipulative ways. And as you note, he is not experienced in this governing thing, and so is perfectly capable of being manipulated from within or doing something irrational.
I also note he is probably not entirely unfamiliar with the Nixon playbook -- using FP for self-serving manipulative domestic political ends, especially well-timed events during an election year. Not that he has cracked open a book of history or was reading the newspapers outside of the funny pages back then, but b/c of his former friend, mob attorney Roy Cohn, an advisor to Nixon and someone likely to have instructed Trump on the Dark Prince's dark ways of wielding and maintaining power.
For these reasons, in addition to the possibility that this guy is possibly one taco short of a combination plate, I wouldn't put it past him to risk war with Iran as the political season heats up.
Nancy is not going to impeach Trump
First off what grounds does she have to do that? The Russian propaganda nonsense? Nope. This was totally made up by Obama, Hillary and others of their bent. Maybe the emoluments clause, but Trump could counter with Hillary's pay for play during her tenure as SOS.
This is a great article about Nancy's cowardice during the Bush administration when she ran on rolling back the Bush abuses and then she took impeachment off the table. People voted for democrats back then just because she and her fellow democrats were running on that just like they did last election.
Trump is not doing anything that happened during Obama's tenure or during Bush's or Clinton's. Presidents are not held accountable for their actions. Even Barr's investigation will not touch Hillary or Obama. If Obama couldn't hold the bank CEOs accountable for crashing the global economy then presidents won't be for whatever they did.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
I shouldn't have
thought it necessary, but I might have to create an Impeachment template for each time I get asked why DT should be impeached.
Emoluments clause, probably many violations thereof; ditto for Obstruction of Justice; money laundering; tax evasion. Enough circumstantial evidence at present to at least begin a formal Impeachment inquiry in the House, which is what is being called for by 80 Dems. This is an initial formal process to gather evidence, to see if there is enough to bring it to the full House for a formal Impeachment vote on at least one count.
The contra arguments you make for Donald are irrelevant at this stage. It's of no concern that Rs failed to act to remove, say, HRC from SoS, even assuming there was something there, or that other presidents also misbehaved, blah blah. That might be something his lawyers would bring up in the senate trial, but at this point it's all premature and not pertinent to the discussion.
Personally, I am all for any legal action that would further
...expose the Democratic Party's launching of the Russia Hoax against the American People. The implications are staggering. Thus, I would love to see an attempt to charge Trump with Obstructing justice in investigating a crime that was actually a conspiracy against him and the American People to overthrow a national election. If the Republicans had any sense, they would be egging the Democrats on.
Emoluments clause, money laundering, tax evasion — meh. Those are weak and require a fishing expedition. It would probably just piss the American people off — a bunch of accountants arguing on TV and no red meat. The Hookers would play better, but wouldn't remove him from office.
His war crimes are the only sure thing. But this is the United States of America, so that won't happen.
As for the Russia Hoax
I was an early skeptic, being an evidence guy, and this didn't earn me popularity points at another lib site where I blogged, a place that had some DK censorship tendencies.
But here Dems would be investigating a number of areas outside of that nonsense, and if they stick to those lines of investigation, they will be on firm ground.
However, it does occur to me that Rs in 1998 conspired to try to undo an election by going after pre-presidency conduct of BC, re Whitewater and one Paula Jones. Then, if I recall my timeline correctly, the other stuff about Monica emerged from the swamp and became the driving force of the R charges against BC. Rather clearly a dirty, dishonest Repub attempt at undoing an election by undertaking a years-long fishing expedition which eventually hit pay dirt.
Let the Rs try to argue as you suggest, and the Ds could throw the above about Clinton right back at them.
But this is not what the democrats are looking at
Every democrat that wants to impeach Trump wants to do it for the Russia Gate stuff. They are saying that he obstructed justice by trying to shut down the Mueller investigation which as Pluto points out was created by Obama, Hillary and her BFF Bluementhal and the FBI. Don't know if you were here when we posted about how the FBI tried entrapping people in Trumps campaign. Even the Trump tower meeting was an attempted entrapment. The Russian lawyer had to have her passport fixed by obama's state department. After the meeting she had dinner with Glenn Simpson from Fusion GPS.
