September 16, 2019

Tulsi outTrumps Trump.

114 comments:

henry said...

The Dems appear to be acting as Iran's bitch since the Carter years.

Tommy Duncan said...

Gabbard: "Bomb first, ask questions later."

When your primary polls numbers are bad wag the dog, baby!

John said...

We’re self sufficient in oil. Why do we care what Iran and Saudi’Arabia do? Let them bomb each other back to the Stone Age.

Bay Area Guy said...

More fracking in the USA! That'll show those crazy OPEC arabs.

Ice Nine said...

"Saudi Arabia's bitch"! So Trump is two-timing Vlad now? Do I have that right, Tuls?

C'mon, I know you are a standard lefty and as stupidly doctrinaire about your Trump-hate as the rest of them but I always saw you as somewhat more thoughtful. Don't let me down now, babe.

Char Char Binks said...

Tulsi is America's bitch.

mccullough said...

Time for Tulsi to replace Kamala on the debate stage

Bay Area Guy said...

Tulsi is the least corrupt and least compromised of these Democrat presidential twits, but that isn't a particularly high standard.

tim maguire said...

Well, on the one hand, her suggestion that we should ignore a strike at the world economy, one of the pillars of globalization, because the specific location of the strike is in Saudi Arabia is irresponsible. And exactly what I expect from Tulsi Gabbard.

On the other hand, her suggestion that we should ignore what information Saudi Arabia is in a unique position to provide (because they are the location of the physical attack) is irresponsible. And exactly what I expect from Tulsi Gabbard.

She was good for one thing--exposing the soft underbelly of leading Democratic candidates. Now she can't even do that.

narciso said...

Of course there was a lady who recommended more oil exploration, to minimize the impact of such an event, notably this happened right afted the house voted to cut back on drilling.

Hari said...

Good luck finding the use of the word "bitch" in a Trump Tweet (as opposed to private conversation).

Hagar said...

I don't know that even Iran had the capabilities necessary to carry out these attacks deep inside Saudi Arabia's defenses, never mind the "Houthi rebels."
This may be something new that needs sorting out before jumping into the murky waters, but it surely was meant as a challenge to the U.S. rather than the Saudi, and something needs to be done about it.

Bob Boyd said...

Saudi Arabia is a US ally going back to 1945, if not before.

mccullough said...

Gabbard should have written “Trump is going to let Saudi Arabia grab us by the pussy.”

But she’s not clever enough.

BarrySanders20 said...

She's right, to a point. If that tweet was all you knew, Trump is waiting for orders, which looks worse than Obama bowing to them. But Trump has a track record now, and he will do what he thinks is in America's best interest. I'm not convinced bombing Iran is it, even if they were behind it.

There are false flag rumors. Would SA pop a few fixable holes in its infrastructure that, short-term, raises the price of oil and results in a crippling blow to Iran? Seems like a small price to pay for getting what they want.

rcocean said...

Yeah, we don't need those damn Saudi's and their oil. Or their strategic position in the Gulf. Fuck those allies! God what an idiot.

Isn't it weird how the Democrats and Neo-cons like Mittens and Lindsey Graham have all this weird hatred for countries that either actually help us or have 10,000 nuclear warheads? I wonder how many wars we'd be in right now, if Hillary had been elected POTUS.

rcocean said...

Hey dumbshits, he's not "awaiting orders" - he's getting the Saudi's to buy in. He's not a fool, and he's not going to attack Iran when the Saudi's WHO THE ONES BEING ATTACKED disagree.

Bob Boyd said...

Gabbard's tweet comes across as kind of a cheap shot. An attack on Saudi oil production is an attack on the entire developed world.
Who benefits? The Russians when oil prices increase. Iran if a supply gap makes it harder to sanction their oil exports.
What happened to, "politics ends at the water's edge?"
I think her tweet was rash and will come back to bite her.

Browndog said...

