We are the drain the swamp people

CONRAD BLACK JOINS THE MANHATTAN PACHYDERM CLUB CHORUS CALLING ON TRUMP TO CHANGE
Pens an amazingly false and disappointing characterization of Peggy “read my lips…” Noonan

Like many conservatives, I have admired Conrad Black, described by Rush Limbaugh as a “major media mogul”. In my opinion he is also a great conservative columnist. He is, of course, much more than either or both of those as can be found in his online biography.
And, thus, it was very disappointing to learn of and read Mr. Black’s latest column in the National Review. It first came to my attention by hearing of it on Rush’s show.

Since, I’ve read Black’s column as well as Peggy Noonan’s latest column in the Wall Street Journal, 9/14/19.

If one reads both, it will be obvious, I believe, why many are very disappointed in Conrad Black, understand completely why Limbaugh called him out on his show Friday, and finally, how utterly and amazingly off the mark Mr. Black is in his assessment of Ms. Noonan! To wit:

Trump’s Only Real Weakness Is His Style

If the president can become a bit more presidential, his reelection will be all but assured.

This is the time for President Trump to deprive his enemies of the last weapon that could be employed against him that could cause him any harm: the largely false, but still troublesome, issue of his personality and routine behavior. Other lines of attack have come to naught: Collusion with Russia, accusations of racism provoking outbursts of mass murder (by uttering “racially charged statements,” in the inadvertently Orwellian words of CNN’s most witless talking head, Don Lemon), the verbal recession confected by the world-renowned economists of CNN and MSNBC, all of it has collapsed. Illegal border crossings are in sharp decline as the wall is steadily extended, and Mexico cooperates in arresting the flow of illegal migrants to the United States, all within the framework of a new free-trade agreement and the steady relocation of manufacturing designed for the U.S. market from China to Mexico (and other countries). The only arguments left to the puling and squabbling Democrats are ever more implausible lurches to the left and the lingering sense that Donald Trump, though not the extremist or the incompetent that many had declaimed and predicted, is just not suitable to be president.

It does the president no favors to pretend that there are not still a significant number of people who have an uneasy feeling that although his administration is in policy terms quite successful, and the president has faithfully tried to carry out most of what he promised in the raucous 2016 election campaign, he is yet too bombastic and evidently egocentric to maintain the dignity of his great office. This is a widely held view, even among many who support the president for his policy successes and the well-conceived initiatives that are still in the balance, especially trade and other negotiations with China, and the attempted revival of nuclear non-proliferation in respect of Iran and North Korea.

The entirely admirable Peggy Noonan (Wall Street Journal and Fox News) seems to me illustrative of the best type of these people. She is effectively nonpartisan, extremely knowledgeable, and always very fair, and she wishes every U.S. president well and hopes that whoever is in that position does a good job for the country. Because she worked so closely with President Reagan, she may tend to measure presidents against him, and few in history can live up to his quality, as a man and as a leader. But there is nothing wrong with having high standards. It is clear from some of her columns that she finds the president’s bellicosity toward his opponents, and his tendency to be nasty and personal toward them, disappointing and unsuitable to a president.

In Trump’s defense, no president since Richard Nixon’s last days in office has been subjected to such malicious and widespread hostility as this one, and while most of the obloquy directed against Nixon was based on a minor felony compounded by some more-serious obstructions of consequent investigations, all imputations of possibly illegal wrongdoing by our current president have collapsed and been exposed as malicious or negligent abuse of power by sections of the Justice Department and the intelligence agencies. History is finally beginning to record that Richard Nixon was an outstanding president who was overwhelmed by the propagation of public hysteria over trivial matters in which there is no evidence that he did anything illegal. But there was an illegal source of the problem, and, as Nixon himself acknowledged, he badly mishandled the investigation.

—————–
Here is a transcript of Rush Limbaugh’s comments on his  show about Mr. Black’s remarks: (excerpted to limit some of Rush’s obiter dicta)

And there is a new addition to this group of people, and I have to tell you that I was surprised to see it. On this program over the course of several months now I have referenced positively and quoted extensively from someone I believe to be a brilliant man. That would be Conrad Black. Conrad Black, a former media mogul himself. He’s Canadian. He is a member of the British House of Lords. He’s known officially as Lord Black of Crossharbour.

