JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial

[old salt]

That is such BS. You don't include options of that significance & import, hoping that they are not selected.
Anyone in the chop chain who did not realize that such an option would appeal to Trump, is not smart enough to be in such a position.
They may have been surprised that Trump chose it, but you don't put an option like that on the table unless you want it done.
Gen Milley left it on the list. How many soldiers do you think he lost to Iranian EFP's in Iraq ?

He keeps firing the competent guys, remember? Elections have consequences...

He is duly elected so he can fire whoever he wants. It's not illegal.

Pompeo, Esper, Milley & O'brien are doing a great job.
All in step. No personal agendas, no back biting, no leaks from them.
Trump's finally got a national security team, all pulling in the same direction
to implement the policies that got the President elected, rather than their own.
They might be smarter than Trump, but they don't feel the need to show him up to prove it.

Total delusion on your part. They take their orders from the IMPOTUS which explains why they are there and all the others have left. In the past few weeks, 5 senior DoD staffers quit because they could not keep doing this BS for the Dope in charge.

If the plan is really to withdraw why is IMPOTUS trying to intimidate the Iraqis into letting us remain by threatening sanctions and sending them a bill for our costs to build infrastructure to support operations?

Right now all our people are doing is self-defense and force protection. No training, no anti-ISIS operations. We don't have enough assets to monitor all locations across the region.

"No amount of evidence will EVER persuade an IDIOT" - Mark Twain

Force protection & self defense are always #1 priority.
No point in training ISF & further anti-ISIS ops until our forces are safe & the Iraqi govt agrees to protect then & rein in the PMF.
If they want our help & protection, they need to commit to doing their part.
You'll be leading the critics the first soldier we lose.

[old salt]

That is such BS. You don't include options of that significance & import, hoping that they are not selected.
Anyone in the chop chain who did not realize that such an option would appeal to Trump, is not smart enough to be in such a position.
They may have been surprised that Trump chose it, but you don't put an option like that on the table unless you want it done.
Gen Milley left it on the list. How many soldiers do you think he lost to Iranian EFP's in Iraq ?

He keeps firing the competent guys, remember? Elections have consequences...

He is duly elected so he can fire whoever he wants. It's not illegal.

Pompeo, Esper, Milley & O'brien are doing a great job.
All in step. No personal agendas, no back biting, no leaks from them.
Trump's finally got a national security team, all pulling in the same direction
to implement the policies that got the President elected, rather than their own.
They might be smarter than Trump, but they don't feel the need to show him up to prove it.

Wag the Dog ? How dare the President respond to Americans getting attacked & killed & our Embassy being attacked, just to distract us from Nancy's non-impeachment ? Joy Reid told us this is would be Trump's Benghazi.

Dude you have issues, but at least you didn't sex shame these women this time. Or did you?

"All in step"???? You must have missed Pomepo on the talk shows yesterday...

Dude ? Stop being sexist.

[Typical Lax Dad]

That is such BS. You don't include options of that significance & import, hoping that they are not selected.
Anyone in the chop chain who did not realize that such an option would appeal to Trump, is not smart enough to be in such a position.
They may have been surprised that Trump chose it, but you don't put an option like that on the table unless you want it done.
Gen Milley left it on the list. How many soldiers do you think he lost to Iranian EFP's in Iraq ?

He keeps firing the competent guys, remember? Elections have consequences...

He is duly elected so he can fire whoever he wants. It's not illegal.

Pompeo, Esper, Milley & O'brien are doing a great job.
All in step. No personal agendas, no back biting, no leaks from them.
Trump's finally got a national security team, all pulling in the same direction
to implement the policies that got the President elected, rather than their own.
They might be smarter than Trump, but they don't feel the need to show him up to prove it.

Wag the Dog ? How dare the President respond to Americans getting attacked & killed & our Embassy being attacked, just to distract us from Nancy's non-impeachment ? Joy Reid told us this is would be Trump's Benghazi.

I never typed the words “wag the dog”. You are lying. Who said the POTUS isn’t allowed to “respond”. No bottom.

Never said you did. Crybaby.
I was responding to your trollsnark about firing advisers who resist or undermine his policies.
Didn't feel like doing 2 posts.

I said he can fire whomever he wishes. Is that not true Cry-old man.

[old salt]

That is such BS. You don't include options of that significance & import, hoping that they are not selected.
Anyone in the chop chain who did not realize that such an option would appeal to Trump, is not smart enough to be in such a position.
They may have been surprised that Trump chose it, but you don't put an option like that on the table unless you want it done.
Gen Milley left it on the list. How many soldiers do you think he lost to Iranian EFP's in Iraq ?

He keeps firing the competent guys, remember? Elections have consequences...

He is duly elected so he can fire whoever he wants. It's not illegal.

Pompeo, Esper, Milley & O'brien are doing a great job.
All in step. No personal agendas, no back biting, no leaks from them.
Trump's finally got a national security team, all pulling in the same direction
to implement the policies that got the President elected, rather than their own.
They might be smarter than Trump, but they don't feel the need to show him up to prove it.

Wag the Dog ? How dare the President respond to Americans getting attacked & killed & our Embassy being attacked, just to distract us from Nancy's non-impeachment ? Joy Reid told us this is would be Trump's Benghazi.

