ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Trump Betrays The Kurds

[ Posted Monday, October 7th, 2019 – 17:06 UTC ]

All of a sudden, "letting Trump be Trump" isn't looking like such a good idea any more to many congressional Republicans. Ditto the concept of Trump conducting foreign policy on a whim, often one heavily interrelated with his own re-election prospects. Abandoning the Kurds in Syria may, in fact, turn out to be Trump's very own "red line" with the Republicans who, up until now, have given him nothing but a green light to do what he wishes on the world stage. Perhaps that's too chromatically-mixed, as metaphors go, but it has indeed been astonishing to see the swift and forceful pushback from previously-supine GOP senators and congressmen. Some of them are even talking about using veto-proof majorities to do things like slap sanctions on Turkey or even kick them out of NATO. That's quite a change from last week, you have to admit.

The heart of the issue is whether the United States military is going to abandon the Kurdish fighters in Syria who did the lion's share of the work in eradicating the Islamic State. We armed them, we helped them, but they did most of the actual fighting (and dying) that was required. We simply couldn't have done it without them, in fact, with the forces that we committed to the fight. And now President Donald Trump is stabbing them in the back by allowing Turkey to invade the territory the Kurds now control in Syria. It is nothing short of a massive betrayal, and it won't even be the first time the United States has betrayed the Kurds over the last half-century. One wonders why anyone in the Middle East would ever trust the United States again, since this betrayal cuts so deep.

Trump ordering the military to abandon the Kurds took almost everyone by surprise. Apparently, Trump talked on the phone with the leader of Turkey, and then almost immediately thereafter issued orders to the military commanders on the ground to bug out as fast as possible. Within 24 hours, video of American military trucks fleeing the scene in a convoy was splashed across the American news. Both the Pentagon and Trump's national security team were reportedly taken completely by surprise by this sudden move, which clearly indicates that Trump decided on this abandonment on his own and ordered his stunned aides to make it happen immediately.

In doing so, he seems to have united Congress against him. So far, the only Republican I've heard defending Trump's betrayal of the Kurds has been Senator Rand Paul, who has always been a strict isolationist. Paul was correct, though, in pointing out that Trump initially campaigned on getting American troops out of the Middle East, and that he's long favored bringing all the American troops in Syria home. Both of these things are true, so in retrospect it's not all that surprising that Trump finally did so. But the manner in which he made his decision -- and how fast it happened -- is still rather alarming.

Anyone who has been paying attention has known from the very beginning of Trump's presidency that his phone calls with foreign leaders are (shall we say) problematic. He refuses to be briefed on what he should and should not say, he spends most of the phone call stroking his own massive ego and demanding praise from the foreign leaders, and he totally wings it on policy issues that he clearly does not understand even at the most basic levels. We all got early evidence of this from a few leaked phone calls at the start of his presidency (most notably with the leader of Australia), and we've had more than enough evidence from all the insider tell-all books which have been written since. The release of the Ukrainian phone call merely reinforced all of this, it didn't really break any new ground.

And now we've got Trump talking to a foreign strongman once again, and then immediately doing the bidding of another country. At this point you've got to wonder whether Trump was offered any dirt on Joe Biden as an enticement, but that's a separate issue. Even without knowing what was said on the call, the timeline is pretty clear: after the call, as soon as was militarily possible, our troops began leaving en masse, abandoning the Kurds and sending a clear green light to Turkey to invade the Kurdish-held areas of Syria. There's just no other possible interpretation of the facts that are known so far.

This was all a bridge too far for Republicans like Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell, both of whom tore into Trump's decision in no uncertain terms. And they weren't the only ones, either, merely the most prominent. The chorus of disapproval continues, and it has now spread even to Fox News commentators.

The president pushed back as hard as he could (in the grand style of "The Great and Powerful Oz"), tweeting: "As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I've done before!)." But his threats ring rather hollow, since he's obviously doing Turkey's bidding here.

What happens next is anyone's guess. If Turkey does follow through on its threatened invasion of Kurdish Syria, congressional Republicans may openly defy the president and pass measures with such sweeping majorities that Trump won't be able to veto them. Both the ideas of sanctioning Turkey and even kicking them out of NATO seem to be growing in popularity among Republicans, and that's before the invasion has even begun (there are some who feel that Turkey's threatened invasion was originally meant to be a mere bluff, but that's looking less and less likely now). If Turkey does send its troops across the border and starts slaughtering Kurds, it's going to be a real black eye for American foreign policy, to state the painfully obvious. The entire world will witness what it looks like when America betrays our allies who have fought and died for our objectives, and it won't be pretty.

It's hard to see any possible endgame that isn't a full-blown disaster, at this point, unless Turkey does actually back down. Even if Congress wrests control of Turkish and Syrian foreign policy back from Trump (there's even talk of a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Congress, which would limit what Trump can and cannot do), it will likely be far too late to avoid this encroaching foreign policy disaster. Republicans seem aware of this already -- at least, those not currently working at the White House. Perhaps they'll even demand Trump release the transcript of the call with Turkey -- at this point, anything seems possible.

Trump really has no one in his corner this time, unless you count Rand Paul's limited voice. The Pentagon is against this move, the national security apparatus is against this move, former national security officials (from both Democratic and Republican administrations) are against this move, Democrats are largely against this move, Republicans in Congress are increasingly against this move, even Fox And Friends spoke out against it this morning, and Trump's new golfing buddy Lindsey Graham is apoplectic. That's not really a winning hand politically, as you can plainly see. Trump's own "Amen chorus" has gone silent. The only Republicans on television (even on Fox) are denouncing the move in the strongest possible language. Perhaps Trump will do an about-face and order the troops to turn their convoys around, but given his propensity for never admitting he's wrong, that's pretty doubtful too.

So far, Trump's foreign policy flailing hasn't caused any drastic crisis points (although there have been several alarming close-calls, such as inviting the Taliban to Camp David the week of 9/11), but all of that is about to change. The whole world is about to see what happens after all the "adults in the room" at the White House have left, after Trump has purged his inner ranks of all but the most sycophantic yes-men, and after Republicans in Congress have repeatedly "let Trump be Trump." And, as previously noted, it isn't going to be pretty.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

111 Comments on “Trump Betrays The Kurds”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    It's amazing how many levels of disgust are possible and Blotus continually inspires new levels of disgust.

