Trump crosses the line – Updated

Loading

trump slimer

 

I am sick of Donald Trump. Utterly sick of him. I’m sick of his bullying, I’m sick of his whining, I’m sick of his profanity and I’m sick of his constant repetition.

Now I’m sick of his lying too.

Last night he blamed 9-11 on George W. Bush and he came right out and said that Bush lied the US into the war in Iraq. I think this time he has burned one too many bridges.

Bill Kristol:

Asked to defend his 2008 comment that George W. Bush should have been impeached, Donald Trump said: “They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none, and they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.”

Interviewers should press Trump on this: What evidence does Trump have that George W. Bush and his top advisers knowingly lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? How many other government officials does Trump believe were in on the deception? What does Trump believe would have been the point of such a lie, since the truth would soon come out?

Watch this exchange. Bush does not interrupt Trump but Trump can’t shut up.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/I8cxTaaNZrw[/youtube]

BTW, Donald, the official tome on Iraq, the Silbermann-Robb report, says Bush did not lie.

“Even people at the highest level of the Iraqi regime believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction,” Silberman explains. “Saddam was running a bluff. He was bluffing his own people, and he was bluffing Iran. It would have been impossible for any intelligence agency in the world … to have determined that Saddam had destroyed his weapons of mass destruction.”

Even if the intelligence agencies had performed flawlessly, they would therefore have found themselves advising the president of grave dangers. “A first-class [intelligence] opinion would have said, ‘We [the intelligence agencies] know Saddam once had weapons of mass destruction, we know that he proved capable of using them, and we have no evidence that he has destroyed them. Although we cannot prove that Saddam still has weapons of mass destruction, we think it highly likely that he has.’”

Silberman recently addressed the constant lying from the left (and from Trump):

“It is astonishing to see the ‘Bush lied’ allegation evolve from antiwar slogan to journalistic fact.”

He added “as I recall, no one in Washington political circles offered significant disagreement with the intelligence community before the invasion. The National Intelligence Estimate was persuasive — to the president, to Congress and to the media.”

Though it’s politically convenient to constantly repeat the lie that Bush lied, no one from the left really ever bothers to explain why Bush would lie, as Kristol asked above. Trump sure as hell doesn’t offer an explanation.

Never mind the fact that WMD’s were found all over Iraq. I suspect there were far more found than we are left to know. It would be kept quiet so as not to tip off Al Qaeda and ISIS to its existence.

Never mind that a large part of the reason for the Iraq war was the same as the excuses for the war on Libya:

The Bush administration made the argument that in the post-9/11 climate there should be a belated reckoning with Saddam Hussein. He had continued to sponsor terrorism, had over the years invaded or attacked four of his neighbors, and had killed tens of thousands of his own people. He was surely more a threat to the region and to his own people than either Bashar Assad or Moammar Qaddafi was eight years later.

Trump compensates for his lies with increased volume. When Jeb Bush chipped Trump for his reality show history, Trump went  nuts:

While Donald Trump was building a reality TV show, my brother was building a security apparatus to keep us safe. And I’m proud of what he did.”

“The World Trade Center came down during your brother’s reign,” Trump reminded Bush.

As if that wasn’t enough, Trump kept stabbing:

“The World Trade Center came down during the reign of George Bush,” Trump said to a strong reaction from the audience. “That’s not keeping us safe.”

Again- blaming George Bush for 9-11. It’s something I found and do find detestable for a self-proclaimed conservative. This is the mindless throw-away line of a liberal. It was following 9-11 that Bush built the security structure which kept the US safe since and which Obama has enjoyed and in some ways expanded upon. Trump has frequently accused Bush of knowing that 9-11 was coming and ignored the warnings. About that, Politifact says:

We rate this claim False.

Another damn Trump lie. Trump also said:

“Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big fat mistake. Now, you can take it any way you want…The war in Iraq we spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives. We don’t even have it. Iran is taking over Iraq with the second largest oil reserves in the world. Obviously, it was a mistake. George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes, but that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East.”

Iran taking over Iraq is the work of Barack Obama, not George Bush. Iraq was stable and sovereign, according to Obama. Then he abandoned it. The curious thing is that Trump never went after Obama for any of it.

Trump has had some pretty nasty things to say about George W. Bush, going so far as to call Bush “evil.”

Bush has been so bad, maybe the worst president in the history of this country. He has been so incompetent, so bad, so evil, that I don’t think any Republican could have won.

Trump wanted Bush impeached in 2008. He hasn’t called for obama’s impeachment for the IRS scandal, Fast and Furious or losing Iraq and letting ISIS grow. Not even for doubling the national debt. And all that crap about him being the only one to oppose the war in Iraq? It’s bullshit too.

We could only find one example of Trump commenting on the Iraq War before the invasion, and he seemed apprehensive but not vehemently opposed to the operation. He only started publicly denouncing the war after it started.