I never typed the words “wag the dog”. You are lying. Who said the POTUS isn’t allowed to “respond”. No bottom.

Never said you did. Crybaby.
I was responding to your trollsnark about firing advisers who resist or undermine his policies.
Didn't feel like doing 2 posts.

I said he can fire whomever he wishes. Is that not true Cry-old man.

It's never clear what your saying with your troll snark.
Re. wag the dog -- I confused you with Lizzy Warren.

[Typical Lax Dad]

That is such BS. You don't include options of that significance & import, hoping that they are not selected.
Anyone in the chop chain who did not realize that such an option would appeal to Trump, is not smart enough to be in such a position.
They may have been surprised that Trump chose it, but you don't put an option like that on the table unless you want it done.
Gen Milley left it on the list. How many soldiers do you think he lost to Iranian EFP's in Iraq ?

He keeps firing the competent guys, remember? Elections have consequences...

He is duly elected so he can fire whoever he wants. It's not illegal.

Pompeo, Esper, Milley & O'brien are doing a great job.
All in step. No personal agendas, no back biting, no leaks from them.
Trump's finally got a national security team, all pulling in the same direction
to implement the policies that got the President elected, rather than their own.
They might be smarter than Trump, but they don't feel the need to show him up to prove it.

Wag the Dog ? How dare the President respond to Americans getting attacked & killed & our Embassy being attacked, just to distract us from Nancy's non-impeachment ? Joy Reid told us this is would be Trump's Benghazi.

I never typed the words “wag the dog”. You are lying. Who said the POTUS isn’t allowed to “respond”. No bottom.

Never said you did. Crybaby.
I was responding to your trollsnark about firing advisers who resist or undermine his policies.
Didn't feel like doing 2 posts.

I said he can fire whomever he wishes. Is that not true Cry-old man.

It's never clear what your saying with your troll snark.
Re. wag the dog -- I confused you with Lizzy Warren.

Don’t belong I have ever typed or uttered that phrase in my life.

[MDlaxfan76]

That is such BS. You don't include options of that significance & import, hoping that they are not selected.
Anyone in the chop chain who did not realize that such an option would appeal to Trump, is not smart enough to be in such a position.
They may have been surprised that Trump chose it, but you don't put an option like that on the table unless you want it done.
Gen Milley left it on the list. How many soldiers do you think he lost to Iranian EFP's in Iraq ?

He keeps firing the competent guys, remember? Elections have consequences...

He is duly elected so he can fire whoever he wants. It's not illegal.

Pompeo, Esper, Milley & O'brien are doing a great job.
All in step. No personal agendas, no back biting, no leaks from them.
Trump's finally got a national security team, all pulling in the same direction
to implement the policies that got the President elected, rather than their own.
They might be smarter than Trump, but they don't feel the need to show him up to prove it.

Wag the Dog ? How dare the President respond to Americans getting attacked & killed & our Embassy being attacked, just to distract us from Nancy's non-impeachment ? Joy Reid told us this is would be Trump's Benghazi.

I never typed the words “wag the dog”. You are lying. Who said the POTUS isn’t allowed to “respond”. No bottom.

Never said you did. Crybaby.
I was responding to your trollsnark about firing advisers who resist or undermine his policies.
Didn't feel like doing 2 posts.

I said he can fire whomever he wishes. Is that not true Cry-old man.

It's never clear what your saying with your troll snark.
Re. wag the dog -- I confused you with Lizzy Warren.

Don’t belong I have ever typed or uttered that phrase in my life.

I did.
I continue to think the various strikes, including this one, were at least influenced by the looming impeachment.
Impeachment is clearly driving Trump a bit batty, just look at the huge volume of angry, wild tweets over the holidays.

The 5 strikes were over kill, as was this one, IMO.
Were they legal is a different question, but not relevant to the question of Trump wanting to change the subject, being a 'tough guy'.
It's not the fact that there was a response, it was that the most extreme choices were chosen.

So, why the most extreme choices, at this moment, but not earlier?
The explanations about these decisions, and Trump's pronouncements himself, seem to only bolster this 'wag the dog' reason.
Add to that Trump tweeting and talking wildly about "cultural" sites and charging the Iraqis...nutso.

I watched Warren dance around this 'wag the dog' accusation yesterday, all but saying it, but not quite. I was not at all impressed.

I don't like her as it is, but if she so obviously wanted to infer the accusation, why not just say that it's the best explanation we have at this point, given how the Administration is not providing a credible rationale (to those cleared in Congress to hear it) as to the timing?

Say it bluntly. Or don't say it at all.

It doesn't mean that you can't say you are open to an alternative, credible and fact-based explanation... you just haven't heard it yet.

[Typical Lax Dad]

That is such BS. You don't include options of that significance & import, hoping that they are not selected.
Anyone in the chop chain who did not realize that such an option would appeal to Trump, is not smart enough to be in such a position.
They may have been surprised that Trump chose it, but you don't put an option like that on the table unless you want it done.
Gen Milley left it on the list. How many soldiers do you think he lost to Iranian EFP's in Iraq ?

He keeps firing the competent guys, remember? Elections have consequences...

