Orange Duce

[DMac]

Riveting discussion.
The ol' lax forum sure aint what she used to be.

[Peter Brown]

Or maybe he shares my belief that, other than WW II & our initial action in Afghanistan, all our other post imperial wars have been optional.
Our Civil War, WW I, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (both times & in between)

I objected to [Obama's] policies & decisions -- pulling out of Iraq

Obama ended a war you claim to object to, but somehow you object to that.

But the real clue to what underlies your views is the "Civil War" comment.

Obama didn't end the war in Iraq. He revived & extended it. The war was won by 2010. All that was needed was a small residual force to prop up the ISF. Obama bailed. ISIS arose. Obama dithered. We had to go back & are still there (without a SOFA) with the small residual force Obama needed to leave a decade ago. Obama owns ISIS & all the death & destruction they wrought in Iraq & Syria,

I agree with Gen Kelly. Our civil war was due to an inability to compromise on a way to end slavery without resorting to war.
Europe & the rest of our hemisphere ended slavery without resorting to civil war.
Based on the way our nation was born, the Confederate states were within their rights to secede, just as the original states had rebelled.
How's that CA secession movement that you were touting coming ?

If that’s your perspective on the Civil War and slavery, then you are clearly a racist.

The South should have ended slavery ... period. Anything short of that was a crime against humanity.

The abolitionists in the North had compromised on slavery since the dawn of the nation. By 1860, it was long past time to end an evil institution that should have never existed in the first place.

The Civil War, from a moral perspective, was entirely the fault of the Confederacy.

DocBarrister

The guy who refuses to allow black kids and parents to choose schools of their choice (because white teacher's unions and their exorbitantly-paid administrators need coin to buy Vegas hookers, and so scratch the DNC's back to keep black kids from excelling) claims someone else is a racist.

Should a segregationist really be lecturing anyone on racism?

DocBarrister

Racists say what?

WHEN DEMOCRATIC presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren rolled out her plan for K-12 education, the proposal to eliminate federal funding for charter schools drew gasps from school choice supporters, including Democrats who've backed the education reform movement of the last decade, and cheers from teachers unions.

https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/a ... er-schools

Meanwhile African immigrants keep coming. They must not know what you obviously know!

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... n-the-u-s/

[ggait]

You're a fool if you swallow this un-sourced political disinformation.

Confirmed by Atlantic, AP and Fox News. Each of which had multiple sources.

But you're right. We never should believe any anonymous source.

I mean look at what Deep Throat served up on Nixon. Complete BS. Total fiction.

P.S. The Atlantic's Goldberg was on the Sunday shows today saying there's more coming on this story from him and other news organizations.

Also confirmed by CNN:

President Donald Trump referred to fallen US service members at the Aisne-Marne cemetery in crude and derogatory terms during a November 2018 trip to France to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I, a former senior administration official confirmed to CNN.

More confirms from NYT and Wapo.

And Kelly still quiet. Not denying. So pretty much confirming.

[Peter Brown]

You're a fool if you swallow this un-sourced political disinformation.

Confirmed by Atlantic, AP and Fox News. Each of which had multiple sources.

But you're right. We never should believe any anonymous source.

I mean look at what Deep Throat served up on Nixon. Complete BS. Total fiction.

P.S. The Atlantic's Goldberg was on the Sunday shows today saying there's more coming on this story from him and other news organizations.

Also confirmed by CNN:

President Donald Trump referred to fallen US service members at the Aisne-Marne cemetery in crude and derogatory terms during a November 2018 trip to France to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I, a former senior administration official confirmed to CNN.

More confirms from NYT and Wapo.

And Kelly still quiet. Not denying. So pretty much confirming.

John Kelly's COS says he didn't say it:

https://www.newsweek.com/former-white-h ... ns-1530159

Bolton says he didn't hear it.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... -in-france

Ambassador to France says the story is a sham:

https://twitter.com/ChuckCallesto/statu ... 95652?s=20


Ggait has a better handle on it than these folks.

[MDlaxfan76]

All you care about is rhetoric. Trump has done more to contain & counter Russia than any President since Reagan (vs the USSR)

And anyway, according to your sig, "containing and countering" Russia no longer matters.