Because he far overstated how loudly he declared his position on the Iraq War, we’re cranking the rating on this statement up to False.

Trump really likes obama:

As of October of 2008, the U.S. government reported a $237 billion deficit. The good news is that Obama seems to be well aware of the situation. His comments have led me to believe that he understands how the economy works on a comprehensive level. He has also surrounded himself with very competent people, and that’s the mark of a strong leader. I have confidence he will do his best, and we have someone who is serious about resolving the problems we have and will be facing in the future.

Trump believed Hillary Clinton would be a “great President” and thought Bill was a “great President.”

Trump is all about single payer:

So I’m very liberal when it comes to health care. I believe in universal health care.

I’ve had enough.

Trump is lying son of a bitch bully. He shouts down opponents when he’s faced with facts. He calls opponents liars and then he cries about it being unfair when he’s called a liar. Calling him out for his past statements is unfair while him calling out yours is not. All that’s bad enough, but trying to score the GOP Presidential nomination while shitting all over a past Republican President betrays the dirty liberal in Trump. Trump crossed the line.

Trump is not a conservative. He is a Trumpist. He is for Trump and about Trump and nothing else. All his spew about how he had to get along with everybody because of his company proves that he had one moral compass and it always and only points to the green. He will do what’s in his best interest and not what’s in the best interests of conservatives.

You can bet on it.

There is no team in Trump. There is no selfless in Trump. There is only an I.

 

Update: This post has been corrected to remove a Tweet of questionable origin. It changes nothing.

Update: And while I’m at it:

Until 2008, Trump Was a Big Democratic Donor

Trump’s donation history shows Democratic favoritism

Donald Trump Donated More to Clintons Than Veterans

Trump has spent years courting Hillary and other Dems

Donald Trump jumped into the crowded and rowdy Republican presidential field on Tuesday, but the business magnate has astutely played both sides of the aisle for years, and has been especially cozy — financially and personally — with Hillary Clinton.
Clinton, the Democratic front-runner and former New York senator who had some say over policy that could have impacted Trump’s vast business dealings, received donations from both him and son Donald Trump Jr. on separate occasions in 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2007, according to state and federal disclosure records.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
190 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@Richard Wheeler:

What is butch?? Who are Elena and Ellen?–you gotta step away from all that reality T.V crap RT. It’s no wonder you’re a Trumpist.

Geez, why are you asking that? Why would I know? What is reality tv? is that something for the rainbow crowd to try to star in?

BTW Pope–capitalized– like President.

not true, only when it’s used as a proper noun. Same as president. I’m not sure the guy occupying the position now is deserving of the title. How does that saying go? Judge not lest ye be judged? Isn’t he kinda ‘judging Trump’ or anyone else that wants to build a wall. When he stands behind his words and demand that the walls be taken down from around the Vatican so he can be randomly visited by the riffraff, then we might think enough of him to give him a real title.
Why are you serving up these softballs?

@Redteam: You said you watched The Apprentice—seems people like you are more into Reality T.V.. than reality Why else would you be a Trumpist. The dumbing down of America is taking place in this election. Trump’s base is poorly educated, reality T.V. watchers. Sad, but fortunately not a majority. At least he’s dumped America’s bimbo–S.P.

@Richard Wheeler:

You said you watched The Apprentice

I did? from 76 here is what I actually said. ” I don’t usually watch Apprentice, but I won’t say “I’ve never watched it but here is my opinion of it”.”

Why else would you be a Trumpist.

I think I’ve said several times that I see Trump as the lesser of the evils. I’ve never said I’m a fan of his. I don’t have ‘hero’s’ from television. I get my hero’s from people such as Audie Murphy.

The dumbing down of America is taking place in this election.

True, when such people as Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are taken as serious candidates, they are truly the products of the ‘dumbed down’.
I have said that I support none of the candidates that are presently running. Some that were my initial favorites are no longer in the race. Of those remaining, there are only 2 I would vote for, if they are the candidates. Those two are Trump and Carson. The country can not afford to have another America hater, such as Obama, in the office. If Obama had about two more years to go, after this term, we would have no country left. He is the only president (note, not capitalized) that I’m familiar with that has devoted almost all of his efforts to destroying the country.

Trump’s base is poorly educated, reality T.V. watchers

Just curious, where did you get that tidbit? Pull it out of your ass perhaps? Lot’s easier with those chaps, I’d think.

@Redteam: Trump supporters are poorly educated The Apprentice watchers—makes perfect sense.
You’re down to Trump and Carson–which means Trump
I’m for Kasich—Rubio 2nd choice–What’s your problem with Kasich? He’s clearly the most qualified and unquestionably the most electable. National polls bear that out .Trump is like Palin—devastating negatives–upwards of 65% of the electorate would not,under any circumstances, pull the lever for either of them
This is not to say they can’t fire up the red meat base. They do it well—but neither are electable. That’s the way it is

And just when Trump steps in it with his 9/11 truther claims, along comes someone to hand him a distraction which will give him a boost in the polls. In this case it was the Pope.

