Donald Trump

Washington Imperialists Fret Over Trump's Troop Withdrawals

Trump is routinely accused, with good reason, of distorting the facts and failing to face reality. It's time for his critics to take a good long look in the mirror.

|

"The Trump presidency made a deep descent in December," Sen. Mitt Romney (R–Utah) announced in a wave-making Washington Post column in January, just prior to being sworn in. Why that particular month out of the president's tumultuous first 24?

"The departures of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly," Romney wrote, "the abandonment of allies who fight beside us, and the president's thoughtless claim that America has long been a 'sucker' in world affairs all defined his presidency down." In other words, it's the foreign policy, stupid. When the White House takes minor steps to ratchet back Washington's default posture of global interventionism, it's greeted as a catastrophe.

It is amazing what Washington's proverbial "adults in the room"—as both Mattis and Kelly were frequently characterized as during their Trump tenure—consider to be a red line of presidential comportment. Sure, Trump can impose reckless and unconstitutional bans on legal U.S. residents from certain majority-Muslim countries, consciously enact a family-separation policy as an immigration deterrent, and call trade wars "good and easy to win," all while averaging 10 lies a day and acting like your boorish-if-occasionally-hilarious Uncle Bob. But contemplate withdrawing a combined 9,000 troops from Syria and Afghanistan, as Trump did in December, and suddenly no one's laughing.

"We are headed towards a series of grave policy errors which will endanger our nation, damage our alliances & empower our adversaries," warned Sen. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) at the time.

"Never been more alarmed for the nation since coming to DC over three decades ago," tweeted Bill Kristol of the recently shuttered Weekly Standard.

Mattis resigned within hours of Trump's announcement that all 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria would be withdrawn, saying in his resignation letter that the president has "the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects." Kelly, who worked both as Trump's secretary of homeland security and as his chief of staff, told the Los Angeles Times in an exit interview that his performance in the latter position should be measured by what the president didn't do—namely, withdraw troops from abroad sooner.

"When I first took over [in August 2017], he was inclined to want to withdraw from Afghanistan," Kelly told the paper. Instead of cutting and running, the president added 4,000 troops at the urging of Kelly and the military brass. Eighteen Americans have died in the country since then.

By most reported accounts, Trump's December decisions—the details of which were still being contested at press time, not least by Trump himself—came off half-cocked, poorly coordinated, and sold with a combination of hyperbolic bluster and blunt truth telling. In other words, they were in keeping with how the current president does just about everything.

But because the moves involve life and death, and because the political class is inherently accepting of lethal force abroad, mainstream Democrats joined disappointed Republicans and never-Trump conservatives in declaring that this flawed process for once cannot stand.

"This country's national security decision-making process is more broken than at any time since the National Security Act became law in 1947," former Obama administration National Security Advisor Susan Rice wrote in The New York Times in December. "Cutting and running from Syria benefits only militants, Turkey, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, Russia and Iran."

Rice's former boss Hillary Clinton—in a tweet that served as a timely reminder of her comparatively more interventionist instincts—also asserted that "this President is putting our national security at grave risk."

If there's this much freakout over the withdrawal of four figures' worth of troops, imagine what would happen if the president got serious about our 26,000 in South Korea, 54,000 in Japan, and 64,000 in Europe.

By the time the U.S. overthrew the Taliban government in December 2001, a total of seven Americans had died in the war there. That number is now north of 2,300. "There is virtually no possibility of a military victory over the Taliban and little chance of leaving behind a self-sustaining democracy," foreign affairs author Robert Kaplan wrote in The New York Times on January 1, "facts that Washington's policy community has mostly been unable to accept."

Trump is routinely accused, with good reason, of distorting the facts and failing to face reality. It's time for his critics to take a good long look in the mirror.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

251 responses to “Washington Imperialists Fret Over Trump's Troop Withdrawals

  1. 47-dimensional chess game continues. How to reveal deep state “liberal” and “progressive” bureaucrats as useful idiots for the MIC/warfare state.

    1. A bit OT,….. but apparently most menial agriculture jobs will be mechanized.

      http://tinyurl.com/yy56sjy5

      It looks like all those illegals better learn to code.

      1. Gee whiz, who would have ever saw THAT coming?

        All these people who irrationally cling to the idea that the USA is going to have a great demand for unskilled labor are fools. We already have too much unskilled labor. That’s why we’ve basically invented millions of next to useless make work jobs for people already. Wages have been held so low, and depressed even further by low skill immigrants, that it’s “viable” to pay people to walk dogs, make our coffee, and tons of other nonsense that might be somewhat nice, but is essentially useless.

        If our economy was truly healthy there would be jobs with higher productivity that generated enough income to pay high enough wages where work like that wouldn’t even exist.

        I can’t wait for this automation to kick off… Ultimately it will be a major hurdle in the future, but just to drive the point home we don’t need more illiterate peasants from the 3rd world, I want it to hit as hard and fast as possible right now. I want the “But we need the peasants to work!” argument to go away.

    2. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour.
      visit this site right here……..>>>>>> http://www.Aprocoin.com

    3. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour.
      visit this site right here……..>>>>>> http://www.payshd.com

    4. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour.
      visit this site right here……..>>>>>> http://www.payshd.com

  2. “Trump is routinely accused, with good reason, of distorting the facts and failing to face reality”

    In Washington DC, and indeed politics globally, this is double standard taken to an absurd degree. Compared to little miss Barista, Trump is opresssively realistic. Compared to his recent opponent, Her Shrillness, he is obnoxiously strightforward and honest (which has a lot to do with how he won).

    Is he a mountebank and a carnival barker? Yes. Is anyone in the Progressive Left in a position to criticise? No. As for Libertarians, well it’s liberating to know you aren’t going to win any elections anyway, isn’t it? It means you don’t have to come to grips with dirty realities (like, enough people are pissed off over the open border that preaching that they are wrong is counterproductive).