He is duly elected so he can fire whoever he wants. It's not illegal.

Pompeo, Esper, Milley & O'brien are doing a great job.
All in step. No personal agendas, no back biting, no leaks from them.
Trump's finally got a national security team, all pulling in the same direction
to implement the policies that got the President elected, rather than their own.
They might be smarter than Trump, but they don't feel the need to show him up to prove it.

Wag the Dog ? How dare the President respond to Americans getting attacked & killed & our Embassy being attacked, just to distract us from Nancy's non-impeachment ? Joy Reid told us this is would be Trump's Benghazi.

I never typed the words “wag the dog”. You are lying. Who said the POTUS isn’t allowed to “respond”. No bottom.

Never said you did. Crybaby.
I was responding to your trollsnark about firing advisers who resist or undermine his policies.
Didn't feel like doing 2 posts.

I said he can fire whomever he wishes. Is that not true Cry-old man.

It's never clear what your saying with your troll snark.
Re. wag the dog -- I confused you with Lizzy Warren.

Don’t belong I have ever typed or uttered that phrase in my life.

I did.
I continue to think the various strikes, including this one, were at least influenced by the looming impeachment.
Impeachment is clearly driving Trump a bit batty, just look at the huge volume of angry, wild tweets over the holidays.

The 5 strikes were over kill, as was this one, IMO.
Were they legal is a different question, but not relevant to the question of Trump wanting to change the subject, being a 'tough guy'.
It's not the fact that there was a response, it was that the most extreme choices were chosen.

So, why the most extreme choices, at this moment, but not earlier?
The explanations about these decisions, and Trump's pronouncements himself, seem to only bolster this 'wag the dog' reason.
Add to that Trump tweeting and talking wildly about "cultural" sites and charging the Iraqis...nutso.

I watched Warren dance around this 'wag the dog' accusation yesterday, all but saying it, but not quite. I was not at all impressed.

I don't like her as it is, but if she so obviously wanted to infer the accusation, why not just say that it's the best explanation we have at this point, given how the Administration is not providing a credible rationale (to those cleared in Congress to hear it) as to the timing?

Say it bluntly. Or don't say it at all.

It doesn't mean that you can't say you are open to an alternative, credible and fact-based explanation... you just haven't heard it yet.

I would have used “distraction” or “change the news cycle” I just don’t use “wag the dog”....probably because I never saw the movie. I also didn’t see “Lizzy” Warren on TV this past weekend. Between football, basketball and the gym, I didn’t see much, if any, analysis on TV.

[MDlaxfan76]

That is such BS. You don't include options of that significance & import, hoping that they are not selected.
Anyone in the chop chain who did not realize that such an option would appeal to Trump, is not smart enough to be in such a position.
They may have been surprised that Trump chose it, but you don't put an option like that on the table unless you want it done.
Gen Milley left it on the list. How many soldiers do you think he lost to Iranian EFP's in Iraq ?

He keeps firing the competent guys, remember? Elections have consequences...

He is duly elected so he can fire whoever he wants. It's not illegal.

Pompeo, Esper, Milley & O'brien are doing a great job.
All in step. No personal agendas, no back biting, no leaks from them.
Trump's finally got a national security team, all pulling in the same direction
to implement the policies that got the President elected, rather than their own.
They might be smarter than Trump, but they don't feel the need to show him up to prove it.

Wag the Dog ? How dare the President respond to Americans getting attacked & killed & our Embassy being attacked, just to distract us from Nancy's non-impeachment ? Joy Reid told us this is would be Trump's Benghazi.

I never typed the words “wag the dog”. You are lying. Who said the POTUS isn’t allowed to “respond”. No bottom.

Never said you did. Crybaby.
I was responding to your trollsnark about firing advisers who resist or undermine his policies.
Didn't feel like doing 2 posts.

I said he can fire whomever he wishes. Is that not true Cry-old man.

It's never clear what your saying with your troll snark.
Re. wag the dog -- I confused you with Lizzy Warren.

Don’t belong I have ever typed or uttered that phrase in my life.

I did.
I continue to think the various strikes, including this one, were at least influenced by the looming impeachment.
Impeachment is clearly driving Trump a bit batty, just look at the huge volume of angry, wild tweets over the holidays.

The 5 strikes were over kill, as was this one, IMO.
Were they legal is a different question, but not relevant to the question of Trump wanting to change the subject, being a 'tough guy'.
It's not the fact that there was a response, it was that the most extreme choices were chosen.

So, why the most extreme choices, at this moment, but not earlier?
The explanations about these decisions, and Trump's pronouncements himself, seem to only bolster this 'wag the dog' reason.
Add to that Trump tweeting and talking wildly about "cultural" sites and charging the Iraqis...nutso.

I watched Warren dance around this 'wag the dog' accusation yesterday, all but saying it, but not quite. I was not at all impressed.

I don't like her as it is, but if she so obviously wanted to infer the accusation, why not just say that it's the best explanation we have at this point, given how the Administration is not providing a credible rationale (to those cleared in Congress to hear it) as to the timing?

Say it bluntly. Or don't say it at all.

It doesn't mean that you can't say you are open to an alternative, credible and fact-based explanation... you just haven't heard it yet.