  2. [2] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Great article, CW! The Kurds have been let down by our government so many times that I doubt they were too surprised by Trump’s screwing them over. Sadly, the Kurds are just the latest in a vast sea of allies to be subjected to the broken promises by our government, done so without any warning from Trump!

    It isn’t surprising that Russia is the biggest winner in all of this — something that even Moscow Mitch admits! Trump is making us a country that NO ONE can trust to keep its’ promises, and Putin is making sure everyone knows this as he reminds them that Russia is more than able to step in and take our place on the global map.

  3. [3] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Russia is more than able to step in and take our place on the global map.

    They wish. The truth is, Russia's economy is a fifth of our size, and the rest of that country's resources are equally diminished. It isn't the Soviet state, to say the obvious.

    They'd like it, however, if we would treat them as an equal, rather than as the third-rate power that they are.

    So LWYH, you're right, Putin "reminds them that Russia is more than able to step in", but couldn't begin to take our place on the globe.

    This is why so much spying comes from Russia - it really is the way that they try to bring the playing field down to them.

  4. [4] 
    dsws wrote:

    Congress has only itself to blame. The Constitution gives all the powers to Congress. Congress shirked its responsibility, and gave them to the president.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There is one certain thing I can say about the Kurdish people in Iraq, at least, based on what I learned about Iraqi Kurdistan during the Iraq war, particularly after Senator Biden's effort to bring about a political solution in Iraq.

    And, that is that the Kurdish people are truly blessed with extremely capable and astute political leadership and all Democracies can learn from this.

  6. [6] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [2]

    I'm 100% agreement LWYH. This has "Hurt the United States/Benefit Russia" written all over it.

  7. [7] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [2]

    Not to nitpick Balthazar but the Russian economy is one tenth the size of our economy, and I believe it's on it's way to becoming a failed state.

  8. [8] 
    John M wrote:

    I am sure Michale will now be whining incessantly about how much of a "genius" Trump now is... to push our former allies the Kurds into the arms of our enemies Asad of Syria and the Iranians, all while bringing back to life the Islamic state that we had just gone to so much trouble to defeat, without consulting his friend Bibi and the Israelis, and proving to the world how unreliable and worthless America's words and promises have become. Way to go Trump! Aren't we tired of all this winning yet???

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Whine, Whine, Whine, TRUMP IS HITLER, blaa blaa blaaa, whine, cry, cry, cry, TRUMP IS HITLER, whine, cry cry."
    -Weigantians

    The Politics of Betrayal: Obama Backstabs Kurds to Appease Turkey

    The Kurdish militias (YPG, PKK) have been Washington’s most effective weapon in the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. But the Obama administration has sold out the Kurds in order to strengthen ties with Turkey and gain access to Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base. The agreement to switch sides was made in phone call between President Obama and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan less than 48 hours after a terrorist incident in the Turkish town of Suruc killed 32 people and wounded more than 100 others.
    https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/29/the-politics-of-betrayal-obama-backstabs-kurds-to-appease-turkey/

    It's funny how I didn't hear a peep out of ANY of ya'all when Obama did the EXACT same thing..

    Why is that???

    Oh yea... That's right..

    Ya'all don't give two shits about the Kurds.

    You just want to use them to beat President Trump over the head with.. :eyeroll:

    Sometimes you people really disgust me..

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sometimes you people really disgust me..

    Notable exceptions noted..

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    DSWS,

    Congress has only itself to blame. The Constitution gives all the powers to Congress. Congress shirked its responsibility, and gave them to the president.

    Another thing that exploded under Obama (Congress giving power to the POTUS) and no one here said boo..

    If only there was some rational or logical person who, at the time, spoke against that and said Democrats will regret it some day..

    Oh... Wait...

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    For Washington, it’s all a question of priorities. While the Kurds have been good friends and steadfast allies, they don’t have a spanking-new air base for launching attacks on Syria. Turkey, on the other hand, has a great base (Incirlik ) that’s much closer to the frontlines and just perfect for launching multiple sorties, drone attacks or routine surveillance fly-overs. The only glitch, of course, is that Washington will have to bite its tongue while a former ally is beaten to a pulp. That’s a price that Obama is more than willing to pay provided he can use the airfield to prosecute his war.

    The players are the same, the actions are the same and the region is the same..

    The ONLY difference is the POTUS has a -D or a -R after their name..

    When the -D does it, you people love and support it..

    When the -R does it, you people hate and abhor it..

    Do you see why your positions and claims have NO credibility??

    Because they are SOLELY, COMPLETELY and TOTALLY based on the -D or the -R... :eyeroll:

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    DSWS,

    I guess my response in #11 is the response when you brought this subject up in the comments yesterday..

    I am willing to continue our little experiment into today, if you are.. :D

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    @JM,

    I am sure Michale will now be whining incessantly about how much of a "genius" Trump now is..

    Not at all.. I simply have to point out ya'all's claims are bullshit and nothing but indicators of ya'all's Party slavery.

    This is PROVEN as fact by ya'all's blatant, hysterical and HHPTDS induced hypocrisy

    Ya'all have absolutely NO credible or moral foundation to condemn President Trump when you gave Obama a pass for doing the EXACT SAME THING..

    Given this fact, I see no need to respond to each individual piece of bullshit ya'all spew...

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    MtnCaddy,

    I'm 100% agreement LWYH. This has "Hurt the United States/Benefit Russia" written all over it.

    Sincere question here..

    Did it have that same "Hurt the United States/Benefit Russia" writing all over it when Obama did it??

    Or is that only the case when a REPUBLICAN president does it, as opposed to a DEMOCRAT president who stabs the Kurds in the back and throws them under the bus..

    I am sincerely curious...

  16. [16] 
    dsws wrote:

    [7] MtnCaddy

    the Russian economy is one tenth the size of our economy

    Depends on whether you compare them using nominal exchange rates or purchasing power parity.

    [11] Michale
    Another thing that exploded under Obama (Congress giving power to the POTUS)

    As far as I know, it exploded under FDR and then continued to increase at a moderate pace under all subsequent presidents, regardless of which party the president was, or which party was in the majority in either house of Congress. What makes you say it exploded under Obama?

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    What makes you say it exploded under Obama?

    "If Congress won't give me what I want, I have a phone and a pen"
    -Barack Obama

    DACA

    JCPOA

    etc etc etc..

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_executive_actions_by_Barack_Obama

    You are correct however.. FDR really ran up the game with over 3000 EOs... :D

    Obama didn't even come close to that, it's true..