    1. And just wait until gaffe-machine Uncle Joe officially enters the race.

        1. More Onion Biden stories are probably the one thing about a Biden presidential campaign to look forward to.

        2. Biden sounds somewhat voteable in that story.
          If he’s up on the roof with a pinner and a tallboy, he’s less likely to be in the oval office enacting the DNC’s extremist agenda.

      1. That’s Creepy Uncle Joe to you. Stop downplaying his wandering hands.

        1. I wonder how many times his SS detail has had to cover for a rapey situation or, circumvented one.

      2. The sad fact is that, as utterly incompetent as he is, Uncle Joe had the best idea for what to do with post-Saddam Iraq.

        1. another idea he pilfered.

    2. *High Five*

    3. I have to agree.

      The amount that Welch feels is necessary to hedge is at best childish.

      I generally think all people who are interested in increasing liberty should be treated as friends. I am highly suspicious of those who do not act in that way. The visceral hatred of Trump by reason makes me not trust them at all.

      He really isn’t bad from a libertarian perspective unless you’re an open borders zealot or believe in unilateral free trade like a dupe.

      1. Before anyone jumps on the trade comment, do you also believe in pacifism in the face of invasion? Do you think sanctions wouldn’t work if only Iran had unilateral free trade?

        Using economic leverage for better trade is far better than the interventionism we’ve been practicing. As any non idiot knows, wars are always about money and economics.

        1. I’ll tell you what I don’t like, being taxed by a president! Do you work in a steel consuming industry and are now paying 20% more to our government; if not fuck off with using me for your leverage. Why not just subsidies US Steel like China does, and have us all in the same bed. Even better, why don’t you just write a big voluntary check to US Steel since you love them so much, same results right? Keep your big government hands off my money. You didn’t make it!

          1. How about all the other unfair shit he’s trying to use leverage to stop? Does everyone else have to suck it up so the steel industry doesn’t have to bleed a little bit to help out?

            1. What other shit is that? The tech companies who have voluntarily given up their trade secrets to gain access to China markets? Like Apple who doesn’t fly the flag for tax purposes but wants Uncle Sam to protect them from the commies they got into business with. Yeah fuck them too.

      2. Yeah, he’s great from a libertarian perspective as long as you don’t have one!

  3. Just think how many more good things for America Trump could accomplish if Lefties, MSM, and RINOs were not actively trying to usurp the Constitution.

  4. Trump’s a pathological liar and delusional so I’ll have to see it to believe it.

    1. The fact that you need to lie and are so delusional about what is going on, means that trump is doing a great job.

      1. When people like OP say these things it definitely means Trump is doing at least ok.

        1. Yes, this is one of Trump’s benefits. He pisses off all the people who push prog policies.

          As we hoped, the LOLs are great, and the taste of prog tears is refreshing.

    2. Professional jealousy, OP?
      If anyone here’s an expert on being a delusional, pathological liar, it’s you.

  5. Give War A Chance : Hillary Clinton

    1. Give War a Chance: EVERYONE in the political class now that we have a volunteer army

      1. And yeah – people may object to an all-caps everyone cuz – why – they can identify by name the platoon of individual exceptions. Well deal with it. Those are exceptions.

        The political class is OK with permawar now. Enough voters are too now. That was the entire purpose of getting rid of the draft. And nothing will change until people’s own families are at risk of being in harm’s way by their war/peace decisions

        1. And yet we have Trump trying to get out of a war.
          JFree’s world is one others do not comprehend.

          1. Shush, he’s emoting.

          2. Trump is not trying to get out of a war. He is trying to negotiate transactional deals to make it ‘more profitable’ for the US. To get allies to pay more and ante up.

            You fucking morons can seem to understand that strategy re trade but are completely clueless that that also applies to all our foreign policy. Everything he does is transactional for the superficial purpose of finding something he can declare a victory and getting a photo op for that. That is his entire life. He has no underlying principles beyond – what builds the Trump brand. He is a narcissist not a policy wonk.

            1. So he’s not proposing to pull troops out? Or are you saying he IS proposing to pull troops out in order to negotiate a deal where other countries “step up”? If it’s the latter, wouldn’t them stepping up necessitate our withdrawl, or are you pessimistic about the chances of that happening after the other countries promise to do more?

              1. His Dec tweet was just him twittervomiting to get attention. Had he just recently played golf with Rand Paul? Yes apparently. But that doesn’t mean that what Rand Paul (one of the actual exceptions) may have said to him re non-interventionism is what Donald Trump absorbed re same. Based on everything that Trump has ever done, he merely saw throwing a withdrawal bomb out there as having a higher probability of leading to a photo op victory than persisting on the never-makes-the-front-page bombs in Syria.

                The Dec timing also coincides nicely with a Nobel Peace Prize. Nominations closed in Jan. Pence just told the Munich security conference what sorts of things Trump is expecting from NATO. I don’t specifically know what photo-op victory he has in mind – or even whether he himself has a specific goal of what that looks like. But that photo-op is the end-game.

                wouldn’t them stepping up necessitate our withdrawl, or are you pessimistic about the chances of that happening after the other countries promise to do more?

                I think that even if them stepping up means we can ‘withdraw’ a bit in Syria – that doesn’t mean we withdraw. Redeploying elsewhere would be quite easy, is what his generals will advise, would create a press event from scratch which is much more beneficial than continuing ‘Obama’s’ war.

                All of which is actually missing my point re the volunteer army.

            2. Well JFree, Trump is a pragmatist. As far as narcissism goes, no one beats The Lightbringer. After all, three ‘I’s’ in one breath makes him seem a rather egotistical young president. Fortunately, things changed, and not a moment too soon. And now Trump is the president, whether you like it, or not.

              1. Yes Trump is the Prez. So you now munch on PRESIDENTIAL dingleberries. Which makes you very special indeed.

  6. >>>all defined his presidency down

    the fuck would Romney know about the presidency?

    1. Binders of women!

      1. Pfffftttt…… Bill Clinton visited his pal Jeffrey Epstein on Pedo Island. Where they had whole dungeons filled with women. Or rather young girls. REALLY young girls.

