8 hours ago, TEW said:

The same end game the US had when it was killing Russian soldiers by proxy in Afghanistan.

So we can at least agree that the cold was isn't over and Russia was the enemy then and they're the enemy now. Progress. 

Quote

Iran issues arrest warrant for Trump over drone strike that killed Qasem Soleim

Iran has issued an arrest warrant for US President Donald Trump over the drone strike that killed a top Iranian general in January, the semi-official Fars news agency reported Monday.

Trump is one of 36 people Iran has issued arrest warrants for in relation to the death of Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC), according to Fars, but the Tehran attorney general Ali Alqasi Mehr said Trump was at the top of the list.

Mehr claimed Trump would be prosecuted as soon as he stands down presidency after his term ends, Fars reported.

Iran also said it had asked Interpol to issue a Red Notice for these 36 individuals, semi-official state news agency ISNA reported, though it was unlikely that Interpol would grant the request. CNN has contacted Interpol for comment.

 

Soleimani was killed in a US drone strike at Baghdad International Airport in January along with five others, including Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy head of the Iran-backed Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF).

 

The strike, condemned by Iran and its allies as an "assassination," raised the specter of further regional destabilization.

 

A spokesman for Iran's judiciary, Gholam-Hossein Esmaili, announced in early June that an Iranian citizen had been sentenced to death for allegedly working for foreign intelligence agencies. Esmaili claimed that Seyed Mahmoud Mousavi Majd disclosed the whereabouts of Soleimani to US intelligence officials.

 

The Trump administration viewed Soleimani as a ruthless killer, and the President told reporters in January that the general should have been taken out by previous presidents.

 

The Pentagon blamed Soleimani for the deaths of hundreds of Americans and US allies in the months leading up to his killing.

 

"General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region," the Pentagon said at the time, calling the strike "decisive defensive" action aimed at deterring future Iranian attacks.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/29/middleeast/iran-arrest-warrant-donald-trump-intl/index.html?utm_content=2020-06-29T13%3A27%3A26&utm_term=link&utm_medium=social&utm_source=fbCNN&fbclid=IwAR23SK0etRI21G64Hi43gax_-Y5X4DIxGTGmqqtJsubGHsaeA-Tozva0tLU&fbclid=IwAR0OAFbY9jBRibWmKrJ3Wp7uDqPlu_TY1caULH9oHKVFa4mG1NReny-h92c&fbclid=IwAR3AetA_q7L_MkbgA-e6Nd_6ccdnk7MK8HDKzTgYapVU4-gDEdv8buu_BZY

 

29 minutes ago, Gannan said:

So we can at least agree that the cold was isn't over and Russia was the enemy then and they're the enemy now. Progress. 

I’ve never said that Russia isn’t a geopolitical adversary. I would not say that Russia is the enemy, though. Our top adversary is clearly China.

Had totally forgotten about this...

Trump tried to convince his cabinet members that Russia was simply defending itself from terrorists when they invaded Afghanistan.  Seriously though, you can imagine Putin telling Trump something like this knowing Trump is a moron and that he'd believe it.

18 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

So genuine question, what's the end game of Russia killing US soldiers by proxy in Afghanistan? What's their goal? US troops out of the area? 

I believe Russia's goal is to create chaos and make the US look weak. That forces regimes in the region to make allies for protection. Russia is in position to ally with them. They want to increase Russian influence in the region, by making allies with countries like Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.

Wow. I've been moderately impressed by Roberts lately...

Quote

U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Restrictions

A divided U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that required abortion-clinic doctors to get privileges at a local hospital, defying expectations by reinforcing reproductive rights in a case that had threatened to begin a rollback, Bloomberg News reports.

Chief Justice John Roberts provided the crucial vote, joining the court’s liberal justices in the 5-4 majority. He said was bound by a 2016 Supreme Court ruling that struck down a similar Texas law, even though he was in dissent in that case.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-29/u-s-supreme-court-strikes-down-louisiana-abortion-restrictions-kc0l2yvs

 

 

Imagine if a Democrat were POTUS and did nothing about Putin hiring Taliban to kill American troops, and were friendly with him on top of it.  Republicans not reacting the same way to a Republican POTUS is all you need to know about partisan hypocrisy and double standards.

To answer Paul's question, he's already the worst POTUS in history.  His reactions during the last couple months of crises have cemented it.

13 minutes ago, NOTW said:

Imagine if a Democrat were POTUS and did nothing about Putin hiring Taliban to kill American troops, and were friendly with him on top of it.  Republicans not reacting the same way to a Republican POTUS is all you need to know about partisan hypocrisy and double standards.

To answer Paul's question, he's already the worst POTUS in history.  His reactions during the last couple months of crises have cemented it.

As long as he avoids Civil war I think I'll put him behind Buchanan.  But that's about it.