    But I do believe Obama was the most brazen about it.. He stated over and over again that if Congress won't give him what he wants, he'll just do it by executive fiat..

    And Democrats support that..

    NOW they regret it because President Trump is wielding that power.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hmmmmm Interesting..

    https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2019/10/1862/1048/screenshot.png?ve=1&tl=1

    Bill Clinton asked UK PM Tony Blair for assistance during the 2000 Presidential Election..

    Apparently, asking for assistance in a US election from a foreign leader is perfectly acceptable..

    When it's a DEM POTUS doing the asking.. :eyeroll:

    Here, let me help ya'all with yer responses..

    "Well... er... uh... THAT'S DIFFERENT!!!"

    Yea.. SUUURE it is.. :eyeroll:

  19. [19] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    Yeah, hypocricy and double standards are hallmarks of Dems/Libs, always were and always will be.

    Of course our guys are not immune there either - think "budgets deficits are bad".

    But you pointing it out endlessly is likely overkill, or at least an exercise in futility, right?

  20. [20] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Bill Clinton asked UK PM Tony Blair for assistance during the 2000 Presidential Election..

    Yeah, he asked Blair for help with an airline dispute. But then, the airlines weren't a political opponent.

    So - no, that's not it.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, he asked Blair for help with an airline dispute. But then, the airlines weren't a political opponent.

    So - no, that's not it.

    Did you READ Clinton's memo??

    ‘In a political season, it would be big over here to get this open sore resolved. If you could have somebody take a look at it.’

    Meaning Clinton knows that if this "open sore" could be resolved, it would help Dem candidate Al Gore..

    It's no different and much more blatant than what you accuse President Trump of..

    But, of course you would claim it's different.

    It always is, right?? :eyeroll:

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, hypocricy and double standards are hallmarks of Dems/Libs, always were and always will be.

    Agreed..

    Of course our guys are not immune there either - think "budgets deficits are bad".

    Oh yes, of course.. Republicans have their own hypocrisy as well.. It's a politician standard

    But A- it's not nearly as blatant as with Dims and 2-Republicans don't try to hide it or deny it..

    But you pointing it out endlessly is likely overkill, or at least an exercise in futility, right?

    As long as their are Weigantians who deny it (see Blathy's lame response) I will continue to point out the facts and reality...

    It's my raison d'etre, these last 16 years or so with CW... :D

  23. [23] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    our guys are not immune there either - think "budgets deficits are bad"

    Well, I'm hoping that you think they ARE bad, because some (conservative) Democrats would agree with you.

    The trick is how to pay for it. Republicans right now don't want to think about deficits because it would eat into their donor base.

    Liberals would happily revoke the "sugar high" tax break given to the rich last year. (Conservative) Democrats would apply sizable portions of that to debt relief.

    you pointing it out endlessly is likely overkill, or at least an exercise in futility, right?

    Right. We've been sayin' that for years.

  24. [24] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    But A- it's not nearly as blatant as with Dims and 2-Republicans don't try to hide it or deny it..

    Go ahead - I dare ya - to find a Republican on capitol hill that wants to delve into deficits.

  25. [25] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It's no different and much more blatant than what you accuse President Trump of..

    No, it's not. Not even in the same league, but thanks for playing. Next time think, "opponent".

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, it's not. Not even in the same league, but thanks for playing.

    You saying it doesn't make it so..

    Clinton wanted a political win because it was the political season in the US...

    That's foreign influence to win an election. As YOU define it...

    But, like your bullshit with solicit and receive, your bullshit has once again caught up with you.

    Why not just concede what everyone here already knows..

    Foreign influence in an election is perfectly acceptable, as long as it's a DEMOCRAT who benefits...

  27. [27] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You saying it doesn't make it so..

    It's not me "saying so", the LAW says that you can't solicit dirt on your opponent during an election.

    What part of "opponent" don't you get?

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's not me "saying so", the LAW says that you can't solicit dirt on your opponent during an election.

    No, the LAW does not say that...

    What you claim is a distinction, not a difference.

    Clinton solicited foreign interference in a US election..

    You can split hairs and claim it's ONLY if you actually try to get dirt on an opponent, but that is ignoring the forest for a single tree...

    Clinton solicited foreign interference in a US Presidential election.

    This is fact...

    You have no facts to rebut this fact. As is your norm..

  29. [29] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Day two of Trump's Betrayal of the Kurds.

    They're talking about a bi-partisan rebuke of Trump in congress. An overwhelming vote that he can't veto.

  30. [30] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    resolving an airport dispute? i don't get the connection.

    Do you know the difference between a cow and a cabbage? A brick and a bear? How about a polecat and a president?.... This case isn't about murder or mayhem; it's about learning the difference between here and there.
    ~Amistad

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Blathy,

    Is it illegal for an American President to solicit foreign influence in an American election.

    Yes or No...

  32. [32] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Balthy [27]

    "The law says you can't solicit dirt on your opponent during an electioN"!!!???

    Which in the hell world do you live in?? You oughtta try the world of REALITY for once!

  33. [33] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Is it illegal for an American President to solicit foreign influence in an American election.
    Yes or No...

    The example you gave has an answer of yes AND no. In the example of Clinton that you give above, the obvious answer is yes - the airline dispute between our country and Blairs was becoming a campaign issue for Gore, but pre-existed the campaign and was mainly an inter-country issue that had to be resolved.

    But no, Clinton didn't ask for dirt about George Bush, or threaten to withhold military help from Britain.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    The example you gave has an answer of yes AND no. In the example of Clinton that you give above, the obvious answer is yes - the airline dispute between our country and Blairs was becoming a campaign issue for Gore, but pre-existed the campaign and was mainly an inter-country issue that had to be resolved.

    In other words, it was legal for Clinton but not legal for President Trump..

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    Which in the hell world do you live in?? You oughtta try the world of REALITY for once!

    They have proven beyond ANY doubt that they can't handle reality...

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    "The law says you can't solicit dirt on your opponent during an election"

    That's another keeper quote.. :D

    For moronic'ness and utter stoopidity, that's ALMOST as bad as JM's "WE MUST STOP CLIMATE CHANGE!!!"

    :D

  37. [37] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    In other words, it was legal for Clinton but not legal for President Trump..

    You've got it! What Clinton did was ordinary intra-country business. What Trump did was anything but ordinary.

  38. [38] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I really don't blame you for wanting to talk this morning about anything but the Kurds.