  7. My oh my, how the GOP mouth breathers have changed their tune since the Bush/Cheney years. “Cut and Run” used to be applied to Democrats who didn’t buy into the War on Terror. Now they cheer for it.

    1. So you are in favor of keeping troops in Syria for the foreseeable future then.

      1. Nope, just amazed that the GOP has not had a consistent set of principles (other than anti-abortion) in my lifetime. Now that the party has been transformed into a hive of anti-globalist Trumpsters I question whether they ever had any real value at all.

        1. >>> just amazed that the GOP has not had a consistent set of principles

          just amazed, or slow drip of understanding over the last 30 years?

          1. You’re talking to moneyshot, the sockpuppet of an idiot who has been weirdly obsessed with a long forgotten politician’s feces for years and laid low so he could change his name and hope people forgot.

            1. Eat shit Tulpa. You are the sockpuppet queen.

              1. I am. That’s why I can see how bad you are at it and out you screech.

              2. And moneyshot is the dickpuppet.

            2. I actually disagree with this. Palin’s Buttplug is highly intelligent, so if he wanted to circumvent a ban he would have the self-awareness to switch up his writing style. “Moneyshot” comments, OTOH, are often verbatim what PB would write. So they cannot be the same person.

              My belief is that “moneyshot” is a different person who is intentionally capturing the spirit of Mr. Buttplug’s posts. Sort of like I do with my economic updates.

              #MoneyshotIsTheNewPalinsButtplug
              #(ButNotLiterally)

                1. PB was banned?

            3. …laid low so he could change his name and hope people forgot.

              That’s some funny shit.

              “It’s like O. Henry and Alanis Morissette had a baby and named it this exact situation.”

              1. I’m not sure why “you’re an expert on that” is reason for disbelief.

            4. “mouth breathers” is a tell.

              1. It’s funny that he changed from scat creeping a washed up politico to being ejaculate.

                That’s a bit too much creepy porn obsession.

        2. just amazed that the GOP has not had a consistent set of principles

          You’re just now figuring that out? Neither party has any consistent principles. The Democrats used to at least claim to be against intervention and now all of a sudden they’re acting like pulling out of Syria and Afghanistan would be the worst thing ever because “ORANGE MAN BAD.” Just like the GOP used to claim to care about the national debt and deficits.

          And for what it’s worth, GOP establishment filth like Romney, Rubio, and Kristol are freaking out just as much as the Dems over the prospect of pulling out of Syria and Afghanistan, so there’s that. I don’t recall a lot of complaints from the “anti-war” Democrats when Obama deployed more troops to Afghanistan or intervened in the Libyan civil war. So one could argue that the GOP has slightly more principles than the Dems when it comes to foreign policy, but not by much. They’re both more interested in principals over principles.

          1. Who is here defending Democrats (other than Tony)?

            They suck too.

            I am for gridlock and always have been – that is consistent.

              1. And honestly, you’ve been lying about being a prog for years. If you’re bothering to reinvent yourself, own it you fucking coward.

          2. What did we do wrong in Vietnam? We pulled out! Huh? Not a very manly thing to do is it? When you’re fucking people, you gotta stay in there and fuck them good! Fuck ’em all the way! Fuck ’em ’til the end! Fuck ’em to death!

            1. God bless George Carlin

        3. What? The GOP supports the Forever War. Only Trump opposes it.

        4. Nope, just amazed that the GOP has not had a consistent set of principles (other than anti-abortion) in my lifetime. Now that the party has been transformed into a hive of anti-globalist Trumpsters I question whether they ever had any real value at all.

          ….while Progressive bemoan the removal of troops. Odd, huh?

        5. maybe everyone realized that doing the same thing over and over has failed and you know what they say about people who keep repeating the same mistakes

    2. “My oh my, how the GOP mouth breathers have changed their tune since the Bush/Cheney years. “Cut and Run” used to be applied to Democrats who didn’t buy into the War on Terror. Now they cheer for it.”

      Not nearly as much as the brain-dead Ds, brain-dead D.

      1. But they were for the wars before they were against them.

        1. But it was a useful bludgeon to beat George W. Bush about the head and neck with, even while Trump seems to have effectively whitewashed just how much the left hated G.W.B. at the time. Looking back, it should be obvious to everyone that Democrats were always gung-ho about the war, they just wanted political cover after the fact.

          Trump appears to have found a way to turn Democrat shrieking up to 11. Turns out George W. Bush was only set to 10.

          1. Exactly. They were never really against the war or the spying or the USA PATRIOT Act or whatever giant government program could be dreamed up (TSA), it’s just that for a few years, those were vote-getting positions because of the pushback from the people. Once Obama got in and the USA PATRIOT Act was extended and the wars continued, the Democrats could drop the facade, as the voters were no longer interested in these issues.

      1. Man, you need a job.

    3. I’ll be sure and pass that along to any “GOP mouth breathers” who happen to come along.

      This is a libertarian website, dumbass. Libertarians have been consistently against intervention in Syria and in favor of withdrawing from Afghanistan at least since Osama Bin-Laden’s body reached room temperature, if not before.

      Progressive mouth breathers, OTOH, pretended to be “anti-war” right up until the time St. Barack was sworn in, at which point they quickly did a 180. Perhaps if they had been consistent you might have a leg to stand on here, but you don’t and you’re too fucking stupid to even realize it.

      1. I’ll be sure and pass that along to any “GOP mouth breathers” who happen to come along.

        The H&R commentariat is filled with them. They even switched their knee-pads for Trump.

        1. Why the name change screech? Got tired of getting asked why you were pervcreeping the scat of a washed up politico?

        2. Even if you aren’t shriek, that is some grade A stupid bullshit right there.

          Most of the Hit N Runpublicans have been saying we shouldn’t be involved in Syria at all and should be pulling out of Afghanistan for years.

          The only person here who ever defended Libya and Syria was shriek, only because his Chocolate Jesus was the one who ordered the involvement.

        3. Well, one of them was caught kiddy-diddlying, so you should feel right at home with them, shrieky-poo. Startup another burner account, you stupid hicklib?

