The headlines and the choice of photograph are Drudge's. The links go to:
"Rush Limbaugh renews radio show contract in a 'long-term' deal" (CNN Business), with no picture of the man in shorts. And...
"America’s Anchorman Interviews President Trump," a transcript at Limbaugh's own site, with no photograph of Rush, but who knows? Maybe Rush would wear his Florida golf outfit to interview Trump if the men were going to golf together.
I'm going to read the interview and update this post.
UPDATE: Seems like a phone interview (so Rush can wear what he wants).
RUSH: They said they’ve got 21 targets they’re looking at, and you came back and said, “Fine. I’ve got 52 of yours.” I don’t think that they are accustomed to a president like you, sir. I mean, you just mentioned it. Obama basically appeased them. Obama worked with this guy on the Iranian nuclear deal.... What was the purpose of American policy with Iran prior to your presidency?ADDED: I haven't read the whole interview yet, but I did search the page for "culture" and "cultural" — and came up with nothing. How can Rush not have asked about the "cultural sites" controversy? Collusion.
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think they had a purpose.... When I first came into office, I went to the Pentagon, and they showed me 18 “sites of confliction,” meaning conflict, over there. And every one of them was started by Iran, either their soldiers or they paid for soldiers, soldiers for hire. I have no idea what they tried to do with appeasement....
... I think John Kerry was… Personally, I think he was advising them.... And, you know, right after they made the deal, it wasn’t like they were respected. They treated the United States worse than ever before. In fact, I said, “At least give him a little respect,” because they treated… They got worse. They actually got more hostile. They took the $150 billion and they took the $1.8 billion in cash, and they got worse. And, if you remember, right before the payment was made, they took 10 sailors. And they humiliated those sailors, and they humiliated our country with the sailors down on their knees. And the only reason they released them was they wanted their first payment....
Posts
230 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 230 of 230@Phidippus
going to the Trump rally Jan 28, Wildwood center?
David Begley: "Rush just said he wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Americans were being paid by Iran to support the Iran deal. See my comment above re Rhodes and Kerry."
The Iranians themselves are threatening to out Western leaders and minions whom the Iranians have claimed to have bribed.
Bring it on!! (Something tells me we will find Pelosi's kid and Kerry's stepson and lots of other "interesting" folks involved with the Iranians against US interests)
I included the iranian American pac and their recipients from 4 years ago, it's headed by hassan nemazee, the numbers have probably skyrocketed since then,
Because you lack the ability to formulate a coherent response.
LOL!
The most coherent and appropriate response to repeated liars is to ignore them. In behavioral psychology that is an "extinction paradigm". When one responds to the negative behavior, they are reinforcing it and it is more likely to occur again. If they ignore it, it is less likely to occur again. The problem here is intermittent reinforcement which keeps you rewarded for telling lies in your attempts to troll.
Was that coherent enough or do you need the Psychology for Dummies version?
dan moldea went after Reagan, forty years after those events, he took a glancing blow at paul laxalt trying to tie them to the mob, probably a hit job commissioned by harry reid 'mr. clean face' who was deep into the mob,
For a portly man Rush looks remarkably light in his loafers.
we're still find soviet moles in the manhattan project 70 some years later, it wasn't fate that the soviets got the bomb,
some commenters prove the point,
https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/07/media-coverage-of-iraq-is-a-case-study-of-ignorance-and-manipulation/
"Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
After reading this who would like to take a run at explaining Trump's strategy in Iraq? Is his goal to withdraw all our troops, or is his goal to continue permawar in this country and the region?"
I think Iran was being an imperial power and dominating the other countries around it by paying for armed militias within those countries to crush opposition to Iran's imperial venture. The Iranian goal was to have the bomb and to have subservient "nations" around it.
Trump said: "If you look at what’s happening… When I first came into office, I went to the Pentagon, and they showed me 18 “sites of confliction,” meaning conflict, over there. And every one of them was started by Iran, either their soldiers or they paid for soldiers, soldiers for hire."