It was people in Hillary's campaign that said to blame the information about the DNC that Wikileaks released on Russia to keep people from focusing on their content. Looks like that worked huh?
Why do you think that the democrats want Mueller to testify in front of congress? So he can tell them stuff about how Russia interfered with the election and about which people in Trump's campaign worked with some Russians. Are you aware that the FBI and then Mueller just took CrowdStrike's word for the hacking job joke? The FBI never looked at them, but had no problem making crap up to illegally spy on Trump's campaign for the democratic candidate.
There is no there there on Russia Gate and Mueller knew it 18 months before the midterms. So how could Trump obstruct justice on something that never happened? Oh yeah. Almost every person who tried to setup people in his campaign had connections to the FBI and Mueller himself.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
TDS run amok.
"money laundering; tax evasion"? While president? Um, no.
TDS is fun but let's try to keep at least a slim grip on reality.
TCDS
(Trump Cultists Derangement Syndrome).
But yes, a few things to investigate. Including $ laundering and tax evasion. I forgot to mention numerous sexual assault charges.
And I wasn't aware you are The Expert on Impeachment. Many intelligent analysts commenting on this area are in disagreement. Many gray areas involved as to what is considered an impeachable offense.
However what is hard to argue with is that basically, as a political process, Impeachment is what a majority of members of the House say it is. Certainly charges of major felonies, whether during or before office, should at least be the basis of an investigation. Let the House members sort it out from there. But they need to do their constitutional duty.
So you are saying Trump should be impeached?
Bwah ha ha! If you believe that, then I will prove the moon is made of green cheese, for which argument there is no countervailing evidence asides from a few moon rocks. Of course my proof will base its contentions on numerous scientists and astrologers.
Trump can be impeached--if the Dems really want to prove their stupidity. That one act will insure that the Orange One gets re-elected--by a larger number of votes than before. One of our c99ers is correct in saying that people who have not voted ever will come out of the proverbial woodwork to vote against the Evil Queen. This is not Trump's race to win--he's got this sewn up unless war or economic downturn. 2020 is definitely HRC's race to lose. And she will.
First things first
Tempting though it is to announce You're Fired to the Donald and send him off to face prison for the rest of his life, let's do it the fitting 'n' proper way. First come the formal Impeachment Inquiry Hearings. Let the evidence be developed, and particularly in the non-Russian areas of malfeasance and crookery. Let them be televised so the public has a better understanding of the extent of his HC&Ms.
Then if one or more counts of Impeachment are voted Aye, it goes to the full House for debate and final voting on each count.
As to the senate, well Nixon looked pretty safe, even among more than a third of senators, until first the Ervin committee and then the House Judiciary Impeachment committee began finding inculpatory evidence. It's ridiculous to speculate on odds of impeachment before any formal inquiry has begun.
Nixonb would have gotten away with Watergate
if not for great patriot and confirmed Trump hater John Dean.
So he has been found guilty of these things?
Nancy is not even doing the bare minimum to start investigating those issues except for possibly the emoluments clause.
Mueller said that he did not have evidence to charge Trump with obstruction just said that he didn't not do that. This is a crappy way to end a two year investigation because although he says Trump didn't do anything he left it with 'well he might have' but I can't prove it. This is like either being a little pregnant or not pregnant at all.
Which is exactly my point and HRC is not the only person who did/is doing that.
Did you read the article I posted because if you didn't then you are missing why Nancy will not bring articles of impeachment on Trump. She is in place to be a road block for anything that will bring a stop to the looting of the working classes that would upset her donor class.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
Oh man
Names?
Names?
I'm struggling here. When in the past decades have we had a President (as f'd up as he is) ever said
I will give him the benefit of the doubt until he proves otherwise.
STOP THE WARS!
Prof: Nancy! I’m going to Greece!
Nancy: And swim the English Channel?