    It's not everyday that a President throws an entire people under the bus like that.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    You've got it! What Clinton did was ordinary intra-country business. What Trump did was anything but ordinary.

    What Clinton did was solicit foreign assistance to influence an American election..

    That's perfectly acceptable to you.. Because it's a Democrat doing it..

    Thank you for your concession..

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    I really don't blame you for wanting to talk this morning about anything but the Kurds.

    I have already demolished and decimated your Kurds argument..

    You don't care about the Kurds one little bit.. You just have a new shiny to beat President Trump over the head with.

    As such, ANY argument you make is nothing but a Party slavery agenda at work..

  41. [41] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You just have a new shiny to beat President Trump over the head with.

    Maybe, but Trump handed it to us.

  42. [42] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    When you're done with your what-about-isms, you'll attack the question: what is Trump doing in Syria?

    Is he trying to talk Erdogan down from his apparent blood-lust? Obviously not.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maybe, but Trump handed it to us.

    If someone hands you a club, it's STILL illegal to beat him over the head with..

    In this case, you are proving that all you are interested is the beating..

    Odumbo handed you a club as well.. Funny you didn't care about the Kurds then.

    Why is that??

    Because ALL that matters to you is the -D or -R behind the persons name..

    IE Party slave...

  44. [44] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Obama did it, Obama did it...

    Really? Were you that enamored of what Obama did? Of Course, Obama didn't do anything of the sort, else we'd have heard from the Kurds about it.

    All that you care about is to throw a paper Obama up to intercept the inevitable club coming in Trump's direction.

  45. [45] 
    dsws wrote:

    DACA

    JCPOA

    etc etc etc..

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_executive_actions_by_Barack_Obama

    The "it" that I was talking about was Congress handing over its power. Passing laws that authorize executive-branch actions, especially presidential actions, on matters that should be the subject of legislation (if we had a legislative branch capable of addressing the needs of a modern society).

    JCPOA is the Iran nuclear deal of 2015. It was an exercise of power already delegated to the executive branch. As such, it couldn't create any new law without Senate ratification. It was also within the range of options considered reasonable by the foreign-policy establishment. From Wikipedia:

    [A] letter, addressed to Obama, said: "We congratulate you and your team on negotiating a technically sound, stringent and innovative deal that will provide the necessary assurance in the coming decade and more than Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, and provides a basis for further initiatives to raise the barriers to nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and around the globe."... The 29 signatories included "some of the world's most knowledgeable experts in the fields of nuclear weapons and arms control", many of whom have held Q clearances and have been longtime advisers to Congress, the White House, and federal agencies.

    [Another] open letter endorsing the agreement signed by 36 retired military generals and admirals ... said the agreement was "the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons"

    I don't know enough details to form a well-founded independent judgment of the merits of the deal. But it wasn't a case of a president upending existing policy on the basis of a single phone call, to the consternation of his advisors.

    DACA is "delayed action of childhood arrivals". It was a presidential memorandum: an exercise of executive powers previously granted by Congress, not a new transfer of additional powers to the executive branch by Congress.

    Likewise, all executive orders are exercises of existing powers, not grants of additional powers to the executive branch by Congress.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of Course, Obama didn't do anything of the sort, else we'd have heard from the Kurds about it.

    The Politics of Betrayal: Obama Backstabs Kurds to Appease Turkey

    The Kurdish militias (YPG, PKK) have been Washington’s most effective weapon in the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. But the Obama administration has sold out the Kurds in order to strengthen ties with Turkey and gain access to Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base. The agreement to switch sides was made in phone call between President Obama and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan less than 48 hours after a terrorist incident in the Turkish town of Suruc killed 32 people and wounded more than 100 others.
    https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/29/the-politics-of-betrayal-obama-backstabs-kurds-to-appease-turkey/

    We DID hear from the Kurds about it.

    You just ignored it because you didn't give 2 shits about the Kurds..

    You STILL don't give 2 shits about the Kurds...

    All you care about is taking down President Trump.

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Border Patrol Agent Robert Hotten
    USDHS - Customs and Border Protection - United States Border Patrol, U.S. Government
    End of Watch: Sunday, October 6, 2019

    And remind the few...
    When ill of us they speak....
    That we are all that stands between...
    The monsters and the weak...

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13839e8d10b9303c8d9aee50576e15b15f4844be91d15073a21097a85b780c50.jpg

  48. [48] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    That article is from 2015. Here's a more recent article by the same author:

    The apparent split between the Pentagon and the White House does not reflect the deeper divisions which will become more apparent as the traditional imperialists in the administration face-off with the neocons in a cage-match that will determine the shape of policy in Syria and beyond. Simply put, the neocons favor an independent Kurdish state (that is opposed by Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey) while the traditionalists lean more towards accommodating their NATO ally, Turkey.

    Of course, no one in their right mind would call Trump a neo-con. He's just enamored with dictators, and willing to go with the last person that talked to him.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    That article is from 2015.

    Yea.. Cuz that was when Odumbo stabbed the Kurds in the BACK.. DUH....

    Something YOU claimed that "Obama did nothing of the sort".

    Once again, you got caught in your bullshit lie..

  50. [50] 
    Balthasar wrote:
  51. [51] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Yea.. Cuz that was when Odumbo stabbed the Kurds in the BACK..

    And the Kurds held it ever against him. Not.

    The reality is that Obama held the Turks back from invading Syria, and the Kurds were fine - until Trump's surprise.

  52. [52] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Truth is, I don't think that Trump has the wit to realize that he threw the Kurds under the bus. I think that he just got played by Erdogan.

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    The reality is that Obama held the Turks back from invading Syria, and the Kurds were fine - until Trump's surprise.

    Except the FACTS say something completely different..

    For Washington, it’s all a question of priorities. While the Kurds have been good friends and steadfast allies, they don’t have a spanking-new air base for launching attacks on Syria. Turkey, on the other hand, has a great base (Incirlik ) that’s much closer to the frontlines and just perfect for launching multiple sorties, drone attacks or routine surveillance fly-overs. The only glitch, of course, is that Washington will have to bite its tongue while a former ally is beaten to a pulp. That’s a price that Obama is more than willing to pay provided he can use the airfield to prosecute his war.
    https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/29/the-politics-of-betrayal-obama-backstabs-kurds-to-appease-turkey/

    You are obviously so delusional you can't acknowledge the FACT that Obama screwed the Kurds and you didn't give 2 shits about it then..