@another vet: Trump’s approval runs at about 35-40%–Pope Francis at close to 75%–May help him in S.C. but not nationally

@Richard Wheeler: The Pope didn’t just insult Trump, he insulted everyone who wants the border sealed which the last time I checked is the majority of Americans. I am not religious and took his comment as an insult. Imagine how people who view themselves as Christians and who want our border sealed feel. This will serve to make Trump into a victim. And since he fired back at the Pope, it will show that he is fighter who won’t back down which plays well with Republicans who are sick of the establishment as well as those who are fed up with D.C.

The Pope’s hypocrisy on this issue is a topic for another day.

@another vet: Everyone is trying to understand Trump’s unconventional campaign. Polls only work in primary states not in caucus states. The Pope is a socialist based upon where he has lived. He is naïve in understanding world affairs and the line between politics and concern for his fellow man. He does not have the ability to understand unintended consequences of his statements. If you read his statements, they are short with little or no elaboration. This allows the media and the left to supply the meaning. To make things worse, he has surrounded himself with liberal European advisors. They feed him his talking points. Christ said” judge not least you be judged”. I do not believe the Pope had any Idea what he really said. Besides, it will make no difference to Trump supporters because they value him for much different reasons that the left still can not see.

@Randy: Good comments, Randy. It has been well documented that the pope is just a place holder. He was selected precisely because he is not a leader and will only do the bidding of those in command of his church. If he has a problem with walls, let him start at home. I’m relatively sure, though I have not made a study of it, that the walls around the Vatican were put there for security, not as a beautification project. Let him offer to tear down those walls. as for likability, Mickey Mouse would probably get a 75 percent favorable rating also, but I doubt many would vote for him as president. You can put the pope in that category, as entertainment, though probably not as high as Mickey.

@Richard Wheeler:

Trump supporters are poorly educated The Apprentice watchers—makes perfect sense.

You can write that sentence and talk about someone else being poorly educated?

I’m for Kasich—Rubio 2nd choice–What’s your problem with Kasich?

If you will test your memory, Kasich was one of the first candidates, before he was even running, that I said I could support but he has turned into a total fruitcake socialist, similar to Bernie. I’m not going to elaborate because I don’t like to shoot at the heroes of others.

Trump is like Palin—devastating negatives–upwards of 65% of the electorate would not,under any circumstances, pull the lever for either of them

that is an interesting statement. I saw the results of polling recently that shows that with almost all candidates, almost the percentage of the persons that support him say they would not vote for his opponent under any circumstances. For example, 40% are for Trump, 40% say they would not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. 40% for Hillary, 40% would not vote for Trump. Kinda shows that about 20% don’t have a clue. Actually that would be a very low number of the electorate that don’t have a clue. I’d say that about 40% of the citizens are generally aware of what is going on in politics, the remainder are clueless.

@Redteam: The wife (who leans left) of one of my cousins posted on FB yesterday that she had been to the Vatican and Trump was wrong, there are no walls around the Vatican. Hence the reason I don’t discuss politics with her.

@another vet: Sounds as if she’s likely just an ‘average’ Dimocrat voter. As I said in the last sentence of my last comment just above: “the remainder are clueless. “

@Randy: Oh no will the Popes poll numbers go down with this attack on Trump, which he will call lying and unfair and may even file a lawsuit. 😉

@Redteam: Re -entertainers I’d put The Donald well behind Mickey The Pope and the Joker .In National polls Trump fares the worst against all Dem. candidates–as in Clinton and Sanders both beat him.
I can see why you wouldn’t like Kasich—he doesn’t rant and throw expletives around like your “hero” he beats Clinton by 8 points in National polls.

Kit Every time someone mentions lawyers Trump starts smiling–he’s got an army of them–and uses em regularly

@Richard Wheeler: An Illinois court is due to hear eligibility charges against Cruz today I believe.

@another vet: Good get this Trump talking point buried. Why in Illinois?

@kitt: Someone near Rockford challenged his eligibility because he figured the dems were going to do it and he wanted the issue resolved before then so the Republicans wouldn’t nominate someone who was later shown to be ineligible.

Amazingly stupid comments about Vatican City walls.

NONE of them were built SINCE the United States of America was formed. SOME of them were built DEEP in the Middle Ages – like in the 9th century AD – to protect the Church from marauding hoards from the Middle East and beyond. Other sections of wall were constructed around the time Columbus discovered the Western Hemisphere – again to protect from thieving pirates. Enough sections of those walls have been removed over recent centuries that there is no effective BARRIER that prevents people from walking into Vatican City without obstacle – the remaining fragments are both decorative and historic, and there is no reason to remove them. Just like the fragments of the Berlin Wall that remain standing as historic reminders of the past, the Vatican City relics don’t have any effect on immigration today, and none of these historic artifacts need to be “torn down.”