It's the Saudi refinery closest to Qatar...just sayin'

Impossible to know anything, really, because there is no news source that can be trusted.

Sydney said...

That is more vulgar than any Trump tweet I've seen.

pacwest said...

"We’re self sufficient in oil. Why do we care what Iran and Saudi’Arabia do?"

Oil is fungible, especially light sweet crude. A 5% cut in world supply would raise prices. Cheap energy is vital to our modern lifestyle.

Gabbard is hell bent against foreign interventions and is most likely trying to place our alliance with SA as a possible factor in a war with Iran. Simplistic, but good as far as it goes. (Farmer may feel differently:)

rehajm said...

I think her tweet was rash and will come back to bite her.

I think her fifteen minutes are about up. This might have bought her a few more seconds.

doctrev said...

I'm mildly annoyed that this many Americans apparently think their currency's value would survive a full political break with Saudi Arabia, but it's particularly hilarious coming from Tulsi Gabbard. Her own love for Syria and Iran was so over the top it was a liability among Democrats! This might appeal to the former Ron Paul wing, but given the success of nationalism I think that's a dead end anyways. Goodbye, Tulsi, you never mattered, stop trying.

narciso said...

No more likely its the iranian militias names escapes me now,

rehajm said...

It's is a variant of the Candid Comment In the Hot Mic Gambit™. It's the way Democrats show how much they care...

Bay Area Guy said...

As noted by our great commentators above, Saudi Arabia and Iran are bitter enemies. There are 30 things I don't like about the House of Saud. All these billionaire sheiks? Hell No.

Yet, despite their flaws, the Saudis are an imperfect ally, while Iran, post revolution, is an enemy.

Can you imagine if there was a revolution in Saudi Arabia? The Islamic crazies would have a lotta oil and lotta $$.

Hagar said...

I don't think Trump is waiting for word on how to react from the Saudis as much as an explanation from his intelligence agencies - all 17 or 23 of them - of just how this caper was carried out and by whom (and assisted by whom) for what purpose(s).

Michael K said...

I don't know that even Iran had the capabilities necessary to carry out these attacks deep inside Saudi Arabia's defenses, never mind the "Houthi rebels."

Pretty good analysis of the attack and the missile.

What made this attack different from other recorded Houthi drone attacks was not only the unprecedented amount of material damage caused but also lingering doubt about the nature and the attribution of the attack. First, a video allegedly showing flying objects entering Kuwaiti airspace led to speculation that like a previous “Houthi” drone attack this strike might actually have originated in Iraq or even Iran. While the video remains unverified, the fact that the Kuwaiti government launched a probe into the issue lends some credence to the idea that something might have happened over Kuwait that day. Speculation about the origins of the attack was further fueled by a tweet by Mike Pompeo in which he claimed that there was no evidence the attacks came from Yemen.

The distance is too much for a drone and Yemen (1250 km)

Ken B said...

I keep reading that an attack on an ally is no reason to go to war.
Ever? That seems to be the implication. So much for NATO, the UN.
I will wait and see. I want evidence.

Robert Cook said...

"Saudi Arabia is a US ally going back to 1945, if not before."

We are allies in the same way the separate New York Mafia families are allied...as partners in crime. The partnerships are held together only by mutual greed.

"We’re self sufficient in oil. Why do we care what Iran and Saudi’Arabia do? Let them bomb each other back to the Stone Age."

It's not about whether we're self-sufficient in oil, it's about our having a hand in control over world oil supplies, for reasons of geopolitical and economic dominance.

Ralph L said...

Zerohedge said last week that many US shale oil companies will soon go under because of the low price of oil. Is there a Bush or Cheney in the oil business again? Elbusto!

I'm Full of Soup said...

Gabbard is typical lazy Hawiawan like Obama was. They are not mentally qualified to lead our country. Yeah, she has the military cred but I have to question how some of these pols seem to line up military jobs which are kind of cushy i.e. Gabbard, Biden's druggie son, Pete Buttigieg, etc.