  54. [54] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I know that you keep throwing that article up, but it's a) three years old, and b) neglects the fact that we did indeed proceed to protect the Kurds.

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Blathy,

    Truth is, I don't think..

    FINALLY... We agree on something..

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know that you keep throwing that article up, but it's a) three years old,

    First off, it's FOUR years old, moron..

    Secondly, it's 4 years old because THAT is when Odumbo stabbed the Kurds in the back, dumbass.. four years ago.. :eyeroll"

    b) neglects the fact that we did indeed proceed to protect the Kurds.

    Right. Obama DID protect the Kurds... Right up to the point Obama sided with Turkey and stabbed the Kurds in the back..

  57. [57] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    This is one reason that we shouldn't have a neophyte in the White House. It's not a beginner's job. Many foreign policy problems are stickier than building permits, as Trump is learning (the hard way).

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    You OK, Blathy??

    Yer stupider than usually today....

  59. [59] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Right up to the point Obama sided with Turkey and stabbed the Kurds in the back..

    You're missing one small point: the Kurds are still there, still working with US servicemen. At what point did Obama stab them in the back (aside from this guy's opinion that he did)?

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is one reason that we shouldn't have a neophyte in the White House. It's not a beginner's job.

    WHich has NOTHING to do with the fact that Obama stabbed the Kurds in the back and no one here said ANYTHING against it..

    The ONLY logical and rational conclusion is that ya'all don't care about the Kurds.. You just want to use them and their plight to further yer own Party slavery agenda..

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    DSWS,

    I concede your points.. :D

  62. [62] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Obama stabbed the Kurds in the back and no one here said ANYTHING against it..

    Didn't happen. Just didn't happen.

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Didn't happen. Just didn't happen.

    Except the FACTS say otherwise..

    I know, I know.. You can't accept any facts that prove how full of shit you are..

    But, sadly for you, the facts are STILL the facts, whether you choose to bury your head in the sand or not..

  64. [64] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The real story here (getting buried under your clear intention of blaming Obama) is that there are no easy answers in Syria. As Whitney (the writer) noted in a later article:

    By supporting its Kurdish fighters and establishing permanent US bases, McMaster thinks the US can frustrate Russia’s effort to restore Syria’s borders which is one of the primary goals of the mission. The objective of forward deterrence is not to win the war, but to prevent the enemy from winning.

    But McMaster is out, and apparently so are the Kurds.

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/19/trumps-plan-b-for-syria-occupation-and-intimidation/

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama's deal with Turkey is a betrayal of Syrian Kurds and may not even weaken Isis

    Since the accord, the Turks have only waged war on Kurds

    The deal between the US and Turkey which will allow American bombers to use Incirlik airbase while Turkey takes action against Islamic State (Isis) looks stranger and stranger. When first announced over a week ago, US officials spoke triumphantly of the agreement being “a game-changer” in the war against Isis. In fact, the war waged by Turkey in the days since this great American diplomatic success has been almost entirely against the Kurds, at home and abroad.
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/turkey-kurdish-conflict-obamas-deal-with-ankara-is-a-betrayal-of-syrian-kurds-and-may-not-even-10432524.html

    It's not an OPINION that Obama stabbed the Kurds in the back, just as ya'all are accusing Trump of..

    It's a BONA FIDE FACT...

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    The real story here....

    .... is ya'all's blatant hypocrisy.. Ya'all don't give a shit about the Kurds..

    You just want to beat President Trump over the head with something.. ANYTHING...

    The Kurds are simply the latest excuse..

    #sad

  67. [67] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Another Old article. You just have to get up to date.

    For starters, try NOT to punch at Obama. That train left the station a long time ago.

    You just want to beat President Trump over the head with something.. ANYTHING..

    Yep. And I've got to sympathize with Trump on this one - years and years of mismanagement have led him to this moment. But this - surprise - isn't the answer either. Surely a better solution could have been reached through negotiation.

  68. [68] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    If you believe Clinton’s seeking assistance from Tony Blair to resolve an issue between our two countries was illegal because it had the added benefit of helping Democrats with their election campaign, then you must also believe that Trump getting Mexico to strengthen their own southern border patrol to prevent asylum seekers from making it to the US border is also illegal as it helps his re-election bid.

    Hell, by this standard, our government could never work with foreign countries to solve any issues because some politician could use that accomplishment to help their re-election campaign! The point is that seeking help from foreign countries on issues focused on benefitting our country is OK, regardless if it has the side benefit of helping someone’s campaign. And to clarify, Clinton did not personally benefit from asking Blair for help; he was not running for re-election.

    Trump seeking dirt on Biden is solely about helping his own campaign and nothing else! Even if you did not know that our own country is not investigating Biden, the timing of Trump’s requests to other countries to investigate an opponent is so obvious that even the blind can see it is only for Trump.

  69. [69] 
    dsws wrote:

    [4] me:
    Congress has only itself to blame. The Constitution gives all the powers to Congress. Congress shirked its responsibility, and gave them to the president.

    And here's a contrasting opinion:

    "These laws—like so many laws—are imperfect. But the primary fault here lies not with the law books but with President Trump. Our laws of course could be better, but Trump’s breaking the ones we already have."
    https://www.justsecurity.org/65978/blame-trump-not-the-u-s-code-for-his-abuse-of-emergency-authority/

    I'm still with basically my original view. I think the author of this page is looking at a much narrower issue than I was talking about. The executive branch is set up with all the staff and processes to evaluate information and set policies, and the authority to put them into effect without legislative action. Congress should have its own bureaucracy full of hired experts to make law at the level we routinely have the executive branch legislate: regulations.

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Blathy,

    Another Old article. You just have to get up to date.

    Are you REALLY that stupid??

    Of course it's a older article.. Because Obama stabbed the Kurds in the back when HE was POTUS, several years ago..

    I find it hard to believe you are actually THIS stoopid.. But you have surprised me before..

    }}}You just want to beat President Trump over the head with something.. ANYTHING..{{{{

    Yep.

    Well, glad to hear you have conceded all your arguments are based on nothing but you being a Trump/America hater..

    I accept your concession..

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as impeachment goes.. I am glad to see President Trump is following my advice..

    NO COOPERATION until the alleged whistle blower can be questioned and cross examined..

    Until such time as that happens, it's obvious to all that the Dims are just on a fishing expedition, like they were with their Russia Collusion delusion..