So long as there's a NATO, & we're a member, Russia must be contained. It's a lot easier now than it was during the Cold War. As our EUro allies have concluded, as they allow their military forces to atrophy, offer to hold our coat & keep Russia solvent. Trump's doing more to contain & counter Russia, with deployed combat forces, than Obama did with his rhetorical lightning bolts, ineffective sanctions & expulsion of diplomats.

Interesting caveat...as long as we're a NATO member

Except that it's being reported (again) that Trump wanted out of NATO altogether. And who stopped him...yup those generals he just ripped yesterday.

But hey, it's "a lot easier" to contain Russian than in the old days...all you gotta do is invite them into the Middle East and they're "contained"...

The hypocrisy and double speak is so off the charts it's mind boggling...Trump crows about how much he's increased military spending, then says the generals are in the pockets of industry, want to have wars just want to make money...

and Salty supports it all...must have a bunch of military industry stocks in his retirement portfolio, I guess.

[old salt]

Or maybe he shares my belief that, other than WW II & our initial action in Afghanistan, all our other post imperial wars have been optional.
Our Civil War, WW I, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (both times & in between)

I objected to [Obama's] policies & decisions -- pulling out of Iraq

Obama ended a war you claim to object to, but somehow you object to that.

But the real clue to what underlies your views is the "Civil War" comment.

Obama didn't end the war in Iraq. He revived & extended it. The war was won by 2010. All that was needed was a small residual force to prop up the ISF. Obama bailed. ISIS arose. Obama dithered. We had to go back & are still there (without a SOFA) with the small residual force Obama needed to leave a decade ago. Obama owns ISIS & all the death & destruction they wrought in Iraq & Syria,

I agree with Gen Kelly. Our civil war was due to an inability to compromise on a way to end slavery without resorting to war.
Europe & the rest of our hemisphere ended slavery without resorting to civil war.
Based on the way our nation was born, the Confederate states were within their rights to secede, just as the original states had rebelled.
How's that CA secession movement that you were touting coming ?

If that’s your perspective on the Civil War and slavery, then you are clearly a racist.

The South should have ended slavery ... period. Anything short of that was a crime against humanity.

The abolitionists in the North had compromised on slavery since the dawn of the nation. By 1860, it was long past time to end an evil institution that should have never existed in the first place.

The Civil War, from a moral perspective, was entirely the fault of the Confederacy.

DocBarrister

.. You took the bait (no surprise). If that's your interpretation of my post, it confirms you are the racist.
Europe & every other nation in our hemisphere abolished slavery without a massive bloodletting that was our Civil War.
It was a tragic failure by our govt leaders, extending back to the founders & before.
Don't you subscribe to 1619 & the original sin of our European forefathers ?

[ggait]

Ggait has a better handle on it than these folks.

I certainly have a better handle than a lying gator troll boy does!

John Kelly's COS says he didn't say it.

Wrong. Fuentes statement was that he did not hear it personally. Which makes sense because his primary statement was that he was not the source for the Atlantic story:

"You can put me on the record denying that I spoke to the Atlantic!"

Which is what Bolton also says:

"I didn't hear that," Bolton told The New York Times. "I'm not saying he didn't say them later in the day or another time, but I was there for that discussion."

FYI, NY Times is reporting Bolton's statement while also continuing to confirm Trump's dis of the troops.

And Goldberg's story indicates that Gen. Kelly is not the source. So Kelly's continued silence (in contrast to Fuentes' source denial) means only one thing.

Of course Trump said it. And Kelly and others heard it.

[old salt]

Interesting caveat...as long as we're a NATO member

Except that it's being reported (again) that Trump wanted out of NATO altogether. And who stopped him...yup those generals he just ripped yesterday.

But hey, it's "a lot easier" to contain Russian than in the old days...all you gotta do is invite them into the Middle East and they're "contained"...

The hypocrisy and double speak is so off the charts it's mind boggling...Trump crows about how much he's increased military spending, then says the generals are in the pockets of industry, want to have wars just want to make money...

and Salty supports it all...must have a bunch of military industry stocks in his retirement portfolio, I guess.

Reported by who ? The same unnamed sources ? Trump didn't have to approve all the NATO exercises & increased deployments of US forces.
The NATO Sec Gen credits his hectoring for other NATO members increasing their defense spending.
V Corps re-established, HQ CP heading to Fort Trump in Poland.
More capable missile defense USN destroyers headed to homeport in Spain.
B-52 bombing runs on Kalingrad & Crimea.
Javelins & warships to Ukraine.