I would have used “distraction” or “change the news cycle” I just don’t use “wag the dog”....probably because I never saw the movie. I also didn’t see “Lizzy” Warren on TV this past weekend. Between football, basketball and the gym, I didn’t see much, if any, analysis on TV.

Agreed. Those are indeed the meaning of the pop culture phrase.
And by "you" in the last part of my post I was speaking of Warren, not you.

[CU88]

That is such BS. You don't include options of that significance & import, hoping that they are not selected.
Anyone in the chop chain who did not realize that such an option would appeal to Trump, is not smart enough to be in such a position.
They may have been surprised that Trump chose it, but you don't put an option like that on the table unless you want it done.
Gen Milley left it on the list. How many soldiers do you think he lost to Iranian EFP's in Iraq ?

He keeps firing the competent guys, remember? Elections have consequences...

He is duly elected so he can fire whoever he wants. It's not illegal.

Pompeo, Esper, Milley & O'brien are doing a great job.
All in step. No personal agendas, no back biting, no leaks from them.
Trump's finally got a national security team, all pulling in the same direction
to implement the policies that got the President elected, rather than their own.
They might be smarter than Trump, but they don't feel the need to show him up to prove it.

Wag the Dog ? How dare the President respond to Americans getting attacked & killed & our Embassy being attacked, just to distract us from Nancy's non-impeachment ? Joy Reid told us this is would be Trump's Benghazi.

Dude you have issues, but at least you didn't sex shame these women this time. Or did you?

"All in step"???? You must have missed Pomepo on the talk shows yesterday...

Dude ? Stop being sexist.

Well said

[Typical Lax Dad]

That is such BS. You don't include options of that significance & import, hoping that they are not selected.
Anyone in the chop chain who did not realize that such an option would appeal to Trump, is not smart enough to be in such a position.
They may have been surprised that Trump chose it, but you don't put an option like that on the table unless you want it done.
Gen Milley left it on the list. How many soldiers do you think he lost to Iranian EFP's in Iraq ?

He keeps firing the competent guys, remember? Elections have consequences...

He is duly elected so he can fire whoever he wants. It's not illegal.

Pompeo, Esper, Milley & O'brien are doing a great job.
All in step. No personal agendas, no back biting, no leaks from them.
Trump's finally got a national security team, all pulling in the same direction
to implement the policies that got the President elected, rather than their own.
They might be smarter than Trump, but they don't feel the need to show him up to prove it.

Wag the Dog ? How dare the President respond to Americans getting attacked & killed & our Embassy being attacked, just to distract us from Nancy's non-impeachment ? Joy Reid told us this is would be Trump's Benghazi.

I never typed the words “wag the dog”. You are lying. Who said the POTUS isn’t allowed to “respond”. No bottom.

Never said you did. Crybaby.
I was responding to your trollsnark about firing advisers who resist or undermine his policies.
Didn't feel like doing 2 posts.

I said he can fire whomever he wishes. Is that not true Cry-old man.

It's never clear what your saying with your troll snark.
Re. wag the dog -- I confused you with Lizzy Warren.

Don’t belong I have ever typed or uttered that phrase in my life.

I did.
I continue to think the various strikes, including this one, were at least influenced by the looming impeachment.
Impeachment is clearly driving Trump a bit batty, just look at the huge volume of angry, wild tweets over the holidays.

The 5 strikes were over kill, as was this one, IMO.
Were they legal is a different question, but not relevant to the question of Trump wanting to change the subject, being a 'tough guy'.
It's not the fact that there was a response, it was that the most extreme choices were chosen.

So, why the most extreme choices, at this moment, but not earlier?
The explanations about these decisions, and Trump's pronouncements himself, seem to only bolster this 'wag the dog' reason.
Add to that Trump tweeting and talking wildly about "cultural" sites and charging the Iraqis...nutso.

I watched Warren dance around this 'wag the dog' accusation yesterday, all but saying it, but not quite. I was not at all impressed.

I don't like her as it is, but if she so obviously wanted to infer the accusation, why not just say that it's the best explanation we have at this point, given how the Administration is not providing a credible rationale (to those cleared in Congress to hear it) as to the timing?

Say it bluntly. Or don't say it at all.

It doesn't mean that you can't say you are open to an alternative, credible and fact-based explanation... you just haven't heard it yet.

I would have used “distraction” or “change the news cycle” I just don’t use “wag the dog”....probably because I never saw the movie. I also didn’t see “Lizzy” Warren on TV this past weekend. Between football, basketball and the gym, I didn’t see much, if any, analysis on TV.

Agreed. Those are indeed the meaning of the pop culture phrase.
And by "you" in the last part of my post I was speaking of Warren, not you.

Yes. I understand. Old Salt may have been under the impression that I was sitting around watching a lot of TV, since he mentioned Joy Reid and Lizzy Warren in posts directed at me. I usually ended up reading the subtitles while at the gym as there are multiple TV sets with no volume. I am usually in front of a game and will watch the headlines unfold.

[Kismet]

That is such BS. You don't include options of that significance & import, hoping that they are not selected.
Anyone in the chop chain who did not realize that such an option would appeal to Trump, is not smart enough to be in such a position.
They may have been surprised that Trump chose it, but you don't put an option like that on the table unless you want it done.
Gen Milley left it on the list. How many soldiers do you think he lost to Iranian EFP's in Iraq ?