    4. Fuck off, Buttplug. You ban evading piece of shit.

      1. What did he get banned for?

        1. Apparently he posted a link or instructions on how to access kiddie porn. The admins ban-hammered him almost immediately.

          1. We have admins?

            1. The squirrels

  8. Rice’s former boss Hillary Clinton?in a tweet that served as a timely reminder of her comparatively more interventionist instincts?also asserted that “this President is putting our national security at grave risk.”

    Precisely. There were many reason I voted for Hillary Clinton ? immigration, abortion access, the fact that it’s a woman’s turn ? but national security was certainly one consideration. While Drumpf was appearing on some dumb game show, Clinton was compiling a strong record of foreign policy success. She was literally the most qualified Presidential candidate ever.

    #StillWithHer
    #LibertariansForStayingInSyria
    #BombTheTalibanDontNegotiateWithThem

    1. You left out one:

      #LibertariansForLibya

      1. Libya was another example of Obama / Clinton foreign policy wisdom. Of course, that was back when we had a patriotic pro-American government, not the Russian puppet regime we have now.

        1. >>>Libya was another example of Obama / Clinton foreign policy wisdom.

          good line. still laughing.


    2. the fact that it’s a woman’s turn

      Fact? Fuck off asshat.

      Let’s go check that silly piece of parchment you detest so much to see where it is enumerated that there are, in fact, men’s and women’s “turns” to be president.

  9. Jonathan Turley believes Trump is going to win the fight over the border wall just like he won the fight over his travel ban (contrary to what Welchie Boy falsely claims up above).

  10. “Washington Imperialists”

    Good name for a ball club.

    1. Maybe that’s what the Redskins should change their name to. The only question is, will the PC crowd see it as some sort of meta joke, or would they flip out and lose their shit?

      1. Lose their shit. “We should never be glorifying American Imperialism. Unless the Democrats are in charge!”

        1. Change the mascot to a potato and tell everyone to fuck off.

        2. Lose their shit.

          That would be my guess too. In order to take it as some kind of meta joke they’d have to have a sense of humor.

    2. If they’re republicans “Washington Generals” is a better fit.

  11. We live in an amazingly prosperous nation! So prosperous, our concerns are no longer directed and food, housing and water. Nope, we can now focus on the issues which *really* matter:

    “In the quest for more diverse emoji, symbols target everything from disabilities to swimwear and saris”
    […]
    “”Visual language is hugely influential. It transcends international boundaries,” said Hutchinson, an arts publicist who made news in 2018 for creating the women’s flat-shoe emoji …”
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/style/article/
    Diving-into-emoji-apparel-with-one-piece
    -bathing-13614713.php?cmpid=gsa-sfgate-result

    Does her triumph know no bounds?!
    (front page in the dead-tree Chron this morning)

    1. Meh. I’m still waiting for Eric the Clown’s big-shoe emoji.

  12. The entire point of separating powers through constitutional law is to prevent a complicit Congress from anointing a dictator. It doesn’t matter that a prior Congress ‘wanted’ to give its power to the Executive. It’s not their power to give away. Trump couldn’t have teed up a better case for the Sup Ct to set limits on congressional abdication.

    1. Was there a point in there someplace?

      1. I think the point is that not all bots are properly coded – – – – – –

        1. Says the creature who spans this board with crap every fucking day. No self awareness.

          1. *Spams

            1. Damn you went from idiot to total brain death.

      2. OP was silent on this issue until after January 2017. He never said anything when Mr. ‘Phone and a Pen’ was running things.

        Typical progtard.

    2. And that’s some strategic thinking. I’d like to see a Republican Sup Ct empower an executive branch that conservatism wouldn’t touch for the next century.

      1. For a fucking wall. Hahaha. Can you imagine what a progressive, i.e. the do something party, do with that power? Republicans were always trying to limit and obstruct federal power and here they are championing it. Idiots.

        1. I saw Chris Wallace’s interview with Rush Limbaugh where Chris asked him about the President by-passing Congress by executive order, why he opposed it when Obama did it and cheered when Trump did it and Rush just flat said he wasn’t opposed to the principle of the President doing things Congress told him he couldn’t do, he just didn’t like the things Obama was doing and does like the things Trump’s doing. And there’s your “principled” GOP, Top Men are great as long as they’re the right Top Men.

          1. When one sides rigs the system and doesn’t o,ay by the rules, the other side is forced to fight dirty too, to survive. The best solution really is to cleanse America of progressivism. Then all this unpleasantness can stop.

          2. Since when is Rush Limbaugh a voice that matters, again? He flat out admits to being an entertainer, so none of his ‘stances’ should be confused with anything other than ratings.

        2. It’s entertaining to listen to the “if Trump does A then progressives will do B” crowd, as if progressives give any fucks whatsoever about the separation of powers of the founding principles of the US.

          Progressives put together the New Green Deal, which is essentially a new communist manifesto, and here you are making asinine cause and effect arguments.

          Carry on you ignorant fool

    3. “It doesn’t matter that a prior Congress ‘wanted’ to give its power to the Executive. It’s not their power to give away.

      Wow, you made a fool of yourself pretty effectively.

      1. As George Gobel used to say “Don’t mock the afflicted”.

        1. Good Lord, L! How old *are* you?

          1. “X takes the center square!”

            Now all we need are some Paul Lynde quotes. Or Charo to play some guitar and go ‘Cootchie-Cootchie!’

      2. Childish word games. You couldn’t have revealed your shallow thinking any clearer. You think the Constitution separates power between branches just so that a simple majority of Congress can give it away? And only a supermarjority could stop it by overriding a veto. You don’t understand our constitutional system.

        1. “Childish word games”

          You said it fuckwit.

        2. “You couldn’t have revealed your shallow thinking any clearer.”
          You, OTOH, are very good at proving your don’t know what you’re posting about.

