Cute, but he is still surrendering and throwing his allies under the bus. Our military is not exactly without blame here.
Could you explain this a bit?
Sure, baiting the Kurds to fight ISIS on your behalf (with heavy casualties) and promise them protection and then just throwing them to the wolves is not exactly an honorable thing to do. And the military executed that, except they didn't because they all went to Iraq. So if they can be so "flexible" in following orders, couldn't they have found a way to protect the Kurds? Of course they could have, Trump can barely focus his attention on 2 powerpoint slides in a row.
Sure, baiting the Kurds to fight ISIS on your behalf (with heavy casualties) and promise them protection and then just throwing them to the wolves is not exactly an honorable thing to do. And the military executed that, except they didn't because they all went to Iraq. So if they can be so "flexible" in following orders, couldn't they have found a way to protect the Kurds? Of course they could have, Trump can barely focus his attention on 2 powerpoint slides in a row.
No matter how bad the President may be, I don't think anyone wants to start down the path to a place where the military stops taking orders from the civilian leadership and starts making policy on their own.
Sure, baiting the Kurds to fight ISIS on your behalf (with heavy casualties) and promise them protection and then just throwing them to the wolves is not exactly an honorable thing to do. And the military executed that, except they didn't because they all went to Iraq. So if they can be so "flexible" in following orders, couldn't they have found a way to protect the Kurds? Of course they could have, Trump can barely focus his attention on 2 powerpoint slides in a row.
No matter how bad the President may be, I don't think anyone wants to start down the path to a place where the military stops taking orders from the civilian leadership and starts making policy on their own.
seriously. basil, wtf are you talking about? Did you expect our military to revolt?
Sure, baiting the Kurds to fight ISIS on your behalf (with heavy casualties) and promise them protection and then just throwing them to the wolves is not exactly an honorable thing to do. And the military executed that, except they didn't because they all went to Iraq. So if they can be so "flexible" in following orders, couldn't they have found a way to protect the Kurds? Of course they could have, Trump can barely focus his attention on 2 powerpoint slides in a row.
No matter how bad the President may be, I don't think anyone wants to start down the path to a place where the military stops taking orders from the civilian leadership and starts making policy on their own.
Sure, baiting the Kurds to fight ISIS on your behalf (with heavy casualties) and promise them protection and then just throwing them to the wolves is not exactly an honorable thing to do. And the military executed that, except they didn't because they all went to Iraq. So if they can be so "flexible" in following orders, couldn't they have found a way to protect the Kurds? Of course they could have, Trump can barely focus his attention on 2 powerpoint slides in a row.
No matter how bad the President may be, I don't think anyone wants to start down the path to a place where the military stops taking orders from the civilian leadership and starts making policy on their own.
That's what the soldiers said in Germany in 1939
Ordering a soldier to stop fighting and withdraw may be a bad decision but it is almost certainly not a war crime. The right of soldiers to refuse to obey an illegal order is recognized throughout the world. The right to refuse to obey an unpopular order, not so much.
Sure, baiting the Kurds to fight ISIS on your behalf (with heavy casualties) and promise them protection and then just throwing them to the wolves is not exactly an honorable thing to do. And the military executed that, except they didn't because they all went to Iraq. So if they can be so "flexible" in following orders, couldn't they have found a way to protect the Kurds? Of course they could have, Trump can barely focus his attention on 2 powerpoint slides in a row.
No matter how bad the President may be, I don't think anyone wants to start down the path to a place where the military stops taking orders from the civilian leadership and starts making policy on their own.
seriously. basil, wtf are you talking about? Did you expect our military to revolt?
Trump ordered them to throw the Kurds under the bus and return home. They did the first part allright, but they somehow managed to ignore the second part of the order and end up 100 miles down the road in Iraq. And Trump has too short of an attention span to even notice. So the military has creative ways to not follow orders and still not revolting. Yet they are not using it to benefit the Kurds, but only their own plans. They are a dishonorable bunch. They also voted for Trump by a big margin.