He used to own a bunch of Canadian newspapers and newspapers in Israel. And he writes columns for National Review and American Greatness, those magazines, slash, websites. And he is one of the most astute people in understanding who Donald Trump is and why Donald Trump won. You’d have to look far and wide to find anybody else as confident as Conrad Black is that Donald Trump is going to win and win big in 2020.

He exudes confidence all the time that Trump’s opposition is gonna get theirs, the silent coup members are gonna be indicted. He believes that all of these wrongdoers, all of the people that have misused the system to try to get Trump are gonna get theirs and they’re gonna get payback, and it’s gonna be criminal and indictments and it’s gonna happen very near the 2020 election. He’s been resolute in this confidence that Trump is not gonna lose his base, that Trump is going to continue to triumph.

His confidence is rooted in the substance of Trump’s policies that are succeeding on economics and on trade and dealing with illegal immigration. So I was shocked, and I must say I was shocked, to see that over at National Review Conrad Black has written that Trump needs to tone it down, that Trump needs to become more presidential.

Let me quote to you from the Conrad Black piece. “If the president can become a bit more presidential, his reelection will be all but assured.” Now, up to now, ah, there may be a couple of exceptions, but Conrad Black has not  . . .noted Trump’s behavior as a problem for his reelection. He’s not thought that Trump was carrying unnecessary baggage. He’s mostly writes about how it is that Trump has been able to succeed. And he’s been shrewd and perceptive in explaining that.

But now he has backed off a little bit. “If the president can become a bit more presidential, his reelection will be all but assured.” Continuing, he writes, “This is the time for President Trump to deprive his enemies of the last weapon that could be employed against him that could cause him any harm: the largely false, but still troublesome, issue of his personality and routine behavior.

“It does the president no favors to pretend that there are not still a significant number of people who have an uneasy feeling that although his administration is in policy terms quite successful, and the president has faithfully tried to carry out most of what he promised –” It does him no favors to pretend that there are not people who believe he is still “too bombastic and evidently egocentric to maintain the dignity of his great office.”

Let me translate this. When he says it does the president no favors to pretend that there are still not — look, it doesn’t do anybody any good to deny that there are a lot of people out there who think Trump is still too bombastic and egocentric and is not maintaining the dignity of the office.

He said: “This is a widely held view, even among many who support the president for his policy successes and the well-conceived initiatives that are still in the balance, especially trade and other negotiations with China, and the attempted revival of nuclear non-proliferation in respect of Iran and North Korea.”

And then really floored me when he suggested that Peggy Noonan could maybe be brought back into the fold into supporting Trump if he would just be nicer. That Peggy doesn’t like the fighting, Peggy doesn’t like the confrontation, Peggy doesn’t like all this constant rabble-rousing, and if Trump would just dial down the bellicosity toward his opponents and his tendency to be nasty and personal, that maybe people like Peggy Noonan would come back.

I was stunned when I saw this. Conrad Black knows as well as anybody that this is the reason Trump got elected! Do any of you — maybe we should throw this open, ’cause I’ll bet you I know, but I’m not gonna pre-characterize what I think the response here I would get is. I’m sure there are some people, we’ve had some women call, “I love Trump, oh, my God. Oh, my God. Just stop tweeting, stop the tweets.” (bold face ours)

We had a whole segment on it or two earlier this week. But the idea that Trump would greatly enhance his already likely reelection by changing who he is, of all the people that I thought would join this chorus, Conrad Black I would not put on that list.

Now, I can imagine what’s happened here given the names of people he mentions in his piece. I’m sure he writes these universally, intriguingly, masterfully created pieces of support for Trump, and I’m sure some of these people in the salons of New York and the salons of Boston where the elites hang out, where the people who really make the country run, I’m sure they are getting hold of Conrad, “What are you doing? Do you not realize what an insult this guy is to people like us?” And Conrad’s fully capable of harboring these thoughts himself, too, but I can’t help but think there has been some outside influence.

So let me just put it to you this way. If Trump were to all of a sudden become more “presidential” in the way these people define it — if Trump were to stop tweeting, to stop being critical of the media, to stop calling them fake news, to start conducting real press conferences again like it’s always been done — would that make you feel better? Would that make you feel more enthused? Would that make you say, “All right! All right! I knew Trump could do it. I knew he could do it. I feel better.”