Prof: No. No. To ancient Greece where burning Sapho stood beside the wine dark sea. Wa de do da! Nancy, I’ve invented a time machine!
Firesign Theater
Stop the War!
100% agreement with you
See my comment above yours.
It seems like people on c99 are afraid to say anything positive about Trump. His handling of the Mexico tariff threat was masterful. He got Lopez Obrador to do something that previous administrations were unable and/or unwilling to do. I for one do not agree with the whining hypocritical Dems, whose only concern about the illegals is to get them to vote Demonratic. Were Chuckles and Nervous Nancy bitching when the beloved BHO built cages on the southern border and put kids in them? And now the Dem-Controlled House won't do a fucking thing for the needed humanitarian aid that these masses of illegals storming through the gates require for basic necessities.
Not true...
The house just passed a $4.6 billion budget for helping the detention centers, but Trump is going to turn it down because it doesn't give him any money for his wall. Besides he has been moving money from various military budgets to fund them. There is plenty of money for them it's just not being spent properly.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
Thanks for this new development.
Humanitarian aid must have been approved in the past 36 hours. Trump was railing against Dem inaction two days ago.
Both sides continue to play political games looking for
partisan advantage in a standoff. Cynical BS from Ds & Rs as usual.
chuck utzman
TULSI 2020
Is there another way to interpret this?
Every thing, every place the US has confronted in the past 50 years has turned to shit — or turned into its own regional shitshow.
How is such an exacting consistency of outcome even possible?
Can you name one place that we have not left in ruins? Or permanently broken. Only a few have clawed their way back, but we stand ready to crush them.
What sort of corrupting monster is this nation? This ugliness is a choice that was made somewhere back in our gloomy history. This is a design; part of some awful plan that is an active destroyer of worlds.
People cannot even see it. How can they hope to stop it?
I see it
just as you do.
The sort of corrupting monster that armed Hitler for the duration of WWII and that has armed every death squad since, including Stalin's, destroying democracy, labor rights, health, and the survival of life in every way possible. But it is not our entire government. It is the cadre Eisenhower warned us about, the Merchants of Death. We can isolate and put an end to it. That it controls our stupid media is disheartening. But it doesn't control us.
It goes back more than 50 years, Pluto
Even Korea was a failure. After leveling N. Korea into dust they still would not surrender.
For over 60 years this regime has maintained a battlefront and pummeled the North with sanctions, blockades, and constant feined invasions, always at planting or harvest time to starve the North Korean people.
Then too, Cuba has never capitulated after getting the same economic warfare and seige tactics, and over 100 attempts to assasinate Castro, all illegal under international law.
The regime running this country is pure evil.
And they know it.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
Not just government actors pushing for war on Iran
Bibi has lots of access to Trump through his son in law and Bolton, Pompeo and every one else in our government that does Israel's bidding. And we do have to admit that this is what they do.
Sheldon Anderson is who pressured Trump to appoint Bolton. And because of the way he did Bolton didn't have to be confirmed by congress. There a quite a few people in his administration that have been appointed that way. Congress has no say in who Trump is putting in the last year or so.
War with Iran will cost a few more trillion that congress won't have any trouble finding, but Bernie wants to eliminate student debt and people are freaking out! "But how are you going to pay for it?"
Beto wants to charge every person who doesn't join the military to help pay for veteran's health care. Sure dude. Let's not charge the corporations that are making huge profits off our sending people to be cannon fodder or any of the other corporations that end up not paying taxes. Jeebus what a dufus!
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
t'was also bibi
who'd bragged that it was he who'd caused trump to pull out of the JCPOA.
Sheldon Adelson
not Anderson. Biggest contributor to Republican party candidates. Trump can hardly say no to him even if Trump hates Bolton. You can also throw in Mike Pompeo, the Koch protege.
Can I blame autocorrect?
Thanks for the assist.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
Nope.
You screwed the pooch.
I just couldn't resist.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
I woul rather throw out Pompous Mike
and take Bolt-on with him. We need those two and the other hawks like we need 4 years of Killary.
Well, I understand
some of Beto's reasoning, and I've seen far worse proposals. Interesting, outside the box idea.