Trump ordered them to throw the Kurds under the bus and return home. They did the first part allright, but they somehow managed to ignore the second part of the order and end up 100 miles down the road in Iraq. And Trump has too short of an attention span to even notice. So the military has creative ways to not follow orders and still not revolting. Yet they are not using it to benefit the Kurds, but only their own plans. They are a dishonorable bunch. They also voted for Trump by a big margin.
An ugly statement. I have known many soldiers over the years, some of them in my own family. They are, by and large, at least as honourable as the public at large with an added focus on mission and duty.
Sure, baiting the Kurds to fight ISIS on your behalf (with heavy casualties) and promise them protection and then just throwing them to the wolves is not exactly an honorable thing to do. And the military executed that, except they didn't because they all went to Iraq. So if they can be so "flexible" in following orders, couldn't they have found a way to protect the Kurds? Of course they could have, Trump can barely focus his attention on 2 powerpoint slides in a row.
No matter how bad the President may be, I don't think anyone wants to start down the path to a place where the military stops taking orders from the civilian leadership and starts making policy on their own.
That's what the soldiers said in Germany in 1939
Ordering a soldier to stop fighting and withdraw may be a bad decision but it is almost certainly not a war crime. The right of soldiers to refuse to obey an illegal order is recognized throughout the world. The right to refuse to obey an unpopular order, not so much.
He ordered them to come home, but they all ended up in Iraq. How is that not disobeying a direct order then?
Trump ordered them to throw the Kurds under the bus and return home. They did the first part allright, but they somehow managed to ignore the second part of the order and end up 100 miles down the road in Iraq. And Trump has too short of an attention span to even notice. So the military has creative ways to not follow orders and still not revolting. Yet they are not using it to benefit the Kurds, but only their own plans. They are a dishonorable bunch. They also voted for Trump by a big margin.
An ugly statement. I have known many soldiers over the years, some of them in my own family. They are, by and large, at least as honourable as the public at large with an added focus on mission and duty.
Then enlighten me as to what part of that statement is factually incorrect
He ordered them to come home, but they all ended up in Iraq. How is that not disobeying a direct order then?
What the hell are you talking about? Are you really incapable of understanding the difference between the verbal statements of the President and the orders passed down from the civilian leadership via the chain of command?
It saddens me to see you posting this nonsense. I had thought better of you.
Hey, I feel the same way about the military as you feel about Biden
You know what? I am not sure what is wrong with you tonight but I am not interested in having this conversation with you. I hope you have recovered (or maybe just grown up) in the morning.
Then enlighten me as to what part of that statement is factually incorrect
I already did. See above.
It saddens me that you are brainwashed by the military industrial complex. Never seen a country that they don't want to invade, or a war they don't want to fight. Also the single biggest reason for our enormous national deficit.
Hillary Clinton isn't running for president — nor should she, say her former Democratic colleagues in the Senate.
As one of her top aides keeps the door open to a 2020 run, a host of Democratic senators are sending a polite warning to the failed 2016 nominee: Don’t do it.
“She’s done a great service to our country and public service and I supported her wholeheartedly but I believe it’s time for another nominee,” said Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).
In fact, in the unlikely event that Clinton took a last-minute plunge into the primary, she might struggle to win the backing of any Democrats from a chamber in which she served for eight years.
Clinton has plenty of good will in the 47-member Democratic Caucus. Most of them like and respect her for her service and still smart over her 2016 loss to Trump. But the sentiment that her time has passed is one shared by moderates and liberals alike.
“I don’t think it would be good for her,” said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.). “She’s been through this war once. The Republicans have made a target out of her for 30 years and she’s still going to [be] that same target. I just think it would be tough.”
“That would be a mistake,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.). Asked to expand, he repeated: “That would be a mistake.”