Is that how you would react to it? I’m just putting the thought out there. In other words (impression), “Donald Trump needs to become more like everybody else in Washington. Politicians are politicians. Presidents are presidents. There’s a code. There’s a standard. There is a behavior that is accepted, and there hasn’t been any exception to it except for Trump, and it’s time that he conformed to it! It’s time that Trump became the emblematic Washington politician.” A lot of people getting nervous about this out there.

A lot of people… You can’t find anybody… You can’t find anybody in the circle of elites any more pro-Donald Trump than Conrad Black. You would have to look long and hard to find anybody in that group of people who knows Donald Trump like Conrad Black knows Trump. Most of them have no idea about Trump. They live and breathe all of these preconceived notions. They haven’t taken the time — like the Democrats and the Democrats in the media haven’t taken the time — to really understand Trump or the people that support him and voted for him.

But Conrad has. Conrad knows, knows exactly why Trump is succeeding. Let me put this another way: Is it important? Does Trump not to win back people like Peggy Noonan and others in the conservative commentariat who have become Never Trumpers? Does Trump need to focus on the Never Trumpers and bring them back in the fold — and can he?*

Peggy Noonan’s latest column — note the title and lede to it. 

Everyone Knows the Truth About Politics
The Democrats are scrambling, Trump is a screwball and the sane center is getting ignored.

*”The entirely admirable Peggy Noonan… illustrative of the best type of these people”*. Not to repeat what we have often described as the Peggy Noonan so accurately reflected in her columns, we do wish to note that we believe that Black could not be further off in his characterization of “Miss Peggy”. As we refer to her, she is perhaps most famous as a speechwriter for the G H W Bush campaign and as the one who “helped” Bush’s reelection effort so greatly (not) by giving him the line, “Read my lips…no new taxes!”

Peggy has written very little even part-way favorable about a GOP president since, including GHW’s son, GW. We’ve always thought that Peggy had always convinced herself that she played a much bigger role in Ronald Reagan’s administration than she actually did. Consequently she seemed to us to be quite resentful of GW Bush when he failed to bring her into his administration, obviously not recognizing her ‘gargantuan’ talents. “Entirely admirable”? We don’t think so.   DLH

One can wonder that perhaps Lord Black had not read Miss Peggy’s latest prior to finalizing his own.  Reading hers one sees only the “woke” presumptiveness of someone who has no accurate idea of what attracted people to Trump, keeps them loyal and is engendering more to the fold.  Noonan’s field of contacts who she interprets for us as “everyone” and the “sane center” does not extend beyond a few blocks from her New York apartment. The whole column reads like a reference to “everyone who is anyone” snideness and utter contempt for Trump.

Read the column if you subscribe or can get by the pay wall, we may find the stomach to deal more with what Ms Noonan thinks she knows about what everyone knows and Conrad Black’s paean to her ilk.  R Mall

0

0

• It seems they need the pork and soybeans
• Bad news for Democrats counting on their philosophical brothers resiliency
• Dems really don’t want to see even the potential for Trump winning on trade
• Dems no doubt asking “Why couldn’t they have waited for 14 months”, starving people never inhibited their policies before, and it won’t inhibit ours.”
  

 LA Times:   China adds soybeans, pork to tariff exemptions before U.S. talks   (excerpt)

The Chinese government is growing increasingly concerned about soaring prices and their potential to mar celebrations for the 70th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China’s founding on Oct. 1. China is hoping to import 2 million tons for the year, some of which would be added to state reserves, according to people with knowledge of the plans.

China bought about a million tons of pork so far this year, of which 87,771 tons were from the U.S., according to Chinese customs data. Even if purchases tripled, imports would only make up about 6.6% of domestic supply, Citigroup Inc. said in a report on Thursday. The world’s biggest consumer of pork accounted for about half of global demand last year, while it produced about 54 million tons, Citigroup said.

More imports are only going to go part of the way to address shortages. The country is likely to see a 10-million-ton pork deficit this year, more than the roughly 8 million tons in annual global trade, according to Vice Premier Hu Chunhua. That means the country will need to fill the gap by itself, he said.