15 minutes ago, NOTW said:

Imagine if a Democrat were POTUS and did nothing about Putin hiring Taliban to kill American troops, and were friendly with him on top of it.  Republicans not reacting the same way to a Republican POTUS is all you need to know about partisan hypocrisy and double standards.

To answer Paul's question, he's already the worst POTUS in history.  His reactions during the last couple months of crises have cemented it.

He is a modern day Franklin Pierce.

 

5 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

As long as he avoids Civil war I think I'll put him behind Buchanan.  But that's about it.

There was nothing Buchanan could have done to stop the Civil War.  He was bad though.

 

26 minutes ago, NOTW said:

Imagine if a Democrat were POTUS and did nothing about Putin hiring Taliban to kill American troops, and were friendly with him on top of it.  Republicans not reacting the same way to a Republican POTUS is all you need to know about partisan hypocrisy and double standards.

To answer Paul's question, he's already the worst POTUS in history.  His reactions during the last couple months of crises have cemented it.

We still hear about Obama's red line.

And for good reason: it was a major low-point in his foreign policy. 

The one thing I'll say about this Putin thing though ... I have little doubt that whatever response any competent president (regardless of party) would have made would never have been public knowledge. I don't doubt that both Bush 43 and Obama knew about them. I also don't doubt that we had some sort of response to it. 

So while this highlights some bad traits about Trump (it truly is a no-win situation either way he answers), if Trump didn't have the clear history he does with Putin and other dictators I think many would give him the benefit of the doubt. It would look bad, but a politically astute president would be able to navigate it and get the nation to move on.

Trump won't be able to do that. The American people by and large aren't going to give him the benefit of the doubt in general, let alone with regards to anything Putin does. This is a President who stood up and sided with Putin against our own intelligence community. No amount of Trump supporters trying to point out all the ways he has been "tough" on Putin in other policy areas is going to off-set the clear impression that Putin owns Trump.

27 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

We still hear about Obama's red line.

And for good reason: it was a major low-point in his foreign policy. 

The one thing I'll say about this Putin thing though ... I have little doubt that whatever response any competent president (regardless of party) would have made would never have been public knowledge. I don't doubt that both Bush 43 and Obama knew about them. I also don't doubt that we had some sort of response to it. 

So while this highlights some bad traits about Trump (it truly is a no-win situation either way he answers), if Trump didn't have the clear history he does with Putin and other dictators I think many would give him the benefit of the doubt. It would look bad, but a politically astute president would be able to navigate it and get the nation to move on.

Trump won't be able to do that. The American people by and large aren't going to give him the benefit of the doubt in general, let alone with regards to anything Putin does. This is a President who stood up and sided with Putin against our own intelligence community. No amount of Trump supporters trying to point out all the ways he has been "tough" on Putin in other policy areas is going to off-set the clear impression that Putin owns Trump.

But what even is the "benefit of the doubt" in this situation?  Just assuming that he wasn't listening during a briefing?  That he forgot about it?  Either one of those options are awful too, considering the seriousness of soldiers killed under Russian bounties.  I don't really think there's a benefit of the doubt available here, no matter who the President is.

12 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

But what even is the "benefit of the doubt" in this situation?  Just assuming that he wasn't listening during a briefing?  That he forgot about it?  Either one of those options are awful too, considering the seriousness of soldiers killed under Russian bounties.  I don't really think there's a benefit of the doubt available here, no matter who the President is.

Leave Trump aside for the moment.

The public, generally speaking, is not normally going to hear about these bounties. And I think it's naive to think they just started under Trump. I'm sure they've been happening all along: in Afghanistan, in Syria, basically anywhere that our troops regularly engage in any combat. Proxy wars aren't new concepts, and not all of them are as overt as Vietnam. It's pretty well established that the US was providing material support to Afghans against the Soviets.

Russia may not be the Soviet Union, and this isn't the cold war, but are you really shocked that Russia would be supporting Afghans against our troops?So the news of this happening doesn't surprise me.

My point however, is that if this news of Russian bounties had leaked out under Obama or Bush 43, I think you'd see a lot more people giving the benefit of the doubt to the president and believing that 1. he knew it was happening, 2. took it seriously, and 3. that some proportional - and quiet - response to these was put in place. 

It would probably still become a political football, regardless of which president it was leaked under - Republicans would decry Obama as "weak", Democrats would probably call Bush "naive" and tie it to his "looked into his eyes and got a sense of his soul" comment. 

But most rational people would have to assume that there was some sort of clandestine response.

With Trump though? He has zero rope, and is claiming ignorance. He has no wiggle room.

That's my point. I just think this stuff happens, and has happened plenty in the past. 

I do wonder how the troops feel about this though.

5 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Leave Trump aside for the moment.