The leader of this imperial venture was Suleimani and his weapons were terrorism and paid "militas", mercenaries used to suppress true nationalists and reformers in the countries Persia, I mean, Iran was trying to conquer. As I see it, terrorism is asymmetric warfare and is being used by Iran as a weapon to build an empire just as in Persia in the 12 century the assassin sect was a form of terrorism used by the Nizari state to build its power and counter Sunni power. And Suleimani was intending to step up terror attacks in every direction in 2020. This strategy in many ways rested directly on Suleimani just as the Nazis rested on Hitler and the Communists on Stalin. And Trump shot Suleimani before he managed to kill as many people as Hitler or Stalin but after Suleimani made his intention to kill Jews, Sunnis, Americans and Iranian reformers plain. The Dems are furious that they didn't get a chance to leak Trump's plan because if they don't have that power they won't get paid, just as the Clinton Foundation has lost funding now that Hillary can't leak all US plans on her server.
Trump said: "what we did two days ago with this horrible terrorist [Suleimani]. He was a terrorist, you know, ... you look at what [the media] write, ... now they’re trying to build [Suleimani] just like they did al-Baghdadi. Al-Baghdadi was the number-one terrorist in the world. We got him. ... [the media] tried to build [Al-Baghdadi] up into a relatively wonderful man. He was a total bad guy – [just like Suleimani]"
Most people would see killing another country's second in command as a significant escalation. If Iran had killed Pence or McConnell would you have seen that as an escalation of the conflict?
Typically stupid comparison. Mad Dog Mattis a slightly better comparison. Our vice president not exactly a killer.
Here is Trump's withdrawal plan. Kill the decision maker bad guys. Make them beg for mercy and promise to be good and mind their business.
Sept 16th Susan Rice appeared on 5 shows proclaiming it was all because of a video. I was watching one of those shows that morning, and decided to look for that video myself. Didn't take me that long. Bad acting, just what people said. (I tried finding it again a few months ago and couldn't). What struck me though was the fact that there were roughly 2000-3000 views. Total. This is almost a week after the attack. It was stated relatively early that it was a "video". Yet 5 days later only roughly 3000 views. We have what, 20,000 journalists in this country, and they didnt bother looking for the "video?"
I have no journalism background, one year of college, like to read, but not a great writer. I knew it was BS that day (well, actually prior). That day told me a lot. I just remember David Gregory being part of my disgust.
So, how could Rush not have asked about whatever.............I dont listen to him, but Rush isnt exactly a "news" guy anyway.
Was Trump's move bold - yes. Was it more risky than doing nothing? We don't have the info Trump had so we can't know. I have faith in Trump and others do not. But even if you have no faith in the US and its President so that you have a load of faith which you are carrying about looking for a resting place - how can you choose to put your faith in Iran of all places? and how can you mourn a terrorist's death? and why do you think you can get through life without some courage? A furry suit and a fuzzy mind won't appease Muslim terrorists but rather will draw their fire - they like killing easy pagan targets.
Most people would see killing another country's second in command as a significant escalation. - ARM
Those of us who aren't bat-shit insane properly see it as retaliation.
If I find out that Mike Pence is directing an attack on the Iranian embassy in DC, I won't say anything when the Iranians shoot him.
When I read the comment I took it to mean that we would not exclude culturally significant sites as targets, not that we would target culturally significant sites. So that hiding in a mosque or museum would no longer provide protection.
Good stories about Vietnam Drago. They have the capability of being a huge Ally against Chinese hegemony. while I think the tropical climate might prevent them from ever reaching Korean stature, Vietnam should see continued growth and improvement. It's just too bad we had to go through that stupid War. Imagine how much more powerful both of us would have been if we became friends in 1958 rather than mortal enemies
When I lived in garden Grove show me mid-1980s the guy who fixed my work boots was a surgeon from Saigon. I think he had a lawyer and engineer and a doctor in his offspring
As with the Vietnamese, the Iranians who managed to GTFO seem to be prospering in the USA.
It sounds to me like the Secretary of Defense and President Trump are playing good cop/bad cop with respect to the cultural sites.
Most people would see killing another country's second in command as a significant escalation. - ARM
Do you mean an unelected guy who holds no government position outside of being a general in charge of world terrorism? He was to take over if Khamenei died? Maybe you need to think that one through a little more.
He was branded a terrorist by two administrations prior to Trump, but I guess they figured that he was untouchable because douche bags thought he was a warrior poet revered by terrorists around the world.