Now we may have written a few times calling on all concerned about trade deficits and cheating China, to give Trump the support to hold fast. But an element in this state, centered in certain ag association lobbyists, are not seriously concerned about the nation’s trade deficits with China or their thievery or threatening hegemony, as much as they are concerned with the smoothness of their own China deals and damn manufacturing here, and damn intellectual property because they consider their industry above it all.

The economics are clear – Trump USA holds the best hand to, with determination, obtain  much better results with China on matters of trade and intellectual property and currency manipulations than we ever insisted on before, benefits resounding to all business sectors here and increasing our national security.  Just criticizing China or asking them to play nice has not worked. Generating a successful tide toward honest freer trade has necessitated using the club of responsive tariffs used against us to make bad actors sit up and take notice and honestly negotiate. It is a process necessary in this world particularly with the likes of China and it can lead to freer trade that will raise all boats helping the world economy.

And the truth is as far as the ag sector, markets for ag products will stabilize world-wide no matter what unless people stop eating.  It is a world market not just a China market. Patience farmers, tell your association spokesholes to show prudence in their advocacy as you do in your business decisions. Keep your eye on the big picture and this country will continue to help you toward a new normalcy of freer trade benefiting all.

0

0

SO MUCH FOR “CALLING BALLS AND STRIKES” (But then, this IS a CNN report) DLH (image not in original)

Exclusive: How John Roberts killed the census citizenship question 

For the most part, Roberts’ opinion in the census case laid out why Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had significant latitude to add a new question. He was joined by his four conservative brethren on that point. But then the chief justice swerved, and joined by the four liberal justices, said Ross’ justification for the citizenship question, tied to enforcing the Voting Rights Act, was contrived.

After the justices heard arguments in late April, Roberts was ready to rule for Ross and the administration. But sometime in the weeks that followed, sources said, Roberts began to waver. He began to believe that Ross’ rationale for the citizenship question had been invented, and that, despite the deference he would normally give an executive branch official, Ross’ claim had to matter in the court’s final judgment, which Roberts announced on June 27.

0

0

• Maybe she should have went for I was born a poor black child

As readers are well aware Democrat presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren used to dance around claiming American Indian heritage — no doubt  to imply she or her family had direct experience of white-man’s evil ways and the legacy of discrimination.  She even used the claim as part of her application processes to teach at Harvard and her Texas Bar registration.

Eventually succumbing to challenges to prove her heritage, she was found out to be not telling the truth. She has no American Indian heritage.

Now according to another Breitbart revelation “Fauxcahontas” Warren  is a direct descendant of an Indian Fighter who served with Andrew Jackson. Jackson was another  Democrat and one much hated by the  “indigenous” Americans for his ruthlessness and not to mention his Trail of Tears policy   So we have a couple of questions we hope will be asked of her by the moderator or others at the Democrat Chautauqua pow wow debate tonight.

1) Have you petitioned, for the record, to have your Texas Bar license records corrected?

2) How is your decades long claim to American Indian heritage and any affirmative action or political benefit it entailed, now, after revelations of your Indian fighter heritage (think Trail of Tears) not the same as a descendant of Nathan Bedford Forrest claiming slave blood for political or other affirmative action benefit?  Just ask’n.

Hi.  My name is Nathan Bedford Forest the Fifth and I was born a poor Black child

0

0

• Unfortunate name for an island to seek refuge on
  
• Wherever their head was, it is no longer there
• If the Taliban is watching – their sh*t is weak

The US Air Force with the cooperation of other OIS (Operation Inherent Resolve) coalition members pretty much sunk an island stronghold of Daesh (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) the acronym for a recapitulated Islamic terror organization. The attack took place on September 10th.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yErydaw2C2E

Yesterday Trump put the Taliban on notice. They could have had a peace process, now, if they make any more terror efforts against us, or innocent civilians anywhere, well — Trump’s coming and Hell’s coming with him

If it was an Army operation, soldiers would say HOOAH! ; if Marine, OORAH ! But we were at a loss as to what Air Force members say.  We researched it a little online and got various answers — BOOYAH, ZOOMIE and from wag sources — MEOW and YIPPEE. Additional intel appreciated.

+3

0

• Two articles we noticed today,  this anniversary of a religious driven attack on America that killed thousands
• Question for Pope Francis: If God will’s other religions he must will schism in His church??