    Trump's won every court case, so this is gonna be tied up in the courts til after the election. Democrats will lose the House and this will all go away... :D

  72. [72] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    To those asshats claiming Trump was obviously joking when he asked China to help find dirt on Biden for him, it should be pointed out that China believed it was NOT a joke — as their refusal to help him made crystal clear!

    And while Trump asking a foreign government to involve themselves in our elections by doing him a personal favor is a crime, I think we aren’t focusing on the bigger issue here:

    The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the world. Trump is using that power not to solve any of the countless problems troubling our nation, but is focusing it on a single US citizen in an attempt to harm that individual for Trump’s own benefit! THIS should terrify/disgust every citizen, but strangely those claiming to be the most “patriotic” among us have no problem with this blatant abuse of power. It’s one thing for Trump supporters who are clueless about politics to blindly support him, but for those that follow politics and understand how our government is supposed to function, there is no excuse for supporting such a corrupt and incompetent individual.

    Trump using the attention his elected position warrants him for attacking individuals that are critical of him and for airing personal grievances has done serious harm to the integrity associated with the Office of the Presidency. Whether that harm is irreparable or not, only time will tell.

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    And while Trump asking a foreign government to involve themselves in our elections by doing him a personal favor is a crime,

    But, of course, Clinton asking Tony Blair for the exact same thing is perfectly acceptable.. :eyeroll:

    Once again... It's all about the -D vs -R....

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    DSWS,

    I would love to participate in your discussion.. But remember I am just a knuckle-dragging ground pounder..

    Could you dumb it down for me?? :D

  75. [75] 
    Paula wrote:

    Meanwhile, city of Minneapolis wants to be paid upfront by Blotus campaign for one of his Klan rallies and Blotus wants to sue. (The bill in question is $500,000 for security. He has stiffed other cities already. The bill would be paid from the re-election campaign.)

    He sees it as his right to stiff people. Good for Mayor of Minneapolis, though better in end if Blotus takes his blood-dripping dirty business elsewhere.

  76. [76] 
    Paula wrote:

    And worth noting:

    The Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday released volume two of its Russia investigation report, which concluded that Russians sought "to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election by harming Hillary Clinton’s chances of success and supporting Donald Trump at the direction of the Kremlin," according to a committee press release.

    The committee in its report focused on Russia's use of social media to influence the 2016 election, led by the Kremlin-backed Internet Research Agency (IRA).

    "The Committee found that IRA social media activity was overtly and almost invariably supportive of then-candidate Trump to the detriment of Secretary Clinton’s campaign," according to the release.

    The committee found, among other things, that the IRA activity on social media specifically targeted African American voters and spiked after the 2016 election concluded.

    The full report is then attached.

    NOTE: this is a SENATE report, which is under Republican control. They (Repubs) evidently couldn't bring themselves to lie. Good.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/464854-read-senate-report-finds-russia-tried-to-harm-clinton-boost-trump-in-2016#.XZzaeCG9CoY.twitter

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me lay it out for ya'all, since ya'all simply cannot understand the facts and reality..

    The President Of The United States has the authority to call up ANY world leader he wishes and ask that leader for ANY information on ANYONE in the world..

    And there is not a SINGLE SOLITARY LAW that says the President Of The United States CAN'T do that...

    This is fact...

    Anyone who doesn't understand that fact or doesn't believe that fact is a "grade AAA" class moron..

    Or a Party slave...

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    He has stiffed other cities already. The bill would be paid from the re-election campaign.)

    And yet, the Hillary campaign STILL OWES hundreds of thousands of dollars to various vendors and such...

    Once again, hysterical hypocrisy rears it's ugly head..

  79. [79] 
    TheStig wrote:

    LWYH - 2

    "Russia is the biggest winner in all of this"

    I agree with that assessment. That said,
    Balthasar (3) is correct in stating that Russia is not realistically going to take the place of the US on a global scale. Russian interest in Syria is regional.

    Putin has backed the Russian Eastern Orthodox Church in his own country and the Eastern Orthodox Christians have been a prominent component of Syria for centuries. Part of the modern Russian interest in the Eastern Orthodox Church in Syria is sentimental, and part of it is regional power politics. Russia has been a backer of the modern state of Syria from its inception. Russia has military bases in Syria and largely equips the Syrian military. (With all the Russian technicians and military in Syria, a lot Syrian brides end up in Moscow). The port of Tartus give the Russian Navy a presence in the Mediterranean. Russian bases in Syria put also pressure on Israel, a strong US regional ally.

    Once again, Trump seems inclined to give Putin what Putin wants. In this case, it's the abandonment of the Syrian Kurdish fighters.

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember back when I said Hillary has not taken a Sherman about running for POTUS again??

    ‘Don’t Tempt Me’: Hillary Clinton Fires Back at Trump Daring Her to Run With Eyebrow-Raising Tweet
    https://www.mediaite.com/trump/dont-tempt-me-hillary-clinton-fires-back-at-trump-daring-her-to-run-with-eyebrow-raising-tweet/

    Democrats couldn't be THAT stoopid to run Hillary again...

    Could they??? :D

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, Trump seems inclined to give Putin what Putin wants.

    "Please relay to Vlad that if he could give me some space to win my election, I can be flexible for him once I am in office for another 4 years"
    -Barack Hussein Obama

    Funny how ya'all didn't mind when Obama promised fealty to Putin...

    :eyeroll:

  82. [82] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I see what you are doing here, Michale. Which is what you usually do here. And, whenever you do it, you are doing nothing to further an intelligent conversation.

    I don't even read most of your comments anymore. Because they do nothing to further my understanding of anything. A total waste of my time, in other words.

    Do you know what Obama and Medvedev were talking about when Obama asked Medvedev to tell Putin he'd be more flexible after the election, assuming he'd win it, of course? What did Obama think he'd be more flexible about?

  83. [83] 
    Paula wrote:

    And now:

    A classified State Department assessment concluded in 2018 that Ukraine’s former Prosecutor General Yuri Lutsenko—who is at the center of the impeachment inquiry of President Trump—had allowed a vital potential witness for Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Konstantin Kilimnik, to escape from Ukraine to Russia, beyond the reach of the United States, after a federal grand jury in the US charged Kilimnik with obstruction of justice.