“Absolutely not,” said Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).
Philippe Reines, Clinton’s longtime aide and adviser, doesn’t see things that way. On Fox News this week, he declined to rule out a Clinton bid and said that “there might be a reason that she’d be the best person” to take on Trump and govern in the aftermath. But he also acknowledged she’d have to win a crowded primary, a difficult endeavor.
Clinton herself invited the scrutiny, jokingly replying “don’t tempt me” when Trump tweeted that Clinton should take on Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) for the nomination. Meeting the fundraising and polling thresholds to qualify for the debates likely wouldn’t be a problem. And she's already shown a willingness to mix it up with at least one other candidate — having swiped at Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) as being backed by the Russians.
But most of her Democratic allies don’t take the buzz seriously and say they are happy with the field as it is, despite griping by some in the establishment about the current roster of Democrat.
“We have a lot of really fantastic candidates out there already. Let's leave it at that,” said Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii).
Democrats also don’t believe Clinton herself has any real interest in being a candidate again. Her political career has been a grueling one: First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, U.S. senator, secretary of State and presidential nominee.
“I can sort of see the expression on her face, of sort of disbelief and dismissal,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) on Clinton seeing reports that she might make a third run for president. “It’s just my instinct that there’s no way she wants to go through this meat grinder again.”
In 2013, every female Democratic senator signed on to a letter to Clinton encouraging her to run for the presidency. By 2015, most of the caucus had coalesced behind Clinton, cutting off oxygen to any potential opponents. Only one Democratic senator, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, ended up endorsing Clinton’s primary opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
Clinton’s coronation by the party establishment left many Democrats feeling burned, particularly after she ended up losing to Trump. And today’s landscape couldn’t be more different.
“It’s hard to know whether the world has passed on or not,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). “I’m a friend of hers and I’m extraordinarily fond of her. But that’s a factor.”
There are a half-dozen Democratic senators currently running for the nomination. And former Vice President Joe Biden already has a bloc of senators and congressmen backing him, including Feinstein. Candidates like Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg offer options from outside the Beltway.
None of that would change if Clinton got in.
“I can’t imagine that [Clinton] would want to get back in the race,” said Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), who said she prefers candidates from the middle of the country. “If she wants to, then she goes through the same process as everyone else. And we’ll see what she says in the debates.”
What is true is that many in the party are anxious about what lies ahead. The House is plunging into impeachment, the Senate will have to hold a trial and Democratic voters have a long way to go in pruning the field of presidential contenders.
Yet Democrats largely believe that reaching back into 2016, when Clinton handily won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College to Trump, isn’t the antidote for the party’s current plight. It would shake up the race, but perhaps not in a good way.
“I just want to make sure we want to stay united. There are good people that are running. I can support any one of them,” said Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.).
“The field is somewhat set,” added Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.), shaking his head when asked if Clinton should reconsider. “I think we need to move forward.”
Hillary Clinton isn't running for president — nor should she, say her former Democratic colleagues in the Senate.
As one of her top aides keeps the door open to a 2020 run, a host of Democratic senators are sending a polite warning to the failed 2016 nominee: Don’t do it.
“She’s done a great service to our country and public service and I supported her wholeheartedly but I believe it’s time for another nominee,” said Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).
In fact, in the unlikely event that Clinton took a last-minute plunge into the primary, she might struggle to win the backing of any Democrats from a chamber in which she served for eight years.
Clinton has plenty of good will in the 47-member Democratic Caucus. Most of them like and respect her for her service and still smart over her 2016 loss to Trump. But the sentiment that her time has passed is one shared by moderates and liberals alike.
“I don’t think it would be good for her,” said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.). “She’s been through this war once. The Republicans have made a target out of her for 30 years and she’s still going to [be] that same target. I just think it would be tough.”
“That would be a mistake,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.). Asked to expand, he repeated: “That would be a mistake.”
“Absolutely not,” said Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).