"Most people would see killing another country's second in command as a significant escalation. - ARM"
No they wouldn't. The option to escalate is theirs.
Francisco D said...
The most coherent and appropriate response to repeated liars is to ignore them.
Another failure, probably a common experience for you. You resorted to ad hominem rather than provide an example of a lie and deconstruct said lie.
You are clearly out of you depth but I will give you another chance. Provide a coherent response without any invective.
Oh boy, Vietnam! The many veterans of that war I've known to some degree, beginning, be careful revisionists to note! with Army noncom JROTC instructors nearing their 20 or 25, never expressed any opinion more favorable about our gallant ARVN allies than amused contempt. (That the SVNese were riven with ethnic and sectarian chasms that contributed to their lack of national identity and defeat has already been noted by others.)
Some openly boasted of hating the ARVN more than the VC or NVA; that's not to mention the ones who claimed to have shot more African-Americans (not their term) than Gooks.
None of them had any confidence in the country or the people, and their disgust with American leaders was palpable.
This was 1968-69 etc. and up through present day. And let's not forget, we spent a lot of money not just building Cam Ranh Bay and making the SVNAF the fourth-largest in the world, we also attacked the ecology and environment of the region with decades-long aftereffects.
Not to mention a massive and deadly bombing campaign on peasant societies that helped destabilize one all the way to the point of auto-genocide.
The positive effects of our losing effort are real--just as the Korean Police Action helped jumpstart the Japanese economy, so Vietnam did the like for Thailand. But that's silver-lining stuff.
You can blame politics all you want, but as that famous Kraut said, "War is the continuation of politics with the admixture of other means." When the elected representatives of the people say "game over" it's over.
Narr
They had their chance
So Rusty if someone kicks in your balla, hitting back is escalation?
There are three main powers in Iran, the clerics, the military and the parliament. Most people see the clerics as the most powerful force, the military next and the parliament a poor third. So, the issue would then be what was Soleimani's standing within the military. Iran's military has two components, the regular army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Since the stated role of the IRGC is to "prevent foreign interference as well as coups by the military or "deviant movements"" it would seem reasonable to argue that the IRGC is preeminent relative to the regular army - they are effectively the muscle behind the clerics.
According to wiki: The IRGC's "expanded social, political, military and economic role under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's administration—especially during the 2009 presidential election and post-election suppression of protest—has led many Western analysts to argue that its political power has surpassed even that of the country's Shia clerical system."
Soleimani was head of the Quds Force a component of the IRGC.
According to wiki:
"Stanley McChrystal describes the Quds Force as an organization roughly analogous to a combination of the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) in the United States. The Quds Force reports directly to the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei."
Because of his and the Quds Force's close and direct ties to the Iranian supreme leader it seems reasonable to say that Soleimani was one of the most powerful men in Iran. The comparison to Pence seems apt. Pence is less powerful that McConnell or Pelosi or arguably the heads of the CIA and the Supreme Court, but he probably makes the top 10. Soleimani seems to have ranked a little higher in Iran.
I agree with the old Trump, the one Ann Coulter supported. If we are going to fight other peoples wars we should at least get paid like mercenaries.
The Saudis are too fucking lazy to put in a 9-5 much less fight a war. What loss is it to the world if they fall? Yet we have the embarrassing spectacle of Trump's son-in-law regularly fellating the Saudi royal family, for reasons known only to the family.
the sepah pasdaran, organized and trained Hezbollah, against civilian targets in Beirut, Buenos aires, Mykonos, berlin, those are just a few that come to mind,
Because of his and the Quds Force's close and direct ties to the Iranian supreme leader it seems reasonable to say that Soleimani was one of the most powerful men in Iran
Paragraphs filled with stuff that has no bearing on the subject you selected.
Soleimani was a General in a combat zone directing actions against US military, and directing an attempted occupation of United States sovereign soil
To not take this guy out when he is orchestrating assaults against the United States, would be dereliction of duty.
(his place in the management chart does not confer immunity.)
There is no cultural sites controversy. The media wants one, but I don't think most people care about it, or that Trump would follow through. After 3 years, they still can't read this man?
Post a Comment