Now personally I think ecumenism understood as either the inter-Christian denomination kind focused on unity where there can be, or more broadly the movement that promotes worldwide cooperation among all religions is fine, as long as truth and Biblical faith are not compromised. But there is a Pope out there saying that The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, . .

In the document signed by Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar where that phraseology appears “pluralism” is not defined or what the hell the two intend the statement to mean. It is in the context of  a paragraph referring to “freedom”. However, generally the word  pluralism is taken to refer to a variety of religions, — so does the statement pertain to Hinduism, Pantheism, Animism, . . . atheism . . . or what have you? It would seem to without needed clarification.

We also don’t know how such a statement fits in the whole original sin concept of Christianity — did God will original sin ?? He willed our freedom our agency,  but that is not the same as willing pluralism or all manner of sequelae from free will. If so “allowing” something becomes “willing” something, and it is then a silly tautology that pretends to understand or reflect the mind of God.

So where am I going with this? Well I am sure that is not an infrequent question when I do a post. But reading the articles linked to here you might understand my wonderment as to whether Pope Francis has called out the Good Imam to see if he has used his teaching authority to implement  a new era of “good feelings” or the possibility of the Pope’s foolishness.   If a memo went out the Taliban apparently didn’t get it prior to their latest attack..

From Gary Bauer writing at Campaign for Working Families (excerpt)

All over the Western world, young people are lectured to respect Islam.  Fair enough.  We should be respectful of other faiths and views. 
 
But I am not aware of any educational effort in the Islamic world, not in Saudi Arabia or Somalia, Indonesia or Iran, aimed at teaching young Muslims to respect westerners and non-Muslims.  In fact, in many Muslim nations, they are taught Islamic supremacy and it comes in many forms, whether Sunni or Shiite. 

And think we are rough on the Pope? William Marshall writing at Townhall: (excerpts)

The Fool in the Vatican 

. . .

While he ventures into waters in which he has no expertise, like “man-made climate change,” he is making fundamental changes to Catholic doctrine where he presumably does have some expertise, that is sowing confusion and turmoil among tradition-minded Catholics.

One of Pope Francis’s most egregious moves was elevating a known homosexual pederast, former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, from the disgraced obscurity to which Pope Benedict had consigned him back to lofty heights within the Church, as one of Francis’s top advisors, despite Pope Francis being forewarned of McCarrick’s perversions. The mind reels. Eventually, thankfully, Pope Francis removed McCarrick following a public uproar and Cardinal McCarrick, now Mr. McCarrick, was finally defrocked.

Even Pope Francis’s comment, cited in the Journal article, on the potential of a schism within the Church caused by his changes (or confused thinking) evidences a cognitive incoherence that should make the entire College of Cardinals question whether this man is fit to lead the billion-member Church. He said, “There is always a schismatic option in the church,” but added that the “path of schism is not Christian.”

Huh?   . . .

One top-ranking Catholic prelate, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, who served as Papal Nuncio (ambassador) to the United States from 2011 to 2016, was so incensed by his first-hand knowledge of Pope Francis covering up for Cardinal McCarrick’s crimes, and then elevating him despite his awareness of them, that he bravely wrote an extraordinary 11-page open letter blowing the whistle on Pope Francis that every Catholic should read. He called on Pope Francis to resign.

And Archbishop Vigano is not alone among the remarkable men who are questioning whether Pope Francis should continue in his holy office. The very estimable American Cardinal Raymond Burke, a conservative who was the chief of the Vatican supreme court until his removal by Pope Francis, has more subtly suggested that a removal or resignation of Pope Francis may be in order or, to use his word, “licit”, based upon Archbishop Vigano’s allegations.  . . .

Francis’s confounding policies and statements have so alarmed senior Church officials that four cardinals, with the support of Cardinal Burke, have petitioned Pope Francis with a letter asking for simple yes/no responses to five simple questions seeking clarity on Church doctrine. That’s a very serious matter.

I do not believe one should blindly follow a celebrity-obsessed man who finds time to lecture Americans about eliminating their borders, allowing illegal aliens to flout their laws and flood their country, all while he lives in a palace safely protected by the Swiss Guard. And as I wrote earlier this year in a column titled “The Silence of the Shepherd”, Pope Francis’s failure to speak out against the abhorrent comments of Virginia’s governor/physician in which he effectively advocated for infanticide, was a gross dereliction of duty.