He keeps firing the competent guys, remember? Elections have consequences...

He is duly elected so he can fire whoever he wants. It's not illegal.

Pompeo, Esper, Milley & O'brien are doing a great job.
All in step. No personal agendas, no back biting, no leaks from them.
Trump's finally got a national security team, all pulling in the same direction
to implement the policies that got the President elected, rather than their own.
They might be smarter than Trump, but they don't feel the need to show him up to prove it.

These brilliant geniuses get exposed today when the Iraqi PM's office leaks an official letter from Marine Corps General in command in Iraq to his counterpart in IDF with details of withdrawal of US Troops from country and what to expect in terms of movements and air traffic. This then forces Gen Milley to issue this statement: Joint Chiefs Chair GEN Milley: “That letter is a draft it was a mistake, it was unsigned, it should not have been released…poorly worded, implies withdrawal, that is not what’s happening” - nice to throw your local USMC commander under the bus, General.

Amateur hour continues but I'm sure Salty will find a way to place lipstick on this pig.......

...oh and we also lost one soldier and two contractors dead at a Kenyan airfield. Attack left six aircraft and helicopters damaged or destroyed.an attack from Al-Shabab militants. This includes a secretive U.S. military de Havilland Dash-8 twin-engine turboprop configured for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions.

[Trinity]

Pompeo pretended he didn’t know about the Ukraine shakedown. Turns out he was on the call. He has zero credibility. None. Send him home. If this is gonna be war, get the whole country and some allies on our side.

[old salt]

That is such BS. You don't include options of that significance & import, hoping that they are not selected.
Anyone in the chop chain who did not realize that such an option would appeal to Trump, is not smart enough to be in such a position.
They may have been surprised that Trump chose it, but you don't put an option like that on the table unless you want it done.
Gen Milley left it on the list. How many soldiers do you think he lost to Iranian EFP's in Iraq ?

He keeps firing the competent guys, remember? Elections have consequences...

He is duly elected so he can fire whoever he wants. It's not illegal.

Pompeo, Esper, Milley & O'brien are doing a great job.
All in step. No personal agendas, no back biting, no leaks from them.
Trump's finally got a national security team, all pulling in the same direction
to implement the policies that got the President elected, rather than their own.
They might be smarter than Trump, but they don't feel the need to show him up to prove it.

Wag the Dog ? How dare the President respond to Americans getting attacked & killed & our Embassy being attacked, just to distract us from Nancy's non-impeachment ? Joy Reid told us this is would be Trump's Benghazi.

I never typed the words “wag the dog”. You are lying. Who said the POTUS isn’t allowed to “respond”. No bottom.

Never said you did. Crybaby.
I was responding to your trollsnark about firing advisers who resist or undermine his policies.
Didn't feel like doing 2 posts.

I said he can fire whomever he wishes. Is that not true Cry-old man.

It's never clear what your saying with your troll snark.
Re. wag the dog -- I confused you with Lizzy Warren.

Don’t belong I have ever typed or uttered that phrase in my life.

I did.
I continue to think the various strikes, including this one, were at least influenced by the looming impeachment.
Impeachment is clearly driving Trump a bit batty, just look at the huge volume of angry, wild tweets over the holidays.

The 5 strikes were over kill, as was this one, IMO.
Were they legal is a different question, but not relevant to the question of Trump wanting to change the subject, being a 'tough guy'.
It's not the fact that there was a response, it was that the most extreme choices were chosen.

So, why the most extreme choices, at this moment, but not earlier?
The explanations about these decisions, and Trump's pronouncements himself, seem to only bolster this 'wag the dog' reason.
Add to that Trump tweeting and talking wildly about "cultural" sites and charging the Iraqis...nutso.

I watched Warren dance around this 'wag the dog' accusation yesterday, all but saying it, but not quite. I was not at all impressed.

I don't like her as it is, but if she so obviously wanted to infer the accusation, why not just say that it's the best explanation we have at this point, given how the Administration is not providing a credible rationale (to those cleared in Congress to hear it) as to the timing?

Say it bluntly. Or don't say it at all.

It doesn't mean that you can't say you are open to an alternative, credible and fact-based explanation... you just haven't heard it yet.

I would have used “distraction” or “change the news cycle” I just don’t use “wag the dog”....probably because I never saw the movie. I also didn’t see “Lizzy” Warren on TV this past weekend. Between football, basketball and the gym, I didn’t see much, if any, analysis on TV.

Agreed. Those are indeed the meaning of the pop culture phrase.
And by "you" in the last part of my post I was speaking of Warren, not you.

Yes. I understand. Old Salt may have been under the impression that I was sitting around watching a lot of TV, since he mentioned Joy Reid and Lizzy Warren in posts directed at me. I usually ended up reading the subtitles while at the gym as there are multiple TV sets with no volume. I am usually in front of a game and will watch the headlines unfold.

It wasn't directed at you. It was a general statement. Stop playing the victim.
You insert yourself by posting irrelevant troll snark IRT to my every post.
Don't cry if you get fragged when I respond.

