Comments are closed.

  1. AlexInCT *

    Pardoning Hillary is a catch 22. If he does they admit she is guilty of criminal behavior. If he doesn’t she could end up looking at time in the slammer, and if she goes down, he, and a lot of other democrats, are going to go down due to the collateral damage.

    I understand the pardon for Manning, because he leaked shit that hurt Boosh, but I would like to see Snowden to get a pardon (which will never happen because he hurt the narcissist in chief). Snowden and whomever leaked the DNC emails, yeah. They also deserve this medal and a few others.

    Thumb up 0

  2. AlexInCT *

    Can someone who hasn’t been convicted of anything be pardoned?

    That is a great question CM. Manning was not pardoned, but his sentence was commuted, and from what I have seen, there is nothing that can prevent a presidential pardon even if you are not convicted. I refer to Ford whom pardoned Nixon’s on his way out, before any criminal charges (or impeachment proceedings) were levied.

    Thumb up 0

  3. stogy

    Just on Obama’s last acts in office… and the first acts of the incoming administration:

    The Syrian Democratic Forces (Kurds, Turkmen, and non-government Syrian allies) are now about 25 miles from Raqqa. It is highly likely that ISIS will lose its Syrian capital within weeks if not months. This is an operation that was being planned for most of last year, with the latest offensive beginning in December. Mosul is now two-thirds under the control of the Iraqi government. This isn’t attracting much media attention.

    I reckon that Trump is going to claim the credit for these victories, but as most of the hard work has already been done, they don’t belong to him.

    The challenge for a Trump administration will be to turn victories on the ground into stable, long-term peace – particularly in terms of ensuring that the Turkish or Syrian military doesn’t try to undo these gains. He can have the credit for that if he can pull it off. I have my doubts.

    Thumb up 1

  4. AlexInCT *

    I reckon that Trump is going to claim the credit for these victories, but as most of the hard work has already been done, they don’t belong to him.

    Really? How would that differ with what Obama did? Other than he didn’t lose them first because he ignored people that pointed out political reality was niot going to trump reality reality, and ended up forced to send troops back in?

    Thumb up 0

  5. CM

    Still repeating that lie huh, Alex.
    The reality is that the Iraqi Parliament would not renew the Status Force Agreement. Also, the country was considered relatively stable in 2011 – ISIS elements existed prior to that, but largely formed into the force it is today after American troops left — and mostly in Syria at first. But yeah, Obama is Stalin and Stalin killed thousands of billions so you can’t accept it. We know.

    Thumb up 0

  6. Iconoclast

    The reality is that the Iraqi Parliament would not renew the Status Force Agreement. 

    That is a grotesque oversimplification that ignores several realities.

    How the Obama administration bungled the Iraq withdrawal negotiations

    As recently as August, Maliki’s office was discussing allowing 8,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops to remain until next year, Iraqi Ambassador Samir Sumaida’ie said in an interview with The Cable. He told us that there was widespread support in Iraq for such an extension, but the Obama administration was demanding that immunity for U.S. troops be endorsed by the Iraqi Council of Representatives, which was never really possible.
    Administration sources and Hill staffers also tell The Cablethat the demand that the troop immunity go through the Council of Representatives was a decision made by the State Department lawyers and there were other options available to the administration, such as putting the remaining troops on the embassy’s diplomatic rolls, which would automatically give them immunity.
    “An obvious fix for troop immunity is to put them all on the diplomatic list; that’s done by notification to the Iraqi foreign ministry,” said one former senior Hill staffer. “If State says that this requires a treaty or a specific agreement by the Iraqi parliament as opposed to a statement by the Iraqi foreign ministry, it has its head up its ass.”

    Bottom line:  There was a way to keep troops in Iraq, but Obama simply wasn’t interested.

    Thumb up 0

  7. CM

    Also from foreignpolicy.com:

    The small contingent of Marines protecting the embassy could be covered by other measures, but anything larger required an immunity agreement and the immunity agreement required a parliamentary vote. There was broad bipartisan agreement that it was folly to leave a sizable U.S. presence in Iraq without immunity protections, and although some critics argued that Maliki had the authority to grant immunity without a parliamentary vote, the unanimous position of U.S. government lawyers was that such protections required the formal vote of the Iraqi parliament.

    http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/11/19/what-happened-to-immunity-for-u-s-troops-in-iraq/

    but Obama simply wasn’t interested.