I’ve been there. I walked from my hotel in Rome directly into St. Peter’s Square. Didn’t pass through “immigration,” “customs” or any other “check-point.” Had to pay to get into the Vatican Museum, but nobody wanted to see my passport. Where the Pope lives is off-limits, just like you can’t get into Obama’s White House bedroom. Big deal. You couldn’t pop in and watch “The Family Feud” after dinner with the Nixons, either.

Trump’s suggestion that the impenetrable fortification he is proposing to build along our border with Mexico is somehow contemporaneously equivalent to the over-500-year-old relics that survive in Vatican City is an exaggeration to the point of outright lie, and his claim that the Pope has no moral credential to criticize his proposed wall BECAUSE “the Pope already has just such a wall” is consequently absurd.

At least the man is consistently insane.

@Redteam: She is normally pretty level headed. For example, she doesn’t believe GWB was an evil person but was rather someone who had the best interests of the country at hand but made some bad decisions. Given she doesn’t suffer from BDS, she is heads and shoulders above most of the dems and we actually have some common ground. In this case, I guess all the pictures of the wall were fabricated as are all of the historical references to it. As for the millions of others who have seen it, it was probably some sort of mirage produced by mass hysteria.

@George Wells: I too have been to the Vatican –had no trouble moving around and saw The Pope speak up close and personal. I think if one studies the life of Francis of Assisi, the choice of his name by this Argentinian Cardinal, clearly a man of peace and humility, was very appropriate..

@Richard Wheeler:

Re -entertainers I’d put The Donald well behind Mickey The Pope and the Joker .

You are one confused person. Now you are saying you do watch Trump’s tv show, at least enough to form an opinion to be able to compare him to other performers.

“hero” he beats Clinton by 8 points in National polls.

so you’re saying he’s more Dimocrat than Hillary? I’ll go along with that.

@another vet: I think GWB was a fine president. I don’t think he was ‘responsible’ for 911 and I don’t think he was wrong about WMD’s and he sure as hell made the right decision to take out Saddam. The failures in Iraq can be laid on HBO’s, er, uh BHO’s shoulders. The war was won, the country was stable when BHO took over, then he withdrew the troops and invited ISIS to invade and he can have all the credit for how that’s all turned out. I can’t believe she claims to have been to Vatican City and that it doesn’t walls. I can say from personal observations in the late 50’s and early 60’s that there were walls around the city. Maybe a later pope thought they would rejoin Christianity and remove the walls, er something.

@Redteam: All agree The Donald is an entertainer on the campaign trail—no need to watch his Reality show to understand that.–Personally, I think his N.Y.shtick pretty insulting–but you and others seem to like it and to each his own—he reminds me of another NY comedian–Andrew Dice Clay.

Re Kasich I’m saying he can get enough Indie and Dem votes to win. Trump can’t do that. He’s got a loud minority—Although his Bush bashing is a great political move.

@Richard Wheeler:

I too have been to the Vatican –had no trouble moving around and saw The Pope speak up close and personal.

I notice you didn’t join in the claim that there is no wall around Vatican City. Wonder why. Do you think that wall is there because some ‘non Christians’ felt threatened? Apparently if you are concerned for your safety and think walls should be erected to keep the bad guys out, you can’t be a Christian. And just think of all those non Christians building all those walls around the prisons and around the white house. my, my, my.

RW,

I think if one studies the life of Francis of Assisi,

Are you saying you have ‘studied the life of Francis of Assisi”? Where were you when you were doing this study? Tell us something particularly impressive that you think F of Assisi did? How do you know that the pope took his name from that guy?

@Richard Wheeler:

All agree The Donald is an entertainer on the campaign trail

All? which All? I sure don’t agree that he’s is or isn’t an entertainer. I think he’s a person running for office that has the Libs terrified.

he reminds me of another NY comedian–Andrew Dice Clay.

So you’re a fan of ADC? I’ve heard the name but have never seen a performance by him so can’t compare.

Personally, I think his N.Y.shtick pretty insulting–but you and others seem to like it and to each his own

how do you distinguish his NY shtick from other shtick? Since Hillary lives in NY does she practice it also? I can just imagine your idolatry of Trump if he were running as a lib or Dim. (notice: I capitalized Dim, as it is a proper noun)

@Redteam: I was in Assisi–assume you visited from Rome. Pope Francis said he took the name from St. Francis whom he greatly admired. Francis gave up great family wealth to live with and help the poor–Patron Saint of the Animals

“that guy” sums you up RT

I’ve said before I didn’t like Trump when he was a Dem or when he was an Indie-
Libs terrified of him–no Repubs terrified–definitely
ADC– like Trump a crude loudmouth-I’m not a fan-

#122:
“the country was stable”
No, it wasn’t.
It had 150,000 US troops stationed in it, and THEY kept order – more or less.
That isn’t “stable.”
Unless you mean like a brain-dead person in an induced coma and on life support is “stable” in the sense that his condition is temporarily not changing.