          “You think the Constitution separates power between branches just so that a simple majority of Congress can give it away?”
          Yes, it’s pretty much established that congress does:
          “…In sum, Congress has the authority to delegate its legislative power to administrative agencies and even to executive branch officers. ..”
          https://www.theintelligencer.com/local/
          article/Congressional-authority-to-
          delegate-power-10440570.php

          You are extremely “ordinary”, or perhaps a bit less than that.

          1. That’s a controversial stance. A stance championed by progressives, formerly loathed by conservatives. I’m well aware of the administrative state but as I stated earlier this set of circumstances is a perfect vehicle for the Sup Ct to limit the practice.

            1. Does unelected bureaucrats ring a bell? Trump is a gift from god to progressives.

            2. Ordinary Person|2.18.19 @ 10:55AM|#
              “That’s a controversial stance.”

              So what?
              You claimed congress didn’t have that power; that link shows they clearly do.
              You may think that’s wrong, but that doesn’t alter the fact that you’re an dimwit posting lies.

              1. I realize Congress has given the executive branch the power to “fill in the blanks” in certain cases. It’s a tricky thing when the Courts give it the ok. There are limits and this is over the line.

                1. You were wrong. Stop squirming.

          2. The next Dem Prez should apologize for the way Trump has abused his office, tear down the wall and give the land back to the landowners.

            1. They won’t because Dems, like you, are pieces of shit.

              1. Just look at how, after Sevo gave him definitive proof he was wrong, he started with the stupid assertions that he wasn’t. Literally ignoring reality.

                1. When confronted with facts counter to your claims, pound the table.
                  OP’s a lying POS and has proven that at least as often as Tony.

            2. The next Dem Prez should apologize for the way Trump has abused his office, tear down the wall and give the land back to the landowners.

              BWA HA HA!

              GIVE BACK?

              You think the DEMOCRATS will GIVE BACK anything?

              Adorable!

    4. Wait… when Pelosi said “we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it” she spoke absolute truth: congress had ceded full power to the executive branch to craft what was a pseudo statute by backdoor means: creating regulations first, without any guardrails of statute. The absence of guardrails is what “as the secretary shall determine” represents. And the absence of anything [other than creating some office in HHS] means any president could have made the ACA disappear at will without notice. Congress has been giving away power for a long time, but begin at the beginning: the powers of the executive and judiciary were crafted by… congress, with the assent of states.
      We may have separation of powers, but they aren’t equal: the law begins and ends with congress – where they have the will to act. The blind eye turned on the judiciary for many decades could end tomorrow if they chose: start impeaching justices that feel like crafting legislation from the bench, such as… SCOTUS ordering the EPA to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant.

  13. If we wait until our enemies no longer threaten to reemerge once we leave, then we will never leave.

    Yes, the United States withdrawing will create a military power vacuum, and that military power vacuum will invite our enemies to reemerge. That is not a convincing reason to stay. The only convincing reason to stay is that staying is in the best interests of the United States and its security. If you want to make an argument for us to stay, then do so in those terms.

    It is not enough to say that Al Qaeda and the Taliban may reemerge in Afghanistan. You must show that the expense and the death associated with our occupation are sufficiently justified by the threat Al Qaeda and the Taliban present to American security. You must also account for the fact that our presence in Afghanistan continues to drive funding, recruiting, and support for their causes–much of which would dry up were we to leave.

    1. That is just one example, but it’s the same everywhere. The Russians continue to be a threat to western Europe–and maybe they always will be. It’s time for western Europe to stand up and defend themselves. They won’t finance their own military defense appropriately until we stop providing their defense for them. The solution is to leave.

      The question isn’t whether Iraq is stable enough to stand on its own. The question is whether they will ever stand on their own so long as they’re beholden to our military. The question isn’t whether military force is an excellent way to keep a powder keg like Yugoslavia from tearing itself apart. The question is how military occupation and effective martial law can be a long term libertarian solution.

      1. “…They won’t finance their own military defense appropriately until we stop providing their defense for them. The solution is to leave….”

        And disband NATO at the same time. Time for the Euros to grow up and take care of themselves.

        1. To whatever extent NATO remains in our best interests, that’s what it is.

          If it’s a cover for Germany and France to skimp on their defense commitments so long as we’re there to pick up the slack, then the solution to that problem is to withdraw from Germany and France. Let’s take our kids over to Sevo’s house for Christmas every year–let him buy the presents for our kids!

          If NATO remains a potent way for the United States to defend itself against Russia by providing us loyal allies who do contribute significantly both to their own defense and and the defense of the United States, like Estonia and Poland do, then by all means, let’s remain committed to countries like Estonia and Poland through our constitutionally ratified treaties–so long as it remains in our best interests to do so.

          I’m sure the Russians would love to have bases in Mexico. The U.S. having allies in Estonia and Poland is probably a good thing.

          1. We don’t need treaties in order to have allies. NATO benefits other members way more than it does us. If a situation arises where it’s in the best interest of one or more countries and ourselves to align against a common threat than we can enter into an alliance then.

      2. That is just one example, but it’s the same everywhere. The Russians continue to be a threat to western Europe–and maybe they always will be. It’s time for western Europe to stand up and defend themselves. They won’t finance their own military defense appropriately until we stop providing their defense for them. The solution is to leave.

        And that is the “split” in US and European relations now. We are tired of footing the bill for them. They are prosperous. Defend your fucking selves for a while. Why are WE the “bad guys” for demanding that Europe act like adults for the first time in the history of that continent?

        If they cannot handle militaries without going to war incessantly, then simply become our colonies and be done with it.

      3. Well state Ken

        Hope you don’t mind but i just copied your work to show others. i give you credit

    2. It is not enough to say that Al Qaeda and the Taliban may reemerge in Afghanistan.

      “Oh, very well. ISIS may reemerge also.”

      1. In Iraq or Syria?

        To what extent does ISIS in Iraq represent a threat to the U.S.?

        Might letting our defense contractors sell advanced weaponry to ISIS’ adversaries be effective in countering whatever threat ISIS represent to the U.S?

        Have we tried carpet bombing?

        Ridding the world of ISIS and defending our rights from foreign threats are not the same thing. Is the purpose of the U.S. military to make the world safe for everybody or defend our rights from foreign threats?