The public, generally speaking, is not going to hear about these bounties. And I think it's naive to think they just started under Trump. I'm sure they've been happening all along: in Afghanistan, in Syria, basically anywhere that our troops regularly engage in any combat. Proxy wars aren't new concepts, and not all of them are as overt as Vietnam. It's pretty well established that the US was providing material support to Afghans against the Soviets.

Russia may not be the Soviet Union, and this isn't the cold war, but are you really shocked that Russia would be supporting Afghans against our troops?So the news of this happening doesn't surprise me.

My point however, is that if this news of Russian bounties had leaked out under Obama or Bush 43, I think you'd see a lot more people giving the benefit of the doubt to the president and believing that 1. he knew it was happening, 2. took it seriously, and 3. that some proportional - and quiet - response to these was put in place. 

It would probably still become a political football, regardless of which president it was leaked under - Republicans would decry Obama as "weak", Democrats would probably call Bush "naive" and tie it to his "looked into his eyes and got a sense of his soul" comment. 

But most rational people would have to assume that there was some sort of clandestine response.

With Trump though? He has zero rope, and is claiming ignorance. He has no wiggle room.

That's my point. I just think this stuff happens, and has happened plenty in the past. 

I do wonder how the troops feel about this though.

But no one in the administration has even implied that.  They certainly wouldn't have to reveal what that was or when it transpired, but they haven't even suggested that, as far as I know.  And with this administration, who've turned excusing-making into an art, you can bet that if it happened, they would've let us know, even if they wouldn't let us know the details.

Also, if this were Obama, it wouldn't just be a political football, it would be Benghazi x10.  Republicans ignoring this one looks really, really bad because this is exactly the type of thing that they rally around and lob at the other side, even in the abstract, as a boogeyman about what "could happen" under a Democratic Administration.

The only question with Trump on this one is: did he ignore it because he's weak or did he ignore it because he's a Russian asset?  In his best case scenario, he's just a feckless weakling who can't be bothered with standing up for our soldiers because he's too busy focussing on re-election.

Just now, VanHammersly said:

But no one in the administration has even implied that.  They certainly wouldn't have to reveal what that was or when it transpired, but they haven't even suggested that, as far as I know.  And with this administration, who've turned excusing-making into an art, you can bet that if it happened, they would've let us know, even if they wouldn't let us know the details.

Also, if this were Obama, it wouldn't just be a political football, it would be Benghazi x10.  Republicans ignoring this one looks really, really bad because this is exactly the type of thing that they rally around and lob at the other side, even in the abstract, as a boogeyman about what "could happen" under a Democratic Administration.

The only question with Trump on this one is: did he ignore it because he's weak or did he ignore it because he's a Russian asset?  In his best case scenario, he's just a feckless weakling who can't be bothered with standing up for our soldiers because he's too busy focussing on re-election.

Right, I get that. 

My point here was that if this were any other administration that had even the smallest amount of actual competence, this story would probably fleeting in most people's minds.

Ironically, this story is probably going to be fleeting for this president as well, but that's only because he manages to keep the 24-hour news networks fully stocked with other stories. it's his thing.

10 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

 

The public, generally speaking, is not normally going to hear about these bounties. And I think it's naive to think they just started under Trump. I'm sure they've been happening all along: in Afghanistan, in Syria, basically anywhere that our troops regularly engage in any combat.

There's no evidence to support this. 

5 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Right, I get that. 

My point here was that if this were any other administration that had even the smallest amount of actual competence, this story would probably fleeting in most people's minds.

Ironically, this story is probably going to be fleeting for this president as well, but that's only because he manages to keep the 24-hour news networks fully stocked with other stories. it's his thing.

Not a chance.  Again, if this were Obama, this would be the defining foreign policy story to come out during his tenure.  You really believe that Republicans wouldn't amplify and rally around something like this?

A Dem POTUS did half the stuff Trump does, Republicans would be calling for impeachment, calling them a traitor, lock em up, etc.

Trump’s real weakness is his response to Corona.  He could weather all the other stuff.

9 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Trump’s real weakness is his response to Corona.  He could weather all the other stuff.

That's the one that most "little guys" could fully understand and call bullsheet on.  That opened up a lot of eyes about who Trump really is and what he is not.

2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

That's the one that most "little guys" could fully understand and call bullsheet on.  That opened up a lot of eyes about who Trump really is and what he is not.

Even after all this he still won’t wear a mask.  He’s divorced from reality.

24 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Not a chance.  Again, if this were Obama, this would be the defining foreign policy story to come out during his tenure.  You really believe that Republicans wouldn't amplify and rally around something like this?

They'd hold a zillion hearings about it like the did with Bengazi where they parade the names and photos of the dead soldiers, pinning their deaths squarely  on the Obama administration.

That’s what they are going with?