In a country where the per-capita concentration of US troops approximated the per-capita concentration of police in the United States, yeah, you MIGHT call that situation temporarily “stable,” but exactly how stable – and for how long – do you think OUR country would be if you removed all of OUR police?

Our police are there because we WANT them there. Iraq was fed up with us and wanted us out. THEY removed their American “police force.” THEY created their own instability, if you really need to BLAME someone because a country full of warring factions happens to be “unstable.”

You planning to personally pay for the United States military to take on the job of policing the rest of the world FOREVER so you can – in your fairy-tale-obsessed child’s mind – imagine everyone ELSE is “stable”?

Not on MY dime!

@George Wells: Gee, it sounds like the Vatican was trying to control access to their territory from just about the same elements we are concerned with today. I guess they weren’t Christians back then.

@George Wells: Well George at least you didn’t try to play the ‘there are no walls built by Christians at Vatican City’ card.
So let’s do a little analysis:

SOME of them were built DEEP in the Middle Ages – like in the 9th century AD – to protect the Church from marauding hoards from the Middle East and beyond.

wow, does that sound familiar. Just change Church to USA and add to “Middle East, Mexico and beyond” and we almost have Donald’s statement. And then:

Other sections of wall were constructed around the time Columbus discovered the Western Hemisphere – again to protect from thieving pirates

minor changes needed here, let’s see change thieving pirates to ‘drug cartels’. No wait, can we use that? Christians don’t want to keep out the drug cartels,, do they?

none of these historic artifacts need to be “torn down.”

What? walls built by non Christians around Vatican City don’t need to be ‘torn down’ but statues of Robert E. Lee and Andrew Jackson do? I guess those statues in the South were built by those pesky non Christians and need to be removed.

just like you can’t get into Obama’s White House bedroom.

whoa…..what? you mean that some Non Christian wants something in place to protect someone? Is this an open country or not? Should everything be open to everyone or is there a need for protection of the citizens? Surely Christians can rely on Christ to protect them and fences and guns aren’t necessary.

Trump’s suggestion that the impenetrable fortification he is proposing to build along our border with Mexico is somehow contemporaneously equivalent to the over-500-year-old relics that survive in Vatican City is an exaggeration to the point of outright lie,

That’s not what he said and I’m actually sure that’s not the way you understood it. I think you’re now just trying to sell that Trump is trying to get votes. Trump’s position is/was that there was a reason the walls were built around Vatican City. He did not say they are still necessary. Trumps position on the border is that it needs to be sealed for many of the same reasons the Vatican walls were originally built. I don’t think very many Americans are agreeable with an ‘open border with Mexico’ position. I’m certainly not.
George, many times you have a good point, I think this attempt was not one of your better moments.

@Bill: It seems to be, according to George and RW that the people at the Vatican when the walls were built were not Christian at the time. They only became Christian ‘AFTER’ they built the walls.

@Richard Wheeler: No, I didn’t go to Assisi. Patron saint of animals. that’s the reason you’re following that gay guy that has MFA, isn’t it? Came as a result of your ‘studying Francis of Assisi”.

don’t know who “that guy” is.

don’t’ understand your terminology:

I’ve said before I didn’t like Trump when he was a Dem or when he was an Indie-
Libs terrified of him

why would someone be ‘terrified’ of a politician? Should he have a wall built around him, or would that be non Christian?

@George Wells:

“the country was stable”
No, it wasn’t.
It had 150,000 US troops stationed in it, and THEY kept order – more or less.
That isn’t “stable.”

‘stable’ is most likely a state of the mind. I see keeping 150,000 troops in Iraq as a minor deal. We still have 50,000 in Japan 30,000 in Korea and 40,000 in Germany 70 years after WWII ended. no one sees that as too big a price to pay. Did anyone ever think you could go into a country and remove all military and police forces and not have to supply the manpower to maintain order. I’m sure the Germans and Japan would have liked for us to leave right after WWII, but we didn’t leave it up to them as Obozo left the question up to the Iraqi’s. Bush was out of office, the situation was stale until BHO decided to start his destruction of the US.
Why would anyone think that the number of persons needed to maintain order in Iraq would be less than what is necessary in Chicago? No one would and Obama knew that and removed them just so order would not be maintained. He had a motive.

Our police are there because we WANT them there

You think if you took a vote of the thugs in Chicago that they would vote to keep or increase the number of policemen?