    Had Kilimnik been extradited to the United States, he had the potential to provide invaluable information to investigators that might have shed light on one of the most consequential unresolved questions that the American people deserve an answer to: whether the former chairman to President Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, Paul Manafort, and perhaps other aides to then presidential candidate Trump, conspired with Russia to aid Russia’s covert operations to intervene in the election to defeat Hillary Clinton and elect Trump. By allowing Kilimnik to escape to Russia, Lutsenko foreclosed any possibility that Kilimnik would ever be questioned by US law enforcement and intelligence agents.

    https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/10/08/ukraine-continued-the-key-witness-who-was-allowed-escape/

    The BAD GUYS (Blotus/Putin) liked the corrupt Ukrainian Prosecutor. Obama, Biden and legit leaders around the world wanted him gone.

  84. [84] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Balthy,

    I gotta disagree with you, Obama did screw over the Kurds — even if that was not his intended goal for the choice he made. He was forced to make a decision that would result in one of our allies being happy and the other ally being pissed; regardless of which ally he decided in favor of, the other was not going to be happy! The Kurds are a people that do not have their own internationally recognized country, but are forced to live in hostile countries that oppose their presence and contest their claimed borders. This puts the Kurds at a severe disadvantage when we are forced to decide between helping them or helping our allies that oppose them.

    Obama, however, was acting in our county’s best interest when he was forced to choose to take action that hurt the Kurds. Trump — not so much! But it is all the same to the Kurds, no doubt. As I said earlier,

    The Kurds have been let down by our government so many times that I doubt they were too surprised by Trump’s screwing them over.

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I see what you are doing here, Michale.

    You noticed, eh??

    I have an arrangement with DSWS.. I'll refrain from posting facts after facts after facts.. I'll just post a couple..

    And he, in turn will, if the subject interests him, engage me over those facts.

    I have to admit, he is a bit highbrow for me.. Hopefully he can dumb it down..

    What did Obama think he'd be more flexible about?

    Probably everything.. But only Obama knows what Obama would be... was.. flexible about..

    We DO know for a fact that Trump has been a LOT more strict with Putin than Obama ever was..

    Hell, Obama didn't even confront Putin on the election until it was too late.. Obama is quoted as saying he didn't want to hurt Hillary in the election by confronting the Russians forcibly..

    But, as usual, you miss my point..

    My point is, if Trump had been caught in an open mike saying that to Putin (or Putin's lackey, in Obama's case) you people would have gone totally batshit hysterical..

    Don't bother to deny it cuz you and I both know it's true..

    THAT is my point.. Ya'all's double-standards.. Ya'all's hypocrisy...

    This thing with the Kurds is just one more example...

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    I gotta disagree with you, Obama did screw over the Kurds — even if that was not his intended goal for the choice he made.

    Thank you, Russ...

    Blathy.. Go ahead and deny it again.. :D I double dog dare ya to.. :D

  87. [87] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Balthy,

    Sorry, this was supposed to have been the beginning of the above post, but somehow got clipped:

    I agree with you that Russia will not be able to fill our shoes on the global scale, but that’s not what Putin wants anyone to believe! Russia can provide military aid and sell military arms to lots of the smaller countries that border them. This helps Russia look more like the military power it once was when it was running the USSR. Granted, being a country that relies solely on oil to survive, it won’t ever have the real muscle to force its will on others like in the past, but they can still try to delude themselves into believing that they can.

  88. [88] 
    TheStig wrote:

    LWYH-84

    "The Kurds are a people that do not have their own internationally recognized country, but are forced to live in hostile countries that oppose their presence and contest their claimed borders."

    There is a substantial Kurdish diaspora in Israel. The State of Israel has a long history (for a young country) of backing Kurdish national aspirations. Did you happen to catch The Spy on PBS recently? Israeli intelligence makes effective use of its Middle Eastern Jewish diaspora.

  89. [89] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    "Please relay to Vlad that if he could give me some space to win my election, I can be flexible for him once I am in office for another 4 years"
    -Barack Hussein Obama

    Funny how ya'all didn't mind when Obama promised fealty to Putin...
    .

    So you are claiming that this is a direct quote from President Obama? I can find bits and pieces of this quote being reported, but I have not seen it reported that Obama said this word for word as you have claimed.

    And do you honestly believe that saying he will have more flexibility to negotiate means that Obama was swearing his loyalty to Putin?

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    A new front-runner for the 2020 Democrats? Warren tops Biden in 3 out of 4 latest polls
    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-new-front-runner-for-the-2020-democrats-warren-tops-biden-in-3-latest-polls-2019-10-07

    Who was it who said this Democrat faux impeachment coup would hurt Biden more than President Trump.

    Why, it was me!! :D

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    And do you honestly believe that saying he will have more flexibility to negotiate means that Obama was swearing his loyalty to Putin?

    Yea.. Because if President Trump was caught saying it, that is EXACTLY what YOU would be saying about it.

    Don't bother denying it.. You and I both know it's factually accurate..

  92. [92] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    We DO know for a fact that Trump has been a LOT more strict with Putin than Obama ever was..?

    How so, Michale?

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    How so, Michale?

    How so?? What??

    How so do we know it's factual??

    Or how so do we know that President Trump has been stricter that Obama ever was???

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I guess the answer would be the same.. :D

    Even WaPoop knows this to be factually accurate..

    Trump has not been ‘soft’ on Russia. He’s been tougher than Obama.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-has-not-been-soft-on-russia-hes-been-tougher-than-obama/2019/03/28/08e88a04-5194-11e9-88a1-ed346f0ec94f_story.html

    There are many additional examples.. But that will get you started..

  95. [95] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    TheStig,

    Did you happen to catch The Spy on PBS recently?

    I became interested in the plight of the Kurds after meeting and becoming friends with a Kurdish man who lived in Syria and Iraq before seeking asylum in the US. He is gay and shared some truly horrifying stories of how tough is was growing up being identified as a Kurd in these countries, and how being identified as a homosexual would have meant an even slower, more brutal death than the one he constantly feared. Trust me, nothing makes you realize how little and minor the obstacles you’ve faced in your life truly were than spending an evening with someone who got to this country under our asylum program! Puts things into perspective, to say the least.

  96. [96] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    TheStig,

    Whoops, did it again....(I am typing out my responses in Notepad and cutting/pasting it once I am ready to post, but I keep cutting off the top line of my responses by accident.)

    No, I did not see that on PBS, but it sounds like I should!

  97. [97] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    Just FYI, Michale’s link that he offers as proof of Trump being tougher on Russia than Obama is an opinion piece written by a Republican Senator from Alaska.