[Typical Lax Dad]

That is such BS. You don't include options of that significance & import, hoping that they are not selected.
Anyone in the chop chain who did not realize that such an option would appeal to Trump, is not smart enough to be in such a position.
They may have been surprised that Trump chose it, but you don't put an option like that on the table unless you want it done.
Gen Milley left it on the list. How many soldiers do you think he lost to Iranian EFP's in Iraq ?

He keeps firing the competent guys, remember? Elections have consequences...

He is duly elected so he can fire whoever he wants. It's not illegal.

Pompeo, Esper, Milley & O'brien are doing a great job.
All in step. No personal agendas, no back biting, no leaks from them.
Trump's finally got a national security team, all pulling in the same direction
to implement the policies that got the President elected, rather than their own.
They might be smarter than Trump, but they don't feel the need to show him up to prove it.

Wag the Dog ? How dare the President respond to Americans getting attacked & killed & our Embassy being attacked, just to distract us from Nancy's non-impeachment ? Joy Reid told us this is would be Trump's Benghazi.

I never typed the words “wag the dog”. You are lying. Who said the POTUS isn’t allowed to “respond”. No bottom.

Never said you did. Crybaby.
I was responding to your trollsnark about firing advisers who resist or undermine his policies.
Didn't feel like doing 2 posts.

I said he can fire whomever he wishes. Is that not true Cry-old man.

It's never clear what your saying with your troll snark.
Re. wag the dog -- I confused you with Lizzy Warren.

Don’t belong I have ever typed or uttered that phrase in my life.

I did.
I continue to think the various strikes, including this one, were at least influenced by the looming impeachment.
Impeachment is clearly driving Trump a bit batty, just look at the huge volume of angry, wild tweets over the holidays.

The 5 strikes were over kill, as was this one, IMO.
Were they legal is a different question, but not relevant to the question of Trump wanting to change the subject, being a 'tough guy'.
It's not the fact that there was a response, it was that the most extreme choices were chosen.

So, why the most extreme choices, at this moment, but not earlier?
The explanations about these decisions, and Trump's pronouncements himself, seem to only bolster this 'wag the dog' reason.
Add to that Trump tweeting and talking wildly about "cultural" sites and charging the Iraqis...nutso.

I watched Warren dance around this 'wag the dog' accusation yesterday, all but saying it, but not quite. I was not at all impressed.

I don't like her as it is, but if she so obviously wanted to infer the accusation, why not just say that it's the best explanation we have at this point, given how the Administration is not providing a credible rationale (to those cleared in Congress to hear it) as to the timing?

Say it bluntly. Or don't say it at all.

It doesn't mean that you can't say you are open to an alternative, credible and fact-based explanation... you just haven't heard it yet.

I would have used “distraction” or “change the news cycle” I just don’t use “wag the dog”....probably because I never saw the movie. I also didn’t see “Lizzy” Warren on TV this past weekend. Between football, basketball and the gym, I didn’t see much, if any, analysis on TV.

Agreed. Those are indeed the meaning of the pop culture phrase.
And by "you" in the last part of my post I was speaking of Warren, not you.

Yes. I understand. Old Salt may have been under the impression that I was sitting around watching a lot of TV, since he mentioned Joy Reid and Lizzy Warren in posts directed at me. I usually ended up reading the subtitles while at the gym as there are multiple TV sets with no volume. I am usually in front of a game and will watch the headlines unfold.

It wasn't directed at you. It was a general statement. Stop playing the victim.
You insert yourself by posting irrelevant troll snark IRT to my every post.
Don't cry if you get fragged when I respond.

I have nothing in my life that would point to me
being a victim. I just pointed out that I had not used that language since it appeared that your post was directed at me. Your post was tame. I was just setting the record straight. Not sure what makes you think I am interested in playing a victim. Got mine with hard work and perseverance.....we good.

[old salt]

That is such BS. You don't include options of that significance & import, hoping that they are not selected.
Anyone in the chop chain who did not realize that such an option would appeal to Trump, is not smart enough to be in such a position.
They may have been surprised that Trump chose it, but you don't put an option like that on the table unless you want it done.
Gen Milley left it on the list. How many soldiers do you think he lost to Iranian EFP's in Iraq ?

He keeps firing the competent guys, remember? Elections have consequences...

He is duly elected so he can fire whoever he wants. It's not illegal.

Pompeo, Esper, Milley & O'brien are doing a great job.
All in step. No personal agendas, no back biting, no leaks from them.
Trump's finally got a national security team, all pulling in the same direction
to implement the policies that got the President elected, rather than their own.
They might be smarter than Trump, but they don't feel the need to show him up to prove it.

These brilliant geniuses get exposed today when the Iraqi PM's office leaks an official letter from Marine Corps General in command in Iraq to his counterpart in IDF with details of withdrawal of US Troops from country and what to expect in terms of movements and air traffic. This then forces Gen Milley to issue this statement: Joint Chiefs Chair GEN Milley: “That letter is a draft it was a mistake, it was unsigned, it should not have been released…poorly worded, implies withdrawal, that is not what’s happening” - nice to throw your local USMC commander under the bus, General.

Amateur hour continues but I'm sure Salty will find a way to place lipstick on this pig.......