It would be a direct reminder to Americans, and in a way they understand, that wars have a cost. And would help better fund medical/mental care for returning vets, who are usually forgotten once they come home.
Of course there would have to be a companion measure to restore the war declaration power of Congress, or make the war tax kick in even with a AUMF bill.
Give me a break.
Trump is the only one daring to challenge the very forces you mentioned, the forces you say you believe are causing problems.
They are the ones dragging us to hell, not Trump, and they have been doing it for a very long time.
dfarrah
I don't think we disagree.
I merely said that the floor could drop out from under Trump. He wouldn't be the first.
You got to admit that he was a total asshole for appointing those former Nazis to his cabinet and to other critical points of authority. I suppose Bibi's big donor operatives left him no choice.
Sounds like brinkmanship
Prepping the masses for more messes.
Obliteration and sanctions ain't war to this pig
He projects onto Iran what amerika does, he's just as
dangerous as her heinous
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-25/trump-slams-irans-ignorant-ins...
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
....Iran’s very ignorant and insulting statement, put out today, only shows that they do not understand reality. Any attack by Iran on anything American will be met with great and overwhelming force. In some areas, overwhelming will mean obliteration. No more John Kerry & Obama!
68.4K
9:42 AM - Jun 25, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
33.2K people are talking about this
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
It's theater and you don't even have to buy a ticket
This is all kabuki. The real dealing is behind the scenes. You won't know it until it happens--just like with N. Korea. Of course, Bolt-on threw a monkey wrench into the Viet Nam summit just because he's a blood thirsty psychopath. Bolt-on has lost influence on Trump. Don't believe it? If Bolt-on had his way, Trump would never have cancelled the impending attack on Iran.
Yep, he is just
soooooooooooo dangerous!!
And yet no new wars have started....and we were all on edge because we just knew for sure for sure for sure, that he was going to blow up N Korea. And we all just knew for sure for sure for sure that he was going to destroy the Middle East when he struck with some bombs after that phony gas attack. And we just know for sure for sure for sure that the world is going to get blown up by this guy who doesn't want war.
Please, these leaders are just playing a game of chicken.
dfarrah
New is relative due to the long history of US imperialism
but he is waging war against Venezuela and Iran, as economic warfare including illegal sanctions trying to starve the people is war, as well as covert and proxy military and terrorist operations and directions, not to mention illegal threats of nuclear annihilation. He has started a serious trade war with China and has created a cold war and arms race with China and Russia moving the doomsday clock ever closer to midnight. He's also continued the wars in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen and is constantly making illegal and dangerous threats like a fascist dictator of an Empire. And he's an even bigger proponent of the war OF terror than Tulsi Gabbard, believe it or not.
Not much different from Obama and Bush, war criminals all. And certainly someone who should not be defended or excused in any way. He's an enemy of the people.
It's a difficult
and maybe unprecedented situation when everything you say in your comment is true, and yet, at the same time, or a day later, Trump makes a decision that prevents things from becoming magnitudes worse. You're right. But at the same time, a day later, I feel you are discarding the possibility that he is influenced by good people or is even good in some way himself.
As I've noted before
it's yet to be shown that Trump has "doves" in his admin. Likely those suspected of being too soft or dove-like were weeded out in the early stages of hiring.
So Trump is lying there -- sorry Tucker.
But TC's point about Dems, even liberal ones, being hawkish these days is of course correct. Tulsi Gabbard and a handful of others the notable exceptions.
Military leadership
that opposes stupid never-ending-meat-grinding wars that accomplish NOTHING could be described as "doves" in this environment.