    Nonsense.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/06/world/la-fg-us-iraq-20110706

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world/middleeast/failed-efforts-of-americas-last-months-in-iraq.html?pagewanted=all

    Thumb up 0

  8. stogy

    Really? How would that differ with what Obama did? 

    Well… er… Obama didn’t claim victory. Bush did that though. Did you get confused?

    Regardless, it doesn’t affect my point here. Trump’s challenge is not in defeating ISIS. It’s in supporting a just regional solution following ISIS’s inevitably defeat. Claiming credit for a military victory and walking away won’t do that. Otherwise we will simply end up with ISIS 2.0 in a year or two’s time.

    I support him doing that. I hope he does it. I don’t want him to fail. Obama is irrelevant.

    Thumb up 1

  9. AlexInCT *

    Well… er… Obama didn’t claim victory. Bush did that though. Did you get confused?

    This nonsense trope again? Boosh celebrated the success of the troops and the left twisted it . Just like they are twisting everything about Trump…

    Thumb up 0

  10. stogy

    Boosh celebrated the success of the troops and the left twisted it

    He got stellar treatment from across the media on the day and in the weeks afterwards – even the liberal media. It was only when car bombs and IEDs started going off that people started to take the message apart. It was poorly timed and poorly executed as a media message and showed extraordinary hubris to the Iraqi people. Something a lot more dignified would have been better. Bush certainly regretted it at the end of his presidency.

    But regardless of all this, it is not the key point here. The key point is Trump, the future of the middle-east war. The opportunities for a post-war settlement.

    Thumb up 0

  11. AlexInCT *

    Seriously media matters? I would take things said in The National Enquirer or from some furry worshiping geek living in his mama’s basement more seriously than anything from that dump you linked. Then again, I think a lot of writers for that dump you linked are living in their momma’s basement anyway.

    Thumb up 0

  12. CM

    That makes no sense – it’s simply a series of quoted responses from mainstream media about Mission Accomplished. What is there to not take seriously?

    Thumb up 0

  13. AlexInCT *

    That makes no sense – it’s simply a series of quoted responses from mainstream media about Mission Accomplished. What is there to not take seriously?

    I don’t know, CM. How about the fact that that mainstream media you refer to has been proven to be biased, willing to collude and sell its soul to help the left’s agenda and the democrats, and should accurately be referred to as DNC operatives with bylines?

    As I pointed out: I am far likely to trust the National Enquirer and SciFi magazines when it comes to stories that are hit pieces on the right or fluff jobs for the left, than I am to trust the DNC operatives with bylines. And if you were not a partisan hack, you would be able to not just see that but agree that the media is biased and dirty.

    I knew without any shadow of doubt that the media was DNC shills after they sent armies of people to Wassila to dig through the trash of a VP candidate, but couldn’t be bothered to vet Obama whom was running to be president. Well, I am kind of fibbing here: I knew long before then, but this was the act that should have gotten others to see the light as well. And then there was Dan Rather.

    But hey, keep acting dumb or throwing tantrums about how people have exposed the cabal and now have no trust for it. It helps make your side irrelevant faster. It has to be us stupid people whom are at fault and acting like the partisan hacks for not accepting the narrative from the left! After all, even if it is all lies, they mean well.

    Yeah…

    Thumb up 0

  14. AlexInCT *

    Look at what content on Media Matters? Hell no. I only go there when I need a good laugh, and right now I am not in need of it.

    My point is that claiming they are “quotes” from the media is ignoring that the media has been twisting shit, or outright making them up, to help the left and hurt the right, for decades. So no, I don’t need any quotes. I am intimately familiar with the event on the carrier and what it was for – the troops – and how the media then chose to twist it into one heck of a lie. Kind of like the lie that Boosh invaded Iraq without actually having congress approve it and that included a slew of democrats, When they get called on that they then claim they meant the UN, to which I reply no US president worth his shit should ever look for permission to do anything for the American people for. And that included Obama, who never asked the UN, or for that matter congress, for any permission to do what he wanted, BTW.

    Thumb up 0