I'm Full of Soup said...

But I do agree Gabbard's tweet was excellent.

Wince said...

Instead of attacking Iran directly, I tend to think "we" will take the Houthi's at their word, but now hit Iranians assets and personnel in Yemen that might have been off-limits before.

The Godfather said...

Gee, I thought there was one Democrat who wasn’t awful. Well, back to the drawing board.

eric said...

Blogger John said...
We’re self sufficient in oil. Why do we care what Iran and Saudi’Arabia do? Let them bomb each other back to the Stone Age.

9/16/19, 11:26 AM


A lot of minds appear to be waking up.

Follow this train of thought

1) We are self sufficient in oil use and production.
2) It's always been a media and Democrat talking point, "No war for oil!"
3) We never took anyone's oil.

Now, stick with me here, we're almost there....


What if, just suppose for a moment, it's never been about the oil...


Mind blown.

rhhardin said...

It's not good-natured, so it's not out-trumping Trump.

J. Farmer said...

@Ken B:

I keep reading that an attack on an ally is no reason to go to war.
Ever? That seems to be the implication. So much for NATO, the UN.
I will wait and see. I want evidence.


NATO and the UN are quite different animals. NATO is a mutual defense treaty, one of many that the US has with countries around the world (e.g. Japan and South Korea). But it has no such arrangement with Saudi Arabia.

Mark said...

Sounds like warmongering from Gabbard.

Gusty Winds said...

Trump will not attack Iran. But oh, yeah, Saudi-Oil Supply isn't in our National Interest.

Maybe John Kerry and Valerie Jarrett can provide us with their Iranian expertise.....

Ray - SoCal said...

This hurts those that are not self sufficient in oil...

China
Europe

It actually helps the us.

Skylark said...

"Zerohedge said last week that many US shale oil companies will soon go under because of the low price of oil.”

From Putin’s lips to God’s ear.... but no.

Skylark said...

“Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran....” - Gabbard

Iran desperately wants this war. We shouldn’t give it to them.

Gusty Winds said...

Watch. Trump will not goaded or tricked into going to war. It's why he let go of Bolton. He ain't the Bush family.

Maybe Trump is just trying to recruit James Taylor into going over to Saudi Arabia to sing "You've Got a Friend".

Earnest Prole said...

Tulsi, Tulsi, Tulsi -- I thought the dirty talk was supposed to be our little secret.

narciso said...

we've become the swing producer, and moving toward the key refiner, now hasa province is more naturally a shia area, and of course abquaiq was the site of an al queda attempt in 2006, I still wonder why there weren't countermeasures employed, like sam batteries, around such a key target,

Robert Cook said...

"Iran desperately wants this war. We shouldn’t give it to them."

Iran does not want a war. The push for war has come from our side.

Jerry said...

Wow.

Guess I've got to vote for her over Trump, eh? Because who DOESN'T want someone who doesn't know anything about international relations or treaties or even flippin' history as President?

(Thinks about it.)

Me. I don't want any of the craptastic folks that have shown up screaming 'Elect me over that moron Trump!' to even get within sniffing distance of the Oval Office.

I swear, it's like watching a bunch of middle schooler's run for school President. Yes, promise everything knowing you can or will give them NOTHING - and bask in the glory of the run.

stevew said...

"Hahahahahaha, we've got that bastard Trump this time!"

- Tulsi Gabbard

narciso said...

right that's why they've been targeting tankers, we've seen this song and dance with Hezbollah as Iranian proxy, now the wisdom of using these Iranian proxy militias against Islamic state, has proven faulty,

Hagar said...