I suppose he once again
Has used an accurate description, like when he's said we too are a nation of killers, he campaigned on ending wars which he has not, he also told us he'd drain the swamp but I think we all know that too was rhetoric. I'll not place any faith in what any of them say anymore, it's what they do that counts. As for being disgusted by warmongers, certainly only ones with that pathetic D behind their names count there, from a man who openly states and outright brags that nothing get in the way of weapons contracts and profits no matter how "disgusting" those wars may be.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
coup government:
bibi, bolton, haspel, and pompeo...(and the CIA in iran he's funding to foment an insurrection)
boss tweet runs amok, yet, again, still. he's at least not extending it to 'amerikan interests this time, this Tweet:
‘How many has US killed?’ Zarif slams Washington hypocrisy, says Iran will never produce nukes’, RT.com, june 25
Well ya, shit what is it,
8, 10 of them going on. Actually, the U.S., led by this fucking weird ass liar, is waging war on the world. I don't know how anyone can take this seriously at all.
His saying,
gives me hope. Even if he doesn't get that they're suffering because of our sanctions, his sanctions, he at least considers, momentarily, their suffering, which is more than I can say for the policy geniuses who unleashed sanctions as a weapon decades ago. Compare him to Madeline Albright saying it was worth it for 500,000 children to die in Iraq to achieve what, exactly -- preventing Saddam from selling his oil?
Even if those of you who think he is lying about caring about the Iranian people are right, the fact that he would even acknowledge a base that would be concerned about such things gives me hope. I know he switches to bombastic destruction and obliteration moments later. He is an unusual person. For sure. And it is scary. But speaking of the people in the countries we incinerate as people is a hopeful sign compared to the previous gang, who were salivating over building more useable nukes.
We all grab hope where we can.
One thing to remember however is the man is a con man extraordinaire. His actions speak much louder than his words. He is a war criminal, as his predecessors, and at this time the most dangerous person on the planet. Hope is one thing, but giving him credit for this is another. And I'm not at all saying you're doing that, just that many are, just like they did when he supposedly called off the illegal war crimes strike he ordered. I really don't see how playing that type of game, and I saw it from Dennis Kucinich, is productive, in fact, I think it's counter productive to the "cause".
I hear you,
But where are the frigging Democrats wanting to impeach him over war crimes? They're working on impeaching him over Section 1512, “... an omnibus obstruction-of-justice provision that covers a range of obstructive acts directed at pending or contemplated official proceedings.” They'll take two years of lawyering around "intent" vs "Intent," and they won't frigging impeach him.
But even if they did, it would be in order to show him how to be cold-blooded enough to destroy the people of Iran in order to teach their government not to fight our proxy ISIS.
AAAAAGH! I'm screaming about the Democrats. Not you.
they'd be shown as hypocrites
for not impeaching war criminal obomba. dunno whose hands are bloodier by now, but likely obomba over 8 long years.
Couple of weeks ago
I posted that 60 Dems (mostly in the House) had come out for impeachment hearings. I heard this morning that count is now up to 80. Progress. Pretty soon we'll hit a majority of Dems and force Nancy's hand.
And then we get Christofascist
Pence. Yay!!
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
actually, what he'd
tweeted is:
"....The wonderful Iranian people are suffering, and for no reason at all. Their leadership spends all of its money on Terror, and little on anything else. The U.S. has not forgotten Iran’s use of IED’s & EFP’s (bombs), which killed 2000 Americans, and wounded many more..."
but he and the CIA are funding/creating dissident groups in iran, hoping to foment an insurrection. won't work, but Hope Springs Infernal, as they say.
Therefore all the people who believe Trump is doing the right
thing are conditioned to accept that the Iran government is indeed evil and a terrorist nation and that Trump is only doing what's good for the Iranian people, i.e., bringing them democracy.
Saw an article from MOA about a poll indicating a majority of US citizens would approve of a preemptive nuclear strike on North Korea. Why? Because that's what they've been trained to believe. This progressive backing of Trump's so called antiwar moves is fucking disgusting.
i did go and find the poll,
but it at least a little more nuanced than that. 'colonized minds' indeed. and as i keep saying: DT is waiting to find a global coalition of the willing to bomb iran's nuclear reactor sites (a bit further enrichment is all, as a ploy to be the EU to help end the waivers to the sanctions).
and whoever had said up yonder anything about 'a major attack on iran'... it was not; it was a very minor one, esp. considering the level of his past bellicosity (if indeed 'he'd ordered it' at all.)