Philippe Reines, Clinton’s longtime aide and adviser, doesn’t see things that way. On Fox News this week, he declined to rule out a Clinton bid and said that “there might be a reason that she’d be the best person” to take on Trump and govern in the aftermath. But he also acknowledged she’d have to win a crowded primary, a difficult endeavor.
Clinton herself invited the scrutiny, jokingly replying “don’t tempt me” when Trump tweeted that Clinton should take on Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) for the nomination. Meeting the fundraising and polling thresholds to qualify for the debates likely wouldn’t be a problem. And she's already shown a willingness to mix it up with at least one other candidate — having swiped at Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) as being backed by the Russians.
But most of her Democratic allies don’t take the buzz seriously and say they are happy with the field as it is, despite griping by some in the establishment about the current roster of Democrat.
“We have a lot of really fantastic candidates out there already. Let's leave it at that,” said Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii).
Democrats also don’t believe Clinton herself has any real interest in being a candidate again. Her political career has been a grueling one: First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, U.S. senator, secretary of State and presidential nominee.
“I can sort of see the expression on her face, of sort of disbelief and dismissal,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) on Clinton seeing reports that she might make a third run for president. “It’s just my instinct that there’s no way she wants to go through this meat grinder again.”
In 2013, every female Democratic senator signed on to a letter to Clinton encouraging her to run for the presidency. By 2015, most of the caucus had coalesced behind Clinton, cutting off oxygen to any potential opponents. Only one Democratic senator, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, ended up endorsing Clinton’s primary opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
Clinton’s coronation by the party establishment left many Democrats feeling burned, particularly after she ended up losing to Trump. And today’s landscape couldn’t be more different.
“It’s hard to know whether the world has passed on or not,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). “I’m a friend of hers and I’m extraordinarily fond of her. But that’s a factor.”
There are a half-dozen Democratic senators currently running for the nomination. And former Vice President Joe Biden already has a bloc of senators and congressmen backing him, including Feinstein. Candidates like Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg offer options from outside the Beltway.
None of that would change if Clinton got in.
“I can’t imagine that [Clinton] would want to get back in the race,” said Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), who said she prefers candidates from the middle of the country. “If she wants to, then she goes through the same process as everyone else. And we’ll see what she says in the debates.”
What is true is that many in the party are anxious about what lies ahead. The House is plunging into impeachment, the Senate will have to hold a trial and Democratic voters have a long way to go in pruning the field of presidential contenders.
Yet Democrats largely believe that reaching back into 2016, when Clinton handily won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College to Trump, isn’t the antidote for the party’s current plight. It would shake up the race, but perhaps not in a good way.
“I just want to make sure we want to stay united. There are good people that are running. I can support any one of them,” said Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.).
“The field is somewhat set,” added Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.), shaking his head when asked if Clinton should reconsider. “I think we need to move forward.”
Hillary Clinton isn't running for president — nor should she, say her former Democratic colleagues in the Senate.
As one of her top aides keeps the door open to a 2020 run, a host of Democratic senators are sending a polite warning to the failed 2016 nominee: Don’t do it.
“She’s done a great service to our country and public service and I supported her wholeheartedly but I believe it’s time for another nominee,” said Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).
In fact, in the unlikely event that Clinton took a last-minute plunge into the primary, she might struggle to win the backing of any Democrats from a chamber in which she served for eight years.
Clinton has plenty of good will in the 47-member Democratic Caucus. Most of them like and respect her for her service and still smart over her 2016 loss to Trump. But the sentiment that her time has passed is one shared by moderates and liberals alike.
“I don’t think it would be good for her,” said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.). “She’s been through this war once. The Republicans have made a target out of her for 30 years and she’s still going to [be] that same target. I just think it would be tough.”
“That would be a mistake,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.). Asked to expand, he repeated: “That would be a mistake.”
“Absolutely not,” said Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).