...oh and we also lost one soldier and two contractors dead at a Kenyan airfield. Attack left six aircraft and helicopters damaged or destroyed.an attack from Al-Shabab militants. This includes a secretive U.S. military de Havilland Dash-8 twin-engine turboprop configured for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions.

Just what did your bombshell leak du jour expose ? That we have a withdrawal plan, in case we're ordered to leave, that we're coordinating with Iraqi military counterparts. That were repositioning & massing our forces for self defense. Shocking !

Reading the letter, there may be a pro-forma rqmt to notify the IMOD anytime we reposition forces within Iraq.
Esper said we're repositioning forces within the region. It may have to do with moving more combat troops into the Green Zone from elsewhere in Iraq & Kuwait.
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2020/0 ... eave-iraq/
https://twitter.com/LizSly/status/1214278172872544256

[MDlaxfan76]

That is such BS. You don't include options of that significance & import, hoping that they are not selected.
Anyone in the chop chain who did not realize that such an option would appeal to Trump, is not smart enough to be in such a position.
They may have been surprised that Trump chose it, but you don't put an option like that on the table unless you want it done.
Gen Milley left it on the list. How many soldiers do you think he lost to Iranian EFP's in Iraq ?

He keeps firing the competent guys, remember? Elections have consequences...

He is duly elected so he can fire whoever he wants. It's not illegal.

Pompeo, Esper, Milley & O'brien are doing a great job.
All in step. No personal agendas, no back biting, no leaks from them.
Trump's finally got a national security team, all pulling in the same direction
to implement the policies that got the President elected, rather than their own.
They might be smarter than Trump, but they don't feel the need to show him up to prove it.

Wag the Dog ? How dare the President respond to Americans getting attacked & killed & our Embassy being attacked, just to distract us from Nancy's non-impeachment ? Joy Reid told us this is would be Trump's Benghazi.

I never typed the words “wag the dog”. You are lying. Who said the POTUS isn’t allowed to “respond”. No bottom.

Never said you did. Crybaby.
I was responding to your trollsnark about firing advisers who resist or undermine his policies.
Didn't feel like doing 2 posts.

I said he can fire whomever he wishes. Is that not true Cry-old man.

It's never clear what your saying with your troll snark.
Re. wag the dog -- I confused you with Lizzy Warren.

Don’t belong I have ever typed or uttered that phrase in my life.

I did.
I continue to think the various strikes, including this one, were at least influenced by the looming impeachment.
Impeachment is clearly driving Trump a bit batty, just look at the huge volume of angry, wild tweets over the holidays.

The 5 strikes were over kill, as was this one, IMO.
Were they legal is a different question, but not relevant to the question of Trump wanting to change the subject, being a 'tough guy'.
It's not the fact that there was a response, it was that the most extreme choices were chosen.

So, why the most extreme choices, at this moment, but not earlier?
The explanations about these decisions, and Trump's pronouncements himself, seem to only bolster this 'wag the dog' reason.
Add to that Trump tweeting and talking wildly about "cultural" sites and charging the Iraqis...nutso.

I watched Warren dance around this 'wag the dog' accusation yesterday, all but saying it, but not quite. I was not at all impressed.

I don't like her as it is, but if she so obviously wanted to infer the accusation, why not just say that it's the best explanation we have at this point, given how the Administration is not providing a credible rationale (to those cleared in Congress to hear it) as to the timing?

Say it bluntly. Or don't say it at all.

It doesn't mean that you can't say you are open to an alternative, credible and fact-based explanation... you just haven't heard it yet.

I would have used “distraction” or “change the news cycle” I just don’t use “wag the dog”....probably because I never saw the movie. I also didn’t see “Lizzy” Warren on TV this past weekend. Between football, basketball and the gym, I didn’t see much, if any, analysis on TV.

Agreed. Those are indeed the meaning of the pop culture phrase.
And by "you" in the last part of my post I was speaking of Warren, not you.

Yes. I understand. Old Salt may have been under the impression that I was sitting around watching a lot of TV, since he mentioned Joy Reid and Lizzy Warren in posts directed at me. I usually ended up reading the subtitles while at the gym as there are multiple TV sets with no volume. I am usually in front of a game and will watch the headlines unfold.

It wasn't directed at you. It was a general statement. Stop playing the victim.
You insert yourself by posting irrelevant troll snark IRT to my every post.
Don't cry if you get fragged when I respond.

I have nothing in my life that would point to me
being a victim. I just pointed out that I had not used that language since it appeared that your post was directed at me. Your post was tame. I was just setting the record straight. Not sure what makes you think I am interested in playing a victim. Got mine with hard work and perseverance.....we good.

it's projection, TLD.

[old salt]

That is such BS. You don't include options of that significance & import, hoping that they are not selected.
Anyone in the chop chain who did not realize that such an option would appeal to Trump, is not smart enough to be in such a position.
They may have been surprised that Trump chose it, but you don't put an option like that on the table unless you want it done.
Gen Milley left it on the list. How many soldiers do you think he lost to Iranian EFP's in Iraq ?

He keeps firing the competent guys, remember? Elections have consequences...

He is duly elected so he can fire whoever he wants. It's not illegal.