I love the Church. I love its history, its majesty, its enormous contributions to human civilization, and its teachings, imperfect as I may be in following them. And it requires the finest of men to lead it. Where is Pope (now Saint) John Paul II when we most need him?

0

0

Red flag actual political violence when it occurs, not guns

• Take perps off the streets for their history of political violence
• Too cowardly for a gunfight anyway (Col. Colt made people equal – can’t have that) so they go for the sucker punch*
• If they have guns send the guns to a good home
• Appeals court judge issues sound equal justice ruling (highlighted in red)

Appeals Court Judge Says Not So Fast on Pathetic 30-Day Sentence for Rand Paul’s Politically Motivated Attacker

Good!

Here’s the first guy who should get “red flagged”. He’s obviously unstable, has anger issues, and has already blatantly attacked a  living symbol (a sitting U S Congressman) of America’s democracy!

Contrary to the punchlines of late-night comics, the attack that Rand Paul suffered back in 2017 when his neighbor tackled him over landscaping disagreements was not funny at all. The crime left Paul with major complications including recurring bouts of pneumonia after damage to his lungs, and multiple surgeries including a partial lung removal and corrective surgery on a hernia. It isn’t a stretch to say that Senator Paul could have died. The attack was severe and the damage has been long-lasting.

U.S. District Judge Marianne Battani was the sentencing judge who opined that the attack was “dispute between neighbors” and claimed it was not motivated by politics. She took into consideration that Boucher was a veteran, involved in community service, a church-goer with college degrees and an advanced medical career to impose the light sentence. Unfortunately for her, the appeals judge, Judge Jane B. Stranch, disagreed, saying those facts are “almost all disfavored as grounds for a below-guidelines sentence.” Then she hit the defense with jaw-dropping rationale, not often seen in our courts.

“To prioritize a defendant’s education, professional success and standing in the community would give an additional leg up to defendants who are already in a privileged position…Indigent defendants are less likely to impress a sentencing court with their education, employment record or local reputation. But they are no less deserving of a reasonable and compassionate sentence.”

We think the ruling sound as regards below-guidelines sentencing, prior convictions are another matter.

Next candidates for “red flag” sanctions? every member of the violent ‘Antifa’ organization…(talk about ‘mental instability’ and ‘anger issues’!)      DLH

Note these two were faced by a mob of young punk Antifa. One Antifa punk, figuring the rest had his back and would pile on, took a swing. We only wish the “Repent” fellow, who did cock his arm but held back, had imparted a more pointed lesson.  Thanks to HP for the vid subject.   R Mall

0

0

• Today — No loss of life on this occasion
• KK sends this Western Journalism report
• See 18th anniversary  commemorations below

US Embassy in Afghanistan Attacked on 9/11 Anniversary

“911” 2019 anniversary attack by Taliban on US Embassy in Kabul

Minutes after midnight on Wednesday, a rocket blast shook the United States Embassy in Afghanistan.

The attack, which fell on the eighteenth anniversary of the tragic 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S., sent a sizable plume of smoke into the air over the Afghan capital of Kabul, The Associated Press reported.

The outlet reported that loud sirens could be heard from the scene and embassy employees were briefed on the attack via loudspeaker announcement which said, “An explosion caused by a rocket has occurred on compound.”

Within an hour it was determined that there were no casualties from the explosion and an all-clear was given.

The AP also indicated this was the first major attack in the city since President Donald Trump called off peace talks with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and Taliban leaders at Camp David.

Related link

Trump officially called off those secret peace talks Saturday in a tweet, NPR reported, saying the death of a U.S. serviceman in Taliban-orchestrated car bombings that killed 12 in Kabul last week, pushed him away from the negotiating table.

“[T]he major Taliban leaders were going to secretly meet with me at Camp David on Sunday,” Trump wrote.

“They were coming to the United States tonight. Unfortunately, in order to build false leverage, they admitted to.. an attack in Kabul that killed one of our great great soldiers, and 11 other people,” he added. “I immediately cancelled the meeting and called off peace negotiations.

“What kind of people would kill so many in order to seemingly strengthen their bargaining position?”