Around 1930 some geologists speculated that oil might be found under the Arabic Peninsula, and the oil companies picked up on it and began sniffing around to get access. King Ibn Saud, devout Wahhabi and very angry about the Balfour Declaration, drew a red line around his and his allies' lands and decreed that no firms in any way connected to the British would be allowed to prospect within the boundaries of that line, which pretty much left the Americans. It is said that Ibn Saud did not put much faith in the oil talk, but hoped the exploratory drilling might find him some water.
The potential was great, but so were the costs and the risks, so Standard Oil formed a consortium with other all American firms called ARAMCO (Arab-American Company) in partnership with the Saudi state and began prospecting. Oil was indeed found. Lots of oil.
WWII and then the Cold War made this of great interest to the U.S. Government, and the honchos of ARAMCO was called in and told it was their plain patriotic duty to act according to the wishes of the Government. Anyway, they would do so, or else.
And that is the way it has been since, even after the Saudis and the emirates expropriated the oil in the ground and above, and the facilities as well, I think, so that the American firms working there now are just under contract to provide services to Saudi government as permitted by the U.S. government. They do not "own" anything any more.

So the House of Saud and the U.S. Government are tied together in a kind of not entirely happy common law marriage of 80+ years duration that cannot be ignored.

Michael K said...

Iran does not want a war. The push for war has come from our side.

V Putin's spokesman.

Beasts of England said...

I’m satisfied that Trump is in no rush to plow us into another war in the Middle East. Lighten up, Tulsi.

p.s., henry!!

Hagar said...

Have you seen the aerial picture of the oil facility with a neat hole in the same place on each tank as far as the picture reaches?
Someone has just showed us a remote controlled aerial drone attack system capability equal to our own (or exceeding it?).
That looks like a declaration of war to me.

narayanan said...

Hagar said...
So the House of Saud and the U.S. Government are tied together in a kind of not entirely happy common law marriage of 80+ years duration that cannot be ignored.
_____________________

SO who is getting it in the ass for 80 years or do we switch top and bottom?

Robert Cook said...

"What if, just suppose for a moment, it's never been about the oil...."

It's always been about the oil.

Howard said...

You fucking go, girl: way to grab Drumpfs pussy

narciso said...

the deal was struck between st. john Philby as representative of ibn saud, and former state department official loomis, for the americans, now Aramco is those branches of standard oil that reconstituted under the achincarry agreement in 1925,

narciso said...

the missile is called the quds 1, as fabian mintz noted,

Sebastian said...

One good thing about Trump is that nobody thinks he is anybody's bitch.

I Callahan said...

It's always been about the oil.

The lifeblood of the world’s economy. That justifies it alone.

Michael K said...

Howard said...
You fucking go, girl: way to grab Drumpfs pussy

9/16/19, 3:42 PM


Howard is such a pussy. A real feminist.

Bay Area Guy said...

Eisenhower on the Middle East in the 50s (I paraphrase):

Keep the oil flowing out, keep the Commies from coming in.

Howard said...

Saudi crude has always been the cheapest to extract because geology.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/03/19/you-wont-believe-what-saudi-arabias-oil-production.aspx

Howard said...

The Brits and Americans knew about the Saudi oil potential before WWI, which was the real reason behind Florence of Arabia

Francisco D said...

Iran does not want a war. The push for war has come from our side.

You are wrong, Cookie.

Trump does not want a war, but Iran wants to goad him into one to drive up prices.

It's not personal Sonny. Its only business.

You are otherwise right. It's always about the business of oil.

Hagar said...

It's always been about the oil.

But as much, or more, about who should not have it, as who should.

Hagar said...

The damage to the oil tanks in the photo is not large enough to have been done by cruise missiles large enough to fly the distance.

Robert Cook said...

"But as much, or more, about who should not have it, as who should."

Who is to say who must have it and who not, other than those countries under which the oil deposits exist?

narciso said...

yes, that's who I was referring to, neither the journal nor the times, had anything as indepth as arms control wonk analysis,

Robert Cook said...

"Trump does not want a war, but Iran wants to goad him into one to drive up prices."