You planning to personally pay for the United States military to take on the job of policing the rest of the world FOREVER so you can

I’m fine with the tax system we have in the US. I am for a large military and I don’t really care where they are stationed. I’d rather have them stationed in likely trouble spots rather than on the beach in Hawaii.
The US 6th Fleet has been in the Mediterranean since WWII. That’s quite a few thousand persons. I really enjoyed my Med cruises. I sure don’t mind the gov spending money to let me tour the Med area 3 times. I don’t mind the government spending money to keep troops in Iraq or any other country where they might keep the peace.

in your fairy-tale-obsessed child’s mind

I’m attempting to keep the personal attacks out of my communication, uh except with RW (he would be disappointed as that seems to be the only reason he’s here)

@Redteam:

I can’t believe she claims to have been to Vatican City and that it doesn’t walls.

She was there in October and said there weren’t any walls and walked straight in. That is why I don’t post on FB.

@George Wells: Stormin Norman knew if they went further the US would be the mammoth in the tar pit mired without a way out, also responsible for nation rebuilding costing billions and billions. After ignoring his sage advice and returning, I dont agree with announcing to the enemy date of departure leaving all the equipment behind. Not strongly advising the government there to operate a just system between the rival factions, but this administrations foreign policy has been dismal, could Trump have cut a better exit deal lol whos kidding themselves? Now they have an old Howard Stern interview with Trump saying he guesses we should invade so much for I always was against it.

@another vet: Let’s give her credit as meaning only that she didn’t have to ‘go through a border’ to enter. I don’t think anyone is making a claim that the walls at Vatican are still there to protect the Christians from the marauding hordes of the middle ages. I do believe that the point was that at one time Christians felt it necessary to build a wall to protect themselves and that it was not a ‘non-Christian’ act to want to be protected. Just as many American would like to be protected from illegals entering the country now.

@kitt:

I dont agree with announcing to the enemy date of departure leaving all the equipment behind. Not strongly advising the government there to operate a just system between the rival factions, but this administrations foreign policy has been dismal,

Courtesy of Barack Obama, that great leader.

@Redteam: Slow down RT In#125 You said Libs were terrified of Trump.#126 I disagreed. Said Libs terrified of him–no Repubs terrified–definitely.
You love to quote partial sentences–you’re a dishonest guy RT.

Kit–Trump has flip flopped on many things including his Party affiliation and which bad limb kept him out of Viet Nan service. Gotta admit he is fun/bizarre to watch sometimes.
His current bashing of “w” designed to help him in the General Election–brilliant.

@Redteam:

Let’s give her credit as meaning only that she didn’t have to ‘go through a border’ to enter.

That is what I’m guessing she probably meant after she specified she walked straight in.

@Richard Wheeler:

You love to quote partial sentences–you’re a dishonest guy RT.

Whoops there you go again. You’re out of context. need to get to current state of the argument.

Kit–Trump has flip flopped on many things including his Party affiliation

Is flip flopping always a bad thing or only when it’s a Repub doing it? You’ve flipped and flopped all over the place going from one party to the other every week or less. Bernie one week, then Kasich, yadda yadda……

RW you still didn’t confirm or deny that the Vatican is fenced. Want to wade in?

@Redteam:” out of context” you say.. Ck.#125 and #126 Who said Trump had Libs terrified? Who said he didn’t?

Think George handled the wall argument pretty well in his #118. I felt perfectly free to go in and out of The Vatican and was in a relatively small room with “The Polish Pope.” who greeted The Cardinals in more than 10 different languages. Amazing

Never had Bernie or HRC—After Webb dropped I’ve had a winning ticket of Rubio Kasich or Kasich Rubio—Thought Cruz had a chance but I’d never vote for him.
Only consistent you’ve had is HRC won’t be the nom–hope you are right–would like to see Biden run.

@Rich Wheeler:
Important to note that the Vatican City wall encloses 110 acres, the exact same acreage as the White House & associated grounds plus the US Capitol Building & associated grounds – in other words, not nearly enough acreage for illegal immigration to be a serious issue in EITHER place.
Another point would be that when the Vatican walls were built, they were, by virtue of their SIZE alone, sufficient to discourage uninvited entry. They are not so today – the Vatican depends on sophisticated, modern security measures (and support from Rome) to remain safe in their TINY enclave. They don’t have a 1000-mile+ border to worry about, and oceans don’t begin where their perimeter ends, as is the case here. To effectively keep out illegal aliens, we would need WAY more than a big wall, and I don’t believe that Mr. Trump has addressed THOSE issues in his laughably modest cost estimates. Neither can illegals FLY into the Vatican (it doesn’t have its own airport) but they can fly here, and frequently do – a lot of drugs come into small airports that don’t have drug enforcement OR immigration on hand 24-7. Our country is porous like the Vatican NEVER was. The only REAL solution to illegal immigration is to make being here prohibitively “uncomfortable” for illegal aliens. I’ve discussed how this can be done before, and needn’t address it again. Suffice it to say, Mr. Trump hasn’t the balls to actually do anything that will REALLY stop illegal labor from making itself available for him and his filthy-rich friends to take advantage of.