        1. Is the purpose of the U.S. military to make the world safe for everybody or defend our rights from foreign threats?

          The latter, since the former is handled by the UN Blue Helmets.

          1. See, I thought the blue helmets were there as an exit strategy for the benefit of the United States. That’s the one thing the UN was good for–but, like Cortez scuttling his ships so there was no way for his men to turn back, Bush the Lesser blew that shit up forever. Who needs an exit strategy when the Iraqis will embrace American style democracy like fat kids love cake?

            Imagine if Iraq post-2003 had been a UN mission rather than American, but nooooOOOOoooo.

            1. Well, in his defense, the UN is abysmal at, literally, everything they do. If we left them in charge, we’d be blamed for their peacekeepers raping people left and right,

      2. They regroup and rebrand – like that damn furniture store that’s been going “out of business” the last fifteen years that just reorganizes periodically to hide their accounting practices. It will be the same crowd with a new flag and a fresh face pushed to the front to disguise the same old thing.

    3. Just why does the US need to have all these enemies?

      Lots of countries manage to get by without making enemies everywhere. Every time the US intervenes somewhere it creates new enemies. When its military, intelligence operatives, bureaucrats, and NGOs stay there, they maintain the newly created enemies. When it kills one of its new enemies, the US recruits more volunteers for the enemy.

      With $22 trillion of debt, can the US afford to create and maintain enemies like it has in the past?

      1. Just why does the US need to have all these enemies?

        How else are you going to have large military budgets and perennially rich military contractors?

    4. Just why does the US need to have all these enemies?

      Lots of countries manage to get by without making enemies everywhere. Every time the US intervenes somewhere it creates new enemies. When its military, intelligence operatives, bureaucrats, and NGOs stay there, they maintain the newly created enemies. When it kills one of its new enemies, the US recruits more volunteers for the enemy.

      With $22 trillion of debt, can the US afford to create and maintain enemies like it has in the past?


      1. Lots of countries manage to get by without making enemies everywhere.

        No, they don’t. And if they do manage to ‘get by’ without making enemies, they’re probably such a shit hole that their enemies are primarily domestic.

        The only reason Europe isn’t always at war is because we’ve done their dirty work for them ever since their entire economy, across the whole of what would become the EU, was utterly destroyed by the German’s.

  14. 26,000 in South Korea, 54,000 in Japan, and 64,000 in Europe

    That’s gross.

    1. I’ll just leave this here.

      1. No, that’s 2073. Not gross.

  15. More bad economic news.

    What Ails Europe’s Economy?

    In the space of just two years, the euro zone has gone from the world economy’s hero to zero.

    Two years. You know what happened two years ago? A Russian intelligence asset became President of the United States and immediately caused a global recession with no end in sight, just as Paul Krugman predicted.

    #DrumpfRecession
    #UnbanPalinsButtplug

    1. What they need to do is get serious about more environmental regulation. That’s the key to future growth.

      Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would create tens of millions of high paying jobs, and she dances and makes heart-hands, so we know we can trust her.

      1. TAROT BY JANINE Reading Into The Career Of ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ!

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCf5-WYezzg

      2. I plan on getting a job breaking windows out of buildings slated for energy efficiency retrofitting. Breaking windows is a well-known economic stimulus.

      3. Ken, you don’t usually do parody, but that was fine stuff. OBL would be pleased.

    2. Migrant Muslim maintenance is expensive.

  16. Hurd (R) says 1,000 Texas farmers could have land seized to build Trump’s border wall

    Texas Rep. Will Hurd, the sole Republican representing a congressional district along the southern border, said more than 1,000 farmers in his state are at risk of having their land seized by the federal government to facilitate the construction of President Trump’s long-promised wall.

    “In the great state of Texas, we care about a little thing called private property, and there’s going to be over 1,000 ranchers and farmers potentially impacted if the government comes in and takes their land,” Hurd said on “Face the Nation” Sunday. CBS News

    Real libertarian move there Donald. I am sure the H&R conservatives will just love you for it.

    1. Hi screech, finally give up on exploring a washed politico’s feces? Or just got shamed into hiding your creepiness?

    2. This angle doesn’t make a lot of sense, at least not as long as the Democrats’ official line is to build a “virtual wall” consisting of surveillance towers and access roads with substations along the way.

      Sure, less of an eyesore. But not really using any less land. Maybe using more, depending on the actual implementation of each. The actual wall might only take a few feet of land along the border.

    3. Welcome back Weigel, everyone here missed you so much!!! NOOOOOOOT.

      P.S.: lose some fucking weight you fat, disgusting sack of shit Ron Jeremy look-alike. Don’t you have even an ounce of respect for yourself?

    4. Just seize a little border land from Mexico and build the wall on their side.

    5. Border control is among the most justified uses of eminent domain.

  17. The writers of Empire have never planned or even discussed writing @JussieSmollett off of the show.

    There you have it. The idea that Smollett masterminded his own attack because he feared being written off a TV show? Totally false. Meanwhile two white supremacist MAGA punks continue to roam the streets of Chicago. Who knows who they’ll victimize next?

    #IBelieveJussie

    1. FTFC: Plot twist: the Empire writing staff and crew was in on it too, as a PR stunt gone horribly, horribly wrong.

    2. I thought it was as show about a hip hop, music mogul or something. I wouldn’t have expected a gay character to be an integral part of the story line, but then . . .

      Anybody else seen any episodes of The Orville? I tuned into that thinking it would be like a Family Guy, humorous take on Star Trek, but it seems like every episode is about being gay or transsexual.

      I saw an episode about a woman who was having a romantic relationship with a robot, which I might have thought was a metaphor for being gay or transsexual–if it weren’t for so many other episodes being openly about being gay or transsexual.

      So, how do you get rid of a gay character in a super realistic show about a hip hop mogul and replace him with somebody else? Maybe they should do something really controversial like replace him with a heterosexual white Trump voter. Maybe they could bring in a hot Asian chick who knows karate.