What suggests to you Iran wants a war to "drive up prices"? A war would be disastrous for Iran no less than for the U.S. (and it would be disastrous for us).

The tension between us and Iran is driven by longstanding U.S. belligerency toward Iran. (I don't suggest Trump wants a war, but mistakenly thinks he can influence Iran through his impetuous methods of "deal-making." However, other elements in the U.S. government, including someone Trump just thankfully fired, have long agitated for war with Iran.)

Michael K said...

The tension between us and Iran is driven by longstanding U.S. belligerency toward Iran.

The Stalin view of Iran. Nice.

Robert Cook said...

"The lifeblood of the world’s economy. That justifies it alone."

Justifies what?

narciso said...

well that was only since the 1979 revolution, there was more hostility between gulf states and the kingdom, like the uae and Bahrain,

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

LOL - you have to admit that is kinda awesome.

and I agree. Why do we have to respond?

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Trump wants to kick Iran's ass. But this is not the reason. Let the Saudis kick Iran's ass.

The Godfather said...

I don't suppose the US can say, Oh well, Persians will be Persians. Tut tut.

We could retaliate (or help the Saudis retaliate) against Iran to a proportionate degree, and hope that that would be the end of it. If we have good reason to think that the Iranians wouldn't respond in a big way, that could make sense. But suppose that the Iranians then escalate, causing even more damage to US interests?

At some point -- now or later -- we may have to decide if we can hit Iran hard enough that they can't hit back. Do we have that capability?

Skylark said...

“I don't suggest Trump wants a war”

Robert is coming around to the fact that Trump is the only real peace candidate, because these wars come out of the bureaucracy, and these inexperienced or superannuated candidates the Democrats are running will be putty in its hands.

narciso said...

so why do the houthis lie, when the previous attacks on shaybah and along the pipeline route came from Iraq,

Michael K said...

Cook wishes the Soviets had gotten Iran and its oil. They made a good try with Mohammed Mosaddegh.

Wiki is unreliable on political topics, especially if communists are involved.

In 1941, Reza Shah Pahlavi was forced by the British to abdicate in favor of his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. In 1944, Mosaddegh was once again elected to parliament. This time he took the lead of Jebhe Melli (National Front of Iran, created in 1949), an organization he had founded with nineteen others such as Hossein Fatemi, Ahmad Zirakzadeh, Ali Shayegan and Karim Sanjabi, aiming to establish democracy and end the foreign presence in Iranian politics, especially by nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company's (AIOC) operations in Iran. In 1947 Mossadegh once again announced retirement, after an electoral-reform bill he had proposed failed to pass through Majlis.[27]

That is the usual Wiki spion.

In addition to Mosaddegh's nationalization of Iranian oil production, which dealt a severe blow to the British economy, was the perception of his being far too close to the USSR politically. His manipulation of (and his being manipulated by) the Tudeh Party of Iran, an Iranian communist party, was viewed with great distress by the West.

Having a state on the Persian Gulf -- a state with enormous economic and political potential -- allied with, if not under the control of, the Soviet Union was just about the biggest political nightmare that could be imagined. It was feared that Iran, like the countries of Eastern Europe, would simply become a Soviet client state and that the USSR would gain its long-sought warm water ports, right in the heart of one of the the most important strategic regions of the world.


Why he was overthrown.

narciso said...

this is not unlike the war of the missiles, back in the 80s. now the Saudis have silkworms and even cs 27 missiles, which are nuclear capable, so if iran is ready to rumble,

chickelit said...

mccullough said..Time for Tulsi to replace Kamala on the debate stage

I second that. Why is Harris even up there? Harris doesn't even act like she wants to be on the national stage.

narciso said...

Taheri in Nest of Spies as well as subsequent works is very good on this aspect, also we have fall of heaven, that addresses some of the backstory,

the prospect of a Soviet sponsored revolt, was in the mind of Fletcher Knebel, he saw a Persian War as the prospective event, which prefaces Seven Days in May,

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Tulsi is a million times better than Kamala.. and that old-fem-white-Bernie-Indian.