….an attack in Kabul that killed one of our great great soldiers, and 11 other people. I immediately cancelled the meeting and called off peace negotiations. What kind of people would kill so many in order to seemingly strengthen their bargaining position? They didn’t, they….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 7, 2019
RELATED: Trump Sends 9/11 Warning to Taliban, Vows To ‘Use Power the Likes of Which the United States Has Never Used Before’ if Necessary

….only made it worse! If they cannot agree to a ceasefire during these very important peace talks, and would even kill 12 innocent people, then they probably don’t have the power to negotiate a meaningful agreement anyway. How many more decades are they willing to fight?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 7, 2019

According to analysts both within the State Department and the media, some manner of violent response was expected in light of this breakdown in peaceful negotiation.

Trump has been attempting for some time to pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan and end America’s longest-running military conflict.

This week’s Sept. 11 anniversary also increased cause for concern, as attacks by Islamic terrorists have been known to be carried out against the U.S. and its interests on the date — often in celebration of the largest act of Islamic extremism in world history.

One such attack was carried out on Sept. 11, 2012, when Islamic militant group Ansar al-Sharia attacked a U.S. Consulate and a CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya, killing three American servicemen and an ambassador.

This is a developing story. The Western Journal will update this report if and when new information is released.

And to the service men and women who were deployed, and those who died and were injured bringing the fight to the enemy.    V’PAC

0

0

Tally Mon /  Taliban, whatever, you would think even ol’ Harry would get behind an effort at peace

“Secret meeting”  Trump

“Confidential diplomacy” – Obama

“come Mister Taliban tally me banana

day light come and me wanna go home

come Mister Taliban tally me banana

day light come and me wanna go home

day-o day-o

day light come and me wanna go home”

What’s the big deal, we ask?

– Trump arranges a ‘secret meeting’ with Taliban representatives at Camp David; the purpose, of course, is to seek a just end to a war which has taken so many lives over the last 18 years or so.

– He cancels it at virtually the last minute because of the Taliban’s stubborn, evil
tendencies…the continued murder of American service personnel and innocent civilians!

– The media, upon learning of the then cancelled ‘secret meeting’ musters its usual high dudgeon, outraged that:

a) there was a top level national security/foreign policy meeting that Rachel Maddow and Jim Costa didn’t know about!

b) Taliban representatives were to tread the hallowed ground of Camp David (rumored that Jerold Nadler has already subpoenaed records to verify an allegation that Camp David is a Trump property)

c) the meeting was to have occurred on virtually the eve of 9/11!

d) and any other of the assorted reasons, rumors, excuses, complaints, etc that media, Democrats, Never Trumpers, and various DC Establishment figures have attempted to use in the past to paint the president as ‘evil’, as a spy for various foreign governments, as a violator of the Constitution’s “emoluments clause”, as a tax dodger, as a………..

We’ve learned that Condoleeza Rice did not approve of the meeting, the site, or the timing.

It was possibly the main reason John Bolton was fired as Trump’s third National Security advisor.

But nowhere did I hear anyone in the media, congress, or anywhere else attempt any comparison of Trump’s effort to get an agreement to end the war in Afghanistan to the Obama regime’s several “secret meetings” with Iran. The former president arranged to, also secretly, help the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism finance its global terrorist activities, add to the long list of American military personnel the mullahs have killed, and, without Constitutionally required Senate ratification, conclude an “agreement” which obligated the entire world to help Iran get nuclear weapons.

As to where is the best place to seek an agreement to end a long and unproductive war might be, or the most appropriate date to do so…perhaps President Trump should sponsor a contest in which Ms. Rice, Mr. Bolton, and assorted Democrats and media figures could submit their ideas.   DLH

0

0

• AKA calumny

Check out how Drudge presents the news about Bolton leaving his position. (screen capture from my phone)

It seems any characterization that can be had that would impune Trump is trumpeted.

When we read the article, which was positioned at top of picture as an active link to Mediaite the word lie is not used by Bolton. Indeed the word lie does not appear in the Mediaite article except as the headline — but why would Drudge trumpet it so matter-of-factly, without quotations, when it is characterization by a leftist rag?  It is not as if Drudge does not make it a practice to impart his own verbiage for now tiresome sensational purposes whenever he wants to?  Mediate would not be an authority on the inner workings of the White House nor a go to place for Bolton’s confidences.

R Mall

0

0