      Who the fuck cares? Was anybody paying attention to this show before this controversy? Isn’t it on the CW or something? Broadcast television? It’s not on the same network that kicked Roseanne off of Roseanne is it?

      P.S. Bring back Longmire.

      1. I saw a couple of episodes they were funny but a complete liberal ideological proponent program so i quit watching

      2. I binged The Orville a couple of weeks back. At first it seemed to be a spoof on Star Trek.

        Then I noticed that it was pretty much just a vehicle for McFarlane to work with actors that he was a fan of as a kid. Particularly hot actresses that he was a fan of as a teen.

        Now it has left the spoof aspect mostly behind and, as you note, has become a one-note allegory about being Trans and gay. I’m not sure how that happened. It started out fairly irreverent, but it left the humor behind pretty quickly and settled in to some serious mediocrity.

      3. I find the message to be pleasantly middle of the road with The Orville. They acknowledge that the aliens ways are not their own, and in fact the longer the show goes on the more the show comments on if they can really be in an alliance with some of those races at all given the vast differences between them.

        It’s still mostly a half-assed knock off of Star Trek, but if you recall Star Trek was a show about the perfect future Utopia of socialism so…maybe not as high of a bar as you thought.

        1. Oh, I should note that this…

          Then I noticed that it was pretty much just a vehicle for McFarlane to work with actors that he was a fan of as a kid. Particularly hot actresses that he was a fan of as a teen.

          …is pretty true of everything Seth MacFarlane does. I generally loathe him, but even I’d admit that he’s not the worst sort in Hollywood. He makes things for wide appeal, but The Orville might be a high point for him.

          1. If I had the chance to make a vanity project like that, I’d do the same thing. Except Kathy Ireland was the “it” girl when I was a teen, so I’d definitely get her on the show.

      4. “Was anybody paying attention to this show before this controversy?”

        Everyone who wears MAGA caps, obviously.

  18. Jussie Smollett Still Hasn’t Talked To Cops Again

    Waiting for the next “development” — an arrest warrant.

    1. This story is so yesterday. Movin’ on, people! No need to beat a dead horse. The real point is that we all know that the rise in right-wing hate crimes is at epidemic levels. And all you need for proof of this is that everyone recognizes that MAGA is a racist symbol.

      1. Cyto is AL SHARPTON?!

        1. In all seriousness, if more people were put in jail for pulling a gun on someone wearing a MAGA hat, it might make Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats more pro-shall issue on concealed carry.

          And I’m sure there are plenty of progressives who think pulling a gun on someone for wearing a MAGA hat is an act of self-defense. Wearing a MAGA hat is like hate speech, and pulling a gun on someone for hate speech, isn’t that like . . . an act of protest?

          1. How about adding a privileged smirk to donning a MAGA hat?

            1. Journos keep calling it a smirk, but it really wasn’t. It was a nervous smile, like when you can’t tell if someone who’s in your face is serious or crazy or what, and you’re trying not to seem aggressive. I can remember doing that sometimes myself when I was a teen.

              Anyway, just needed to get that off my chest.

              1. Yes, you make a good point and it applies to many of us, particularly when we were teens.

                Nonetheless, even if the kid was smirking, so what?

                1. He can smirk if he wants. And Chief Nathan can get stuffed.

            2. #SmilingWhileWhite

    2. I like seeing jaggoffs getting their just desserts (if that’s what’s happening here), but I maintain . . . eh, I’ve already said it a bunch of times.

      The only interesting thing I can think of to say about that story now is about what makes people do things like that–it’s gotta be a function of something like Munchausen Syndrome.

      “Munchausen syndrome is a factitious disorder wherein those affected feign disease, illness, or psychological trauma to draw attention, sympathy, or reassurance to themselves.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…..ed_on_self

      In a culture where being a military hero is the coolest thing you can be, maybe people lie about being a Navy Seal, winning the Congressional Medal of Honor, having a purple heart, having fought in Vietnam, etc.

      In a culture where being a victim of discrimination is the coolest thing you can be, maybe people lie about being beaten up because of their race and orientation by crazed Trump voters.

      1. Oh, and any culture in which being a victim is the coolest thing you can be is a dysfunctional and sick culture.

        1. It’s not so much that being a victim is cool. It’s that victims get special privileges. Who doesn’t like special privileges?

        2. Didn’t some woman write a couple of novels about that? IIRC, she had a weird first name….

        3. being a victim makes gives you cache or gravitas. like so many on the left today if you haven’t had the experience then you are not allowed to have an opinion on a subject

          1. The left doesn’t own that attitude. My first exposure to it was posters and tee shirts that had a map of Viet Nam and the words, “If you weren’t there, shut up.”

      2. Gad Saad has coined the phrase #CollectiveMunchausen.

        The Left is societal cancer.
        They’ve weaponized compassion into a club to beat the compassionate into submission.

  19. Did Bill Kristol learn to code?

    1. I’d prefer it if he learn not to be a colossal neocon douchebag, but that’s not happening.

    2. Why would he?
      He’ll import immigrants to code for him.

      https://youtu.be/mWJSKhEwjy8

  20. It’s almost as if bureaucrats can’t stand it when it is revealed that the boogeyman is just a scare tactic. It’s too bad that Trump isn’t eliminating the boogeyman — he’s just moving it from Syria to the US-Mexico border.

    1. True, but at least it’s our border and not somebody else’s. How many troops are going to die over here?

  21. Catching the red-eye out is usually not the best way to leave a conflict that you have been involved in (legitimately or not). Bush and Obama get heavy blame for failing to formulate a least bad way out of Afghanistan over the many years we should have been gone. Trump, after getting us involved in Syria, now wants to run without little thought to the aftermath. Its not the leaving that is bad, it is how you do it.

    1. “…Its not the leaving that is bad, it is how you do it.”

      Exactly the justification for staying there.
      Nope, leave. Period.

    2. “Trump, after getting us involved in Syria”

      Lol.

      1. Has he gotten us out?

        Are we still there?

        Did he authorize missile strikes?