Russia was in the middle east before Trump took office. Obama invited them in to save face after backing down over Assad's CW.
They're still contained in their Syrian quagmire, banging fenders with our troops who are safeguarding our Kurdish allies & their oil, which ensures their autonomy.

Only Boeing, purchased on the dip, for long term, following the Max grounding, based mainly on future airliner fleet modernization.

[old salt]

And Goldberg's story indicates that Gen. Kelly is not the source. So Kelly's continued silence (in contrast to Fuentes' source denial) means only one thing.

It means that Kelly, like Mattis, refuses to comment on his conversations with a still serving CinC,
even one who fired him & publicly criticizes him.

[MDlaxfan76]

yet so easy to say it didn't happen...Kelly doesn't need to comment whether he thinks Trump is a POS or not. Just say, 'The President didn't say that or anything like that to me".

And no, Mattis has not actually been entirely silent on other matters. He's "commented".

[dislaxxic]

Knowing Trump and his documented history, there is absolutely NO DOUBT that he said it and believes what he said.

Trump supporters, especially those with military backgrounds in our midst, remain silent about the "bone spurs" truth...remaining unconscionably silent and complicit in this moron CinC's behaviours.

..

[ggait]

And Goldberg's story indicates that Gen. Kelly is not the source. So Kelly's continued silence (in contrast to Fuentes' source denial) means only one thing.

It means that Kelly, like Mattis, refuses to comment on his conversations with a still serving CinC,
even one who fired him & publicly criticizes him.

Fuentes says he didn't hear it. Bolton says he didn't hear it.

I'm sure Trump would be ecstatic if Kelly would also say he didn't hear it. But Kelly hasn't done that. Although previously Kelly has talked about how Trump's character as a leader is sorely lacking:

“I think we need to look harder at who we elect,” Kelly told Anthony Scaramucci, a former White House communications director who has also turned against Trump, in a live-streamed interview on Friday. “I think we should look at people that are running for office and put them through the filter. What is their character like? What are their ethics?

And instead, Trump's VERY telling initial response:

1. Kelly is probably the source.
2. Kelly had no temperament, petered out, couldn't handle the pressure of his job. Did a bad job and I fired him.

So basically trying to discredit Kelly's credibility (as with almost all departed Trump staffers) as a disgruntled fired ex-employee with an axe to grind. Or, in other words, a..."loser."

Trump's behavior is extremely corroborative. He said it and Kelly heard it. So obvious.

[old salt]

yet so easy to say it didn't happen...Kelly doesn't need to comment whether he thinks Trump is a POS or not. Just say, 'The President didn't say that or anything like that to me".

And no, Mattis has not actually been entirely silent on other matters. He's "commented".

Once you open that door, you can't close it.

No comment -- I will neither confirm or deny.

Mattis has refused to comment on Trump.

[MDlaxfan76]

yet so easy to say it didn't happen...Kelly doesn't need to comment whether he thinks Trump is a POS or not. Just say, 'The President didn't say that or anything like that to me".

And no, Mattis has not actually been entirely silent on other matters. He's "commented".

Once you open that door, you can't close it.

No comment -- I will neither confirm or deny.

Mattis has refused to comment on Trump.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... on/612640/

[old salt]

yet so easy to say it didn't happen...Kelly doesn't need to comment whether he thinks Trump is a POS or not. Just say, 'The President didn't say that or anything like that to me".

And no, Mattis has not actually been entirely silent on other matters. He's "commented".

Once you open that door, you can't close it.

No comment -- I will neither confirm or deny.

Mattis has refused to comment on Trump.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... on/612640/

As Goldberg points out, Mattis refused until the WH siege, refusing during his lengthy book tour.
So why has his good friend Kelly not followed suit ?
As you say -- if Trump said it, it would be easy to confirm it.

[seacoaster]

yet so easy to say it didn't happen...Kelly doesn't need to comment whether he thinks Trump is a POS or not. Just say, 'The President didn't say that or anything like that to me".

And no, Mattis has not actually been entirely silent on other matters. He's "commented".

Once you open that door, you can't close it.

No comment -- I will neither confirm or deny.