By the way, did you see anything in my #118 that made any mention of “Christians” or “Christianity”? I can’t find where I brought religion into my explanation, yet Redteam has barfed up all sorts of nonsense about what he thinks I was saying about Christians. I’m not going to ask him, because he’s off his meds or something, and I’ve reached my quota for suffering fools today. Just wanted to see if you saw something I missed…

@George Wells: RT seems to enjoy an occasional hallucinogen of choice-see my ref. in #140.
I’m sure he fancies himself a Christian crusader holding off the masses of infidels and gays that threaten his and Duck Dynasty’s existence in the swamps and bayous of his beloved Louisiana..What amuses me is his alliance with a pro gay rights atheistic New Yorker—-strange bedfellows indeed.

@Rich Wheeler #142:

The POINT that the Pope was TRYING to make, the point that Trump was TRYING to ignore, and the point that Redteam doesn’t UNDERSTAND, is that a person as xenophobic as Trump, a person who seeks to close his borders and his heart to the plight of desperate refugees – WHEREVER they are from – doesn’t have a legitimately Christian bone in his body. The Pope has a good point.

The Vatican was NEVER the target of significant numbers of desperate refugees seeking sanctuary, we ARE. WE have the capacity of absorbing large numbers of PROPERLY VETTED refugees, the Vatican does not. The two situations are not at all the same, and Trump’s implication that they are is ridiculous.

#132:

“‘stable’ is most likely a state of the mind. I see keeping 150,000 troops in Iraq as a minor deal. We still have 50,000 in Japan 30,000 in Korea and 40,000 in Germany 70 years after WWII ended. no one sees that as too big a price to pay. Did anyone ever think you could go into a country and remove all military and police forces and not have to supply the manpower to maintain order. I’m sure the Germans and Japan would have liked for us to leave right after WWII, but we didn’t leave it up to them as Obozo left the question up to the Iraqi’s.”

That “stable” back-peddle is a crock and you know it.
And the servicemen (and women) stationed in Japan and Germany aren’t fighting the citizenry in those two countries, like our troops were fighting the Iraqis. In WWII, we were the victors of a declared war, AND we generously committed to rebuild the nations that we helped to defeat. The situation in Iraq is entirely different, and you know it.

AND we DIDN’T remove the Iraqi police forces, they removed themselves. Cowards. Precisely why staying there indefinitely was a losing proposition.
AND Obama had an obligation to respect the Iraqi government’s DESIRE for us to leave their country AND to respect the legal arrangements between the two countries that GW Bush had agreed to, and you know it.

And we can’t afford to sink 150,000 of our troops – and the treasure that it costs to maintain them there – every time some flea-bit nation gets its shorts in a bind with civil strife. We can’t even afford to provide our own troops with bullet-proof vests, AND YOU KNOW IT!

@George Wells:

a person as xenophobic as Trump, a person who seeks to close his borders and his heart to the plight of desperate refugees – WHEREVER they are from – doesn’t have a legitimately Christian bone in his body.

I have to ask, what is the evidence of xenophobia? Thus far, he has addressed the flood of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS that are coming from Mexico and a temporary hiatus on bringing in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees until the process of vetting them is evaluated to assure we don’t bring in ISIS infiltrators. Hardly xenophobic. But, if the left doesn’t have hyperbole, they have nothing.

Here’s the point you on the left love to intentionally miss. The Pope, living in an armed and walled compound, criticizes those who use guns and walls to protect themselves. True, his walls were built centuries ago to protect against those who would enter that territory and do harm. However, the walls we talk about today are meant to accomplish the exact same thing. So, how is this un-Christian? Though the Pope if’ed and maybe’ed away from actually targeting anyone, the point being argued is moot.

And we can’t afford to sink 150,000 of our troops – and the treasure that it costs to maintain them there – every time some flea-bit nation gets its shorts in a bind with civil strife

Where did 150,000 come from? We wanted to leave 30,000 troops in Iraq.

@Bill #145:
“Where did 150,000 come from? We wanted to leave 30,000 troops in Iraq.”

When PRESIDENT Obama took office in 2008, there were over 150,000 US Troops in Iraq. Obama has been ROUNDLY criticized by Republicans for DESTABILIZING the country by PULLING THEM OUT. The question of exactly how FEW of our troops may have been able to secure the so-called “stability” that Redteam thinks was so secure UNTIL Obama busted it by withdrawing those 150,000 troops is moot, since BUSH had already agreed with the IRAQI government to withdraw them. Under what possible pretext could Obama have ignored Bush’s commitment and kept troops in Iraq that he had already promised the American public that he’d remove? Was the United Nations going to give him the “green light”? NO. Was the Democratic constituency that elected Obama in the first place going to tolerate his reneging on a campaign promise to remove them? NO. Wasn’t the Republican clamor for Obama to keep up troop levels nothing more than an encouragement for him to commit political suicide AND to outrage the Iraqi government for having pushed BUSH into withdrawing from their sovereign country? YES.