    Once again, when he cannot defend a claim, he deflects or just ignores the question! That is why it is almost pointless to debate him, he isn’t interested in the facts, he is just here to troll.

    The only reason to respond is to hopefully prevent his disinformation from being accepted by someone visiting the site who doesn’t realize that he is not speaking the truth in his posts.

  98. [98] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The President Of The United States has the authority to call up ANY world leader he wishes and ask that leader for ANY information on ANYONE in the world..

    And there is not a SINGLE SOLITARY LAW that says the President Of The United States CAN'T do that...

    Where, exactly, is the President granted that authority? You want us to find a law restricting authority that you’ve never shown the Constitution actually grants! Not saying that it doesn’t grant it, just that you haven’t shown us if it does.

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Where, exactly, is the President granted that authority?

    Where, exactly, is the President denied that authority??

    Not saying that it doesn’t grant it, just that you haven’t shown us if it does.

    It's common sense...

    I know, I know.. In VERY short supply around here..

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    The only reason to respond is to hopefully prevent his disinformation from being accepted by someone visiting the site who doesn’t realize that he is not speaking the truth in his posts.

    Of course I am not speaking your truth in my posts..

    I am speaking FACTS..

    Funny how you don't have any rebuttal to the FACTS laid out in the WaPoop article..

    Why is that??

    Because the facts are dead on ballz accurate..

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK.. Amazing Race is on.... :D

    See ya'all in the morning.. :D

  102. [102] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Listen [98]

    Does a person who just happens to be President only have the rights that are specifically granted by the constitution? I strongly doubt that there is any constitutional right of a US pres to have blow jobs in the oval office from interns? Where is the pres. granted the right to make ridiculous Twitter posts every day? Which constitutional clause permits golfing?

    You don't have to have a law which specifically permits every conceivable action by a president that is not statutorially forbidden. That's ridiculous.

  103. [103] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    [36] "The law says you can't solicit dirt on your opponent during an election"

    That's another keeper quote.. :D

    So you are quoting CRS’s intentional misquote of what Balthy actually said and plan on using it to imply that was what was being argued by Balthy, is that it?

    Well, at least that answers my question about your supposed quote from Obama that you conveniently ignored!

  104. [104] 
    Paula wrote:

    Scaredy-cat Blotus says he won't cooperate with impeachment - too scared to testify. Coward, crybaby and guilty as sin.

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oooo Breaking News!!!

    President Trump Tells Democrats To Take Their Faux Impeachment Requests And Shove Them Up Their Collective Asses!!!
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/impeachment-inquiry-white-house-not-comply-pelosi

    Yea!!! THAT is what I am talking about!!

    Kick their asses President Trump!!! :D

    OK Back to AMAZING RACE :D

  106. [106] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CRS

    Does a person who just happens to be President only have the rights that are specifically granted by the constitution? I strongly doubt that there is any constitutional right of a US pres to have blow jobs in the oval office from interns? Where is the pres. granted the right to make ridiculous Twitter posts every day? Which constitutional clause permits golfing?

    Are you taking the “Intro to Trolling” course that Michale offers, because you once again are attacking a point that I never made!

    Please note that Michale was the one who made this statement:

    The President Of The United States has the authority to call up ANY world leader he wishes and ask that leader for ANY information on ANYONE in the world..

    I was not talking about an individual’s rights, I asked where the President was given the authority that Michael claims he has been granted! Do you not understand the difference between an individual’s rights and the Constitution authorizing the individual holding the Office of the Presidency the power and permission to act on behalf of the nation.

    It’s bad enough that Trump believes being rich grants him the right to sexually assault women, please don’t let him think that as the president, the Constitution grants him the authority to do so as well!

    And no law can prevent the President from asking a foreign government to dig up dirt on a citizen for their personal benefit. Free will strikes once again! The law just lets the President know ahead of time that he is breaking the law if he does seek assistance from a foreign government — it serves as a warning that he will face punishment if he chooses to break the law!

    Trump was lucky that Mueller’s team determined that Trump and those who worked on his campaign were just far too stupid to realize they were breaking the law to be held accountable. That won’t get him off the hook this time!

  107. [107] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Where, exactly, is the President denied that authority??

    Shocker, the person lying about being a former LEO does not understand that authority must be granted to exist. Face it, deflection is just you announcing to the world that:
    a) you submit!
    B) You lost!
    C) You cannot lie your way out of the argument!
    D) All of the above!

    The answer is D!

  108. [108] 
    Kick wrote:

    As far as impeachment goes.. I am glad to see President Trump is following my advice..

    Mike claims President Trump is following his advice. *laughs*

  109. [109] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    104

    Scaredy-cat Blotus says he won't cooperate with impeachment - too scared to testify. Coward, crybaby and guilty as sin.

    Ridiculous arguments out of his attorneys too. All they'll accomplish is to stall the inevitable. They're basically arguing Congress has no authority over the POTUS. *laughs*

  110. [110] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Abandoning the Kurds in this manner is nothing short of a national disgrace.

    Trump, no doubt at the behest of Erdogan, (who has full access to Cypriot banking records!) has fallen victim again to his past corrupt dealings. Huge amounts of laundered money flowed through Cyprus en-route to Trump's bank account, as court records from litigation proves...So the Kurds go under the bus.

    That's fucking bullshit.

    Now, thousands of well armed and equally well trained Kurds will be casting about looking for retribution. Thankfully, they know where Trump Tower is.

    It's obvious now, given the events of recent days, that Trump is solidly 'hand in glove' with Putin. He's gone out of his way to cede influence over the Middle East to his Russian pimp, he's even conspired with him to take the heat off Russia over election meddling by offering a fait accompli to Ukraine over American support. Why, if Trump truly believed Russia wasn't involved in 2016 election meddling, would he try to concoct a scam to implicate the Ukraine? The answer is simple; Trump is working other people's agenda's. Trump, the traitorous twat, is trying to fool the fools twice, only time will tell, I doubt he'll succeed, I refuse to believe Americans are this stupid (obvious, odious examples notwithstanding).

    [82] Michale spams the shit out of this place, he sources dubious material to support his hair-brained conclusions, to no avail. I took full measure of him on day one, he's bound to Trump and the GOP because he's a full-blown racist, he could never accept that Obama succeeded in righting the US economy after a Republican president so completely screwed it up. All Trump apologists land in this bracket, it's the only thing that binds them together, why else would they defend this utter cretin?

    LL&P

  111. [111] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Watch your language.

Comments for this article are closed.