        Could we have already vacated?

        Answering yes to any one of the three questions is not good from any, non-swamp, non-deep state, non-MIC perspective.

        If Trump really, truly had wanted to withdraw all of the troops, he could have done so.

        1. Cool story. You totally missed the point.

          1. Yes, it is a cool story.

            What point did I miss? Wouldn’t be the first time.

            1. There was only one point there guy. It was literally a single quoted sentence and me laughing at it.

              1. You should have laughed at it.

      2. + Nixon’s War.

    3. Immediately and without warning is the best way.

  22. To update Prince…this is what it sounds like when hawks cry.

      1. 80s Pop music for $200

        1. What is “music that was popular before Kamala Harris got baked”?

  23. Trump appears to be bringing us back to a pre-Eisenhower stance we’re not used to seeing? Neutrality and empire don’t generally mix. I support neutrality: it should help Euro-socialism implode, and right now the smallest push tips it over.

    1. Are you at all familiar with world events immediately before Eisenhower?

  24. I m searching these details please provide now SBTET Diploma Time Table

  25. Wait, Trump is not literally Hitler anymore? Is this an even/odd day thing now?

    1. Give it an hour.

  26. A successful gay man of color was literally almost the victim of a modern-day lynching, and now the racist police force is trying to frame him for orchestrating his own attack. Reason needs to cover this.

    #IBelieveJussie

    1. It’s like Bull Conner turning on the hoses and releasing the hounds all over again.

    2. Anthony Guglielmi, a Chicago Police Department spokesman, noted that Monday is a federal holiday and that police are making “good faith efforts to schedule a mutually beneficial time” though none has been scheduled.

      “We’ve put out a formal request to his attorneys that we want to speak to him,” Guglielmi said. “We simply have some new information that we have to discuss with him and go over.”

      Asked whether Smollett is classified as a victim or suspect, he said, “I’m going to stop short of calling him a victim or an offender or a suspect.”

  27. Trump can impose reckless and unconstitutional bans on legal U.S. residents from certain majority-Muslim countries,

    all while averaging 10 lies a day

    Cite needed

    1. I can understand the first, it’s an exaggeration and slight distortion of what actually happened. It’s the sort of thing you’d say when he does something disagreeable with your own values.

      The second, about his “10 lies a day” is uncritically parroting the bullshit that the media-which unapologetically admits it hates Trump-invented. It doesn’t deserve to be casually thrown into this story.

      The New York Times has claimed as Trump lies:

      -Misspeaking
      -Citing his own opinions (that they disagree with)
      -Slightly misquoting numbers
      -Actual true things Trump has said when they disagree with what the facts represent.

      I can hate Trump as much as the next guy, but I want to approach the man in an honest manner, rather than just invent facts based on my emotional state.

      1. Forget about the NYT, the WAPO, and all of the other progressive rags. Do you doubt that Trump has had a very tenuous relationship with the truth throughout his life?

        1. Not especially, but if people want to criticize that, they need to be standing on firm factual ground when they do. Otherwise it’s just lies all around.

  28. In my experience as a prosecutor, people who attack an investigation into their conduct are the ones who can’t defend themselves against it. In other words, guilty people.

    Drumpf’s criticism of Mueller proves Mueller has Drumpf right where he wants him. It’s only a matter of time before he submits his final report and removes Putin’s Puppet from office.

    #TrumpRussia
    #ItsMuellerTime

    1. Need some new material OBL.

    2. MSLSD contributor

      1. Ray, OpenBorders is a parody account.

  29. I’m all for a strong national defense. I believe in peace through superior firepower. But these interventionalist in both parties (as well as Kristol, Susan Rice, and the Weekly Standard) need to eat shit and die. Bring them home Donnie!

    1. +1000

      Peace through superior firepower…

      The USA has two of the largest oceans on this Earth to slow down invaders.

      ICBMs are a huge threat but that is why an Anti-Ballistic Missile program is a good idea. There is a reason that tyrant leaders like Putin hate the idea of the USA being able to swat down their ICBMs like flies.

      1. I am in favor of military training exercises with allies to keep our troops familiar with our ally’s military.

        1. Yeah, I’m good with joint exercises. I’m not vehemently opposed to forward bases provided it’s in the best interest of OUR defense. I’d need real justification though. We can deploy troops and equipment pretty quickly without having forward bases.

          1. Right? I mean, if we ever NEEDED to send 50,000 troops to Europe for a REAL reason, would Germany or the UK deny us the use of their bases to do so when they’re in harms way? I think not.

            Until then, we’re just subsidizing their defense, and going broke.

      2. A wall on our southern border, and we’ll only have to worry about invasion from the Canadian Hordes.

        Winter is Coming, eh?

        1. Animal zombie virus….a coincidence?

  30. And the headline illustrates one reason I don’t take Reason seriously on matters of foreign policy: either you agree with them on non-interventionism, or you’re an “imperialist” (or more often, “warmonger”). It’s in the same vein as leftists who call anyone who opposes racial preferences a “white supremacist.”

  31. Trump Threatens Alec Baldwin

    The president asked why shows like “Saturday Night Live” can take shots at him without “retribution.”

    “Nothing funny about tired Saturday Night Live on Fake News NBC! Question is, how do the Networks get away with these total Republican hit jobs without retribution? Likewise for many other shows? Very unfair and should be looked into. This is the real Collusion!,” the president said.

    He followed up by writing: “THE RIGGED AND CORRUPT MEDIA IS THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!”

    Alec Baldwin questioned whether President Trump’s tweet about his “Saturday Night Live” skit in which he portrayed the commander-in-chief amounts to a threat to him and his family.

    “I wonder if a sitting President exhorting his followers that my role in a TV comedy qualifies me as an enemy of the people constitutes a threat to my safety and that of my family?,” Baldwin wrote on Twitter late Sunday.

    1. This story was so important that CNN had 4 articles about it on their main page this morning. Four.

      They had moved the horrific homophobic and racist assault on Jussie Smollette off of the front page by that point. Bigger fish to fry, and all that