“WE wanted…”?
Who’s “we”?
The US Military likes to periodically replace old munitions with new munitions, and the best way to do that is to shoot enough of them at people that our supply gets low – who cares if a few thousand of our best get snuffed. So I don’t take THEIR advice in such matters. Republican “hawks”? Left to them, we’d already be deep in a “nuclear winter.” The American public? Yeah, let’s give THEM the final say in this, as they’ve been increasingly OPPOSED to our little adventure in Iraq. If this trend means anything – and I suspect that it does – History will take a dim view of our excursion into Iraq. At least GW Bush has finally figured that out. Evidently, he’s smarter than you.

@George Wells: We were winding down the 150,000 troops due to the successful end of the mission of securing the nation. The idea was to maintain security while the political part of the equation worked out. 30,000 was what was recommended to leave in Iraq. Not 150,000. Not zero.

Obama busted it by withdrawing those 150,000 troops is moot, since BUSH had already agreed with the IRAQI government to withdraw them.

The SOFA could have easily been negotiated. Obama showed no interest and didn’t even bother so Iraq shunned the US so as not to antagonize Iran further as the US, obviously, was abandoning its post.

Though, as we saw in Iran, if Obama has an interest in negotiating a deal, he will negotiate a deal, even if it is a terrible deal. Obama had no interest in negotiating the 30,000 troop security force because he NEEDED the grandstanding to bolster his sagging approval. He was advised and warned (why would anyone advise hims to leave 30,000 troops behind if it was impossible?) but he followed his “instincts”, which are to always, in every case, think of himself first.

@Bill #147:
(The) status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States was signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011. The withdrawal of US troops was completed 15 days before the deadline.

Your confidence in Obama’s ability to RETURN to the bargaining table and secure an arrangement more to your liking is odd, given your conviction that he produced a terrible deal with Iran. Also, you fail to suggest a reason why the Iraqis might have been receptive to our LINGERING in their country, given their obsession with their own sovereignty. What makes you think it would have been “easy”?

Why are you having so much trouble connecting the dots? Is it because you have decided to forsake your HERO GW Bush? You’ve had it ng all along, and now Bush has exposed your error. He’s telling the truth, and you’re throwing him under the bus because the truth conflicts with your grand fantasy. PITIFUL!

@George Wells: I’m not saying at all that he could have secured a good deal. History shows us he would NOT have. What I am saying, which is the fact, is that despite the recommendations that if he did what he did, Iraq would turn out just as it has, he did not even TRY.

Again, if establishing a new SOFA was impossible, why was it the prevalent recommendation among the smart, non-ideological people?

Why can’t YOU admit your little hero traded national security for a moment in the spotlights? ISIS is a direct result of his cowardly, conceited selfishness. Now it will be up to someone else to deal with it and Bernie and Hillary are most definitely not up to the task.

@Bill #149:

” I’m not saying at all that he could have secured a good deal. History shows us he would NOT have. “

Then you have a fait accompli. Congratulations. You are essentially agreeing that there was no point for Obama to have done anything other than what he did. You want to give the retarded child a gold star for TRYING to fly to the moon. I don’t see the point.

“your little hero”

He’s NOT my hero. I’ve said soooo often: Obama’s been a lousy leader. Period. Never lived up to his “great expectations.”
But he didn’t “trade away” national security. The nation simply isn’t as secure as it was immediately following WWII, and for some really strange reason, you’re pinning the blame for that on the most recent president, as if HE had some magical ability to change the history of the past 70 years. The World Trade Centers were attacked during BUSH’s tenure, not Obama’s – we’ve been a target for radical extremism for a LONG time. It really kicked into high gear AFTER Israel was invented at the end of WWII – with our support – and our thirst for Arab oil has long financed our enemy’s mischief. None of that was Obama’s fault. Our support for the secular Shah of Iran obviously played a BIG role in fueling anti-American sentiments in the Middle East. AGAIN not Obama’s fault. To his credit, Obama TRIED to sweet-talk Islam into a more accommodating relationship with America, but the damage to our account had already cleared the bank. The only OTHER thing Obama could do was slap at the World’s 1.6 billion Muslims (primarily to satisfy Republican sabre-rattlers) and hope it would wouldn’t awaken the sleeping giant like Japan did when it bombed Pearl Harbor. I’m glad Obama DIDN’T take that “advised” approach.

You think ISIS wouldn’t have happened if we’d KEPT 150,000 troops in Iraq forever? Aren’t there PLENTY of OTHER Middle-Eastern hot-spots equally accessible to Muslim extremism? You plan to place 150,000 – or even just 30,000 – US Troops in EVERY one of them and hope some radical group like ISIS never spontaneously ignites? Think that’ll really work? I don’t.