Pompeo, Esper, Milley & O'brien are doing a great job.
All in step. No personal agendas, no back biting, no leaks from them.
Trump's finally got a national security team, all pulling in the same direction
to implement the policies that got the President elected, rather than their own.
They might be smarter than Trump, but they don't feel the need to show him up to prove it.

Wag the Dog ? How dare the President respond to Americans getting attacked & killed & our Embassy being attacked, just to distract us from Nancy's non-impeachment ? Joy Reid told us this is would be Trump's Benghazi.

I never typed the words “wag the dog”. You are lying. Who said the POTUS isn’t allowed to “respond”. No bottom.

Never said you did. Crybaby.
I was responding to your trollsnark about firing advisers who resist or undermine his policies.
Didn't feel like doing 2 posts.

I said he can fire whomever he wishes. Is that not true Cry-old man.

It's never clear what your saying with your troll snark.
Re. wag the dog -- I confused you with Lizzy Warren.

Don’t belong I have ever typed or uttered that phrase in my life.

I did.
I continue to think the various strikes, including this one, were at least influenced by the looming impeachment.
Impeachment is clearly driving Trump a bit batty, just look at the huge volume of angry, wild tweets over the holidays.

The 5 strikes were over kill, as was this one, IMO.
Were they legal is a different question, but not relevant to the question of Trump wanting to change the subject, being a 'tough guy'.
It's not the fact that there was a response, it was that the most extreme choices were chosen.

So, why the most extreme choices, at this moment, but not earlier?
The explanations about these decisions, and Trump's pronouncements himself, seem to only bolster this 'wag the dog' reason.
Add to that Trump tweeting and talking wildly about "cultural" sites and charging the Iraqis...nutso.

I watched Warren dance around this 'wag the dog' accusation yesterday, all but saying it, but not quite. I was not at all impressed.

I don't like her as it is, but if she so obviously wanted to infer the accusation, why not just say that it's the best explanation we have at this point, given how the Administration is not providing a credible rationale (to those cleared in Congress to hear it) as to the timing?

Say it bluntly. Or don't say it at all.

It doesn't mean that you can't say you are open to an alternative, credible and fact-based explanation... you just haven't heard it yet.

I would have used “distraction” or “change the news cycle” I just don’t use “wag the dog”....probably because I never saw the movie. I also didn’t see “Lizzy” Warren on TV this past weekend. Between football, basketball and the gym, I didn’t see much, if any, analysis on TV.

Agreed. Those are indeed the meaning of the pop culture phrase.
And by "you" in the last part of my post I was speaking of Warren, not you.

Yes. I understand. Old Salt may have been under the impression that I was sitting around watching a lot of TV, since he mentioned Joy Reid and Lizzy Warren in posts directed at me. I usually ended up reading the subtitles while at the gym as there are multiple TV sets with no volume. I am usually in front of a game and will watch the headlines unfold.

It wasn't directed at you. It was a general statement. Stop playing the victim.
You insert yourself by posting irrelevant troll snark IRT to my every post.
Don't cry if you get fragged when I respond.

I have nothing in my life that would point to me
being a victim. I just pointed out that I had not used that language since it appeared that your post was directed at me. Your post was tame. I was just setting the record straight. Not sure what makes you think I am interested in playing a victim. Got mine with hard work and perseverance.....we good.

it's projection, TLD.

...more gratuitous trolling.

[MDlaxfan76]

The constant aggression from you, the snarky comments about others, is what draws the responses Salty.
Don't whine or "cry when you get fragged".

[a fan]

If I’m sitting in Tehran, I’m thinking that it would be a great idea to take some hostages and make Trump a one term president.

It will take a long time to find out what the consequences are. But there’s so little reason to believe that trump is being truthful, well informed, or wise.

Trump properties. That's what I'd hit.

And a few days later.....


https://anewspost.com/iranian-president ... bByc3nmntY

Scary. And how do we protect these properties? Because as much as I can't stand Trump, the last thing I want to see is these places get hit.

The problem, imho, in hitting the General wasn't taking him out. The problem came from TELLING everyone that we hit that group with the INTENT of taking him out. Our enemies are now thinking differently. This is not a good thing, if you ask me. And we have yet another reason why Presidential business conflicts are a bad thing.

[MDlaxfan76]

If I’m sitting in Tehran, I’m thinking that it would be a great idea to take some hostages and make Trump a one term president.

It will take a long time to find out what the consequences are. But there’s so little reason to believe that trump is being truthful, well informed, or wise.

Trump properties. That's what I'd hit.

And a few days later.....


https://anewspost.com/iranian-president ... bByc3nmntY

Scary. And how do we protect these properties? Because as much as I can't stand Trump, the last thing I want to see is these places get hit.

The problem, imho, in hitting the General wasn't taking him out. The problem came from TELLING everyone that we hit that group with the INTENT of taking him out. Our enemies are now thinking differently. This is not a good thing, if you ask me. And we have yet another reason why Presidential business conflicts are a bad thing.

It's certainly a set of obvious soft targets, and the reciprocity element specific to Trump could be attractive to them if they really don't want to go full-scale war. On the other hand, I'd be worried about specific personnel being targets, Generals, SoS, Trump family, etc.