Philippe Reines, Clinton’s longtime aide and adviser, doesn’t see things that way. On Fox News this week, he declined to rule out a Clinton bid and said that “there might be a reason that she’d be the best person” to take on Trump and govern in the aftermath. But he also acknowledged she’d have to win a crowded primary, a difficult endeavor.
Clinton herself invited the scrutiny, jokingly replying “don’t tempt me” when Trump tweeted that Clinton should take on Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) for the nomination. Meeting the fundraising and polling thresholds to qualify for the debates likely wouldn’t be a problem. And she's already shown a willingness to mix it up with at least one other candidate — having swiped at Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) as being backed by the Russians.
But most of her Democratic allies don’t take the buzz seriously and say they are happy with the field as it is, despite griping by some in the establishment about the current roster of Democrat.
“We have a lot of really fantastic candidates out there already. Let's leave it at that,” said Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii).
Democrats also don’t believe Clinton herself has any real interest in being a candidate again. Her political career has been a grueling one: First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, U.S. senator, secretary of State and presidential nominee.
“I can sort of see the expression on her face, of sort of disbelief and dismissal,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) on Clinton seeing reports that she might make a third run for president. “It’s just my instinct that there’s no way she wants to go through this meat grinder again.”
In 2013, every female Democratic senator signed on to a letter to Clinton encouraging her to run for the presidency. By 2015, most of the caucus had coalesced behind Clinton, cutting off oxygen to any potential opponents. Only one Democratic senator, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, ended up endorsing Clinton’s primary opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
Clinton’s coronation by the party establishment left many Democrats feeling burned, particularly after she ended up losing to Trump. And today’s landscape couldn’t be more different.
“It’s hard to know whether the world has passed on or not,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). “I’m a friend of hers and I’m extraordinarily fond of her. But that’s a factor.”
There are a half-dozen Democratic senators currently running for the nomination. And former Vice President Joe Biden already has a bloc of senators and congressmen backing him, including Feinstein. Candidates like Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg offer options from outside the Beltway.
None of that would change if Clinton got in.
“I can’t imagine that [Clinton] would want to get back in the race,” said Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), who said she prefers candidates from the middle of the country. “If she wants to, then she goes through the same process as everyone else. And we’ll see what she says in the debates.”
What is true is that many in the party are anxious about what lies ahead. The House is plunging into impeachment, the Senate will have to hold a trial and Democratic voters have a long way to go in pruning the field of presidential contenders.
Yet Democrats largely believe that reaching back into 2016, when Clinton handily won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College to Trump, isn’t the antidote for the party’s current plight. It would shake up the race, but perhaps not in a good way.
“I just want to make sure we want to stay united. There are good people that are running. I can support any one of them,” said Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.).
“The field is somewhat set,” added Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.), shaking his head when asked if Clinton should reconsider. “I think we need to move forward.”
Good for you, you've landed a serious blow to all the posters who believe HRC should run for President. Bravo!
I was married for 63+ years, so I do know something about the subject. Marriage is the definition of compromise, not oneupmanship.. Also, respect for one another’s opinions and a desire to create a happy life together.
I was married for 63+ years, so I do know something about the subject. Marriage is the definition of compromise, not oneupmanship.. Also, respect for one another’s opinions and a desire to create a happy life together.
Anyone says it’s easy, is certifiably nuts!
if any man in 2019 is writing an article like that non-ironically, he's an *******.
The article the The Federalist writer is critiquing is pretty bad - if any woman in 2019 is writing an article like that non-ironically is living in a 1950/60s time capsule
Sure, baiting the Kurds to fight ISIS on your behalf (with heavy casualties) and promise them protection and then just throwing them to the wolves is not exactly an honorable thing to do. And the military executed that, except they didn't because they all went to Iraq. So if they can be so "flexible" in following orders, couldn't they have found a way to protect the Kurds? Of course they could have, Trump can barely focus his attention on 2 powerpoint slides in a row.