Mattis has refused to comment on Trump.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... on/612640/

So why has his good friend Kelly not followed suit ?
As you say -- if Trump said it, it would be easy to confirm it.

Doesn't it stand to reason that General Kelly understands that many, perhaps most, people may interpret his silence as confirmation of the Trump statements rather than anything else? "I never heard the President say what is being attributed to him in that article." Do you not see that the absence of that easy statement, through a spokesperson or a media drop, seems confirmatory?

[old salt]

yet so easy to say it didn't happen...Kelly doesn't need to comment whether he thinks Trump is a POS or not. Just say, 'The President didn't say that or anything like that to me".

And no, Mattis has not actually been entirely silent on other matters. He's "commented".

Once you open that door, you can't close it.

No comment -- I will neither confirm or deny.

Mattis has refused to comment on Trump.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... on/612640/

As Goldberg points out, Mattis refused until the WH siege, refusing during his lengthy book tour.
So why has his good friend Kelly not followed suit ?
As you say -- if Trump said it, it would be easy to confirm it.

Doesn't it stand to reason that General Kelly understands that many, perhaps most, people may interpret his silence as confirmation of the Trump statements rather than anything else? "I never heard the President say what is being attributed to him in that article." Do you not see that the absence of that easy statement, through a spokesperson or a media drop, seems confirmatory?

It's not that simple. There were several things alleged in that article on different occasions. You comment on one, your silence on the others is misconstrued.

Kelly made it clear that he did not volunteer to return to govt service. He was asked to by his good friends Mattis & Dunford.
Based on the way he was treated by the media, & then by Trump, it is not surprising that he just wants to be left alone.
He never wanted to play these political/media gotcha games.

[DocBarrister]

Riveting discussion.
The ol' lax forum sure aint what she used to be.

Certain LP moderators who shall not be named prohibited any discussion of Trump’s racism, purportedly to avoid upsetting certain members of the LP readership (presumably, the racists).

Is it even possible to discuss Trump without discussing his racism?

I appreciated all the work the LP folks put into what was once the leading discussion forum for college lacrosse. Having said that, their indulgence of the racists in the lacrosse community was simply disgraceful.

DocBarrister

[old salt]

Riveting discussion.
The ol' lax forum sure aint what she used to be.

Certain LP moderators who shall not be named prohibited any discussion of Trump’s racism, purportedly to avoid upsetting certain members of the LP readership (presumably, the racists).

Is it even possible to discuss Trump without discussing his racism?

I appreciated all the work the LP folks put into what was once the leading discussion forum for college lacrosse. Having said that, their indulgence of the racists in the lacrosse community was simply disgraceful.

DocBarrister

You're right Doc, they cut you a lot of slack.

[seacoaster]

yet so easy to say it didn't happen...Kelly doesn't need to comment whether he thinks Trump is a POS or not. Just say, 'The President didn't say that or anything like that to me".

And no, Mattis has not actually been entirely silent on other matters. He's "commented".

Once you open that door, you can't close it.

No comment -- I will neither confirm or deny.

Mattis has refused to comment on Trump.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... on/612640/

As Goldberg points out, Mattis refused until the WH siege, refusing during his lengthy book tour.
So why has his good friend Kelly not followed suit ?
As you say -- if Trump said it, it would be easy to confirm it.

Doesn't it stand to reason that General Kelly understands that many, perhaps most, people may interpret his silence as confirmation of the Trump statements rather than anything else? "I never heard the President say what is being attributed to him in that article." Do you not see that the absence of that easy statement, through a spokesperson or a media drop, seems confirmatory?

It's not that simple. There were several things alleged in that article on different occasions. You comment on one, your silence on the others is misconstrued.

Kelly made it clear that he did not volunteer to return to govt service. He was asked to by his good friends Mattis & Dunford.
Based on the way he was treated by the media, & then by Trump, it is not surprising that he just wants to be left alone.
He never wanted to play these political/media gotcha games.

Totally get that, and I don't blame General Keely one bit for eschewing the media circus. By you understand what I am saying: his silence in the face of these astonishing comments attributed to the President are, I think, increasingly understood as confirmation. General Kelly doesn't need to play; he needs only to issue a statement consisting of the sentence I typed above. He could add: "I will have no further comment on this or my time as WH COS or as Secretary of the DHS."