Francisco D said...

What suggests to you Iran wants a war to "drive up prices"? A war would be disastrous for Iran no less than for the U.S. (and it would be disastrous for us).

Iran has 80 million people and their only worthwhile industry is oil. The mullahs are fanatics in for the long haul and the glory of Allah. A war serves both purposes.

A war would be much more disastrous for us because we don't fight wars to finish things anymore. The mullahs will endure just as they did the the Iraq war. It is also a convenient way to kill of the "modernists" who do not embrace fundamentalism.

Everyone knows that a war with Iran would involve a certain amount of bombing that the world community will rise up to stop. It would be used to justify more anti-Western terrorism in they eyes of Arabs.

narciso said...

so it would be a proxy war, from the Solomon piece in the tablet last week, north korea has had strong ties first to Syria and then iran, even with Egypt in the interim,

bagoh20 said...

Few qualities seem capable of immunizing one from TDS, but I thought she had a few of them. Disappointing.

chickelit said...

Gabbard is good looking but doesn't look the best when you take a better look.

narciso said...

and this is another axis as well:


https://babalublog.com/2019/09/16/reports-from-cuba-mogherinis-visit-to-cuba-coincides-with-dozens-of-arrests/#comments

Leland said...

Tulsi is a good quip. She's made some other quality jabs. But one thing you have to do as President is handle an international crisis. The fair thing to do is to now ask how she would handle this situation. And it is fine to answer: "I'd ban the internal combustion engine, so we wouldn't need to fight wars for oil", because I suspect that would be Sanders answer. It is dumb and would likely result in millions of Americans dying in cold winters and hot summers; but it is an answer.

John henry said...

Michael K,

The first Shah was asked to abdicate because he was cozying up to the National Socialists, not the Russians. It was partly about the oil but mostly abount not haing germans between Egypt and india.

I don't think "overthrown" is the right word to describe the new Shah's removal of mossadegh. Under the Iranian Prime minister (mossadegh) was appointed by the Shah and served entirely at his pleasure.

It was entirely constitutional and in no way a coup.

What was unconstitutional and a coup was the rising against the Shah that the Brits and us helped him put down.

John Henry

John henry said...

I've got no problem selling arms to the Saudis. Not nukes, of course but anything else that would not compromise Secrets.

Cash on the nail, of course.

No involvement at all of us forces.

Otoh, that is how the Brits began when they dragged us into their wars with Germany. So beware the slippery slope.

John Henry

John henry said...

S/b nder the Iranian constitution Prime minister (mossadegh) was appointed by the Shah

John Henry

Tyrone Slothrop said...

No civility bullshit here. No civility, either.

Michael K said...

John Henry, moderation makes it hard to follow a thread. Cook seems to prefer that Stalin had gotten Persia, as he intended. The coup was to restore the legal government. I have a good friend who fled Iran to avoid the Shah, then, 20 years later, wanted his American wife and kids to meet his parents in Tehran. He flew to Tehran where he was met by the Savak and taken to a private room.

He was given two options. He could get back on a plane and return to New York. Or he could serve his two years military service, after which he would be welcome to visit his parents. He chose to stay and was assigned to two years service in an oil field as a doctor. That is where he learned to play golf. They played on sand and carried a piece of Astroturf to put down to hit the ball.

There is no way the mullahs would treat a fugitive that way.

It is impossible to explain things like that to Cook.

Hagar said...

Well, Cookie, in the case of Saudi Arabia, their government said the Americans should have the oil - and that has continued to be so even after they changed their minds as to who should own it.

MadTownGuy said...

"Tulsi outTrumps Trump."

In form, yes. In substance, not so much.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

I'll take this kind of humor over the vile mean lies that spew out of Maddow, Schit, and SNL.

narciso said...

Taheri also focuses on how mossadegh had angered both the merchants and the mullahs, sonething the shah managed to do 25 years later.

John henry said...

The coup was to restore the legal government.

Well, yes, the legal and constitutional govt of the shah, I take you to mean.

I think we are arguing over a word here but words do have meanings.

If a a legal govt eg the shah, is overthrown that is a coup.

If the legal and constitutional government,(the shah) with or without outside help, throws the illegal upstarts out, that is NOT a coup.

Calling it a "coup" allows people to perpetuate the lie that the us and brits did something wrong here.

We were the good guys in this. The brits, and us to a lesser extent, were right bastards in Iran for 75 years or so.

But not in this.

John Henry

narciso said...

Revolutions are often coups, i would call what happened in 53 a restoration,

John henry said...

Narciso,

My point exactly. It was a restoration of the lawful constitutional government

We should call it that, not a coup

John Henry

narciso said...

Well blame kermit roosevelt, ego hog who chose to appropriate a victory of the iranian people

Crazy World said...

I suggest another job interview with Tulsi and the Donald, maybe she can bring him up to par on how to run the world. And I do like Miss Aloha Tulsi, she is sassy.

JamesB.BKK said...

Gabbard should have written “Trump is going to let Saudi Arabia grab us by the pussy.”

Good one.

T: "You know what they do, when you've got shitloads of oil and gas and have agreed to set oil and gas prices in U.S. dollars in exchange for their security guarantees and king and prince propping? When they see you and think about all those social security checks and crazy "health care" funding schemes and bond payments and potential interest rate shocks? When they think about Nixon's price fixing and gas lines and that default (of several) where Nixon launched the refusal to redeem so-called "dollars" for a promised quantity of gold? When their people see them disregarding your potential role in attacks on skyscrapers?"

Jerkface reporter pretending to be a friend: "No."

T: "They let you grab them by the pussy."

Deep Runner said...

Hmmm...I liked Tulsi Gabbard as a candidate, as she seemed the most sane of the group...but I don't know , seems like on this one, she let a millennial staffer loose on her Twitter account. But maybe she is auditioning for the role of Veep candidate. No points for this effort, and she now settles into the role of "just like the others."

JamesB.BKK said...

She does purport to regret the industrial scale state- 'n loose feminist- encouraged slaughter of fetuses, but the phrase "most sane" implies something about her cloying parasitic competitive group that is not in evidence. You wearing beer goggles?

daskol said...

At least she didn't blame Israel for the attack.

daskol said...

MBS: Trump's 2nd or 3rd favorite dictator? Besides the "bitch" tweet, she's also invoking pimps and prostitutes in her follow-up comments: as in the US armed forces are not your prostitutes, and you are not our pimp. She's way off base here, but I guess she's desperate for attention.

stlcdr said...

If you can’t beat Trump, be Trump.

John henry said...

Narciso,

If you are arguing that we should have let the Mossadegh coup succeed, there are some points to favor that argument. Better that perhaps than the 79 revolution.

Otoh, whenever we do that, we seem to wind up making things worse.

John Henry

narciso said...

No just dont let roosevelt and copeland talk about it (he was the inspiration for the equalizer)

JamesB.BKK said...

If you can’t beat Trump, be Trump.

Most people are too stubborn and thick to see what Trump is in order to begin to emulate him. The Democrats and Dem media are also hindered by their dishonesty. That's why they come off so bitter and shrill when they think they are trying to do so. Their observers also mistake bitter shrillness coupled with swearing as being Trump, as here. Rookie mistake.

Skippy Tisdale said...

"What suggests to you Iran wants a war to "drive up prices"?"

Then please explain why Iran is blowing up tankers. There's no denying they have done this*.
What is their underlying motivation?

* https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/13/world/middleeast/oil-tanker-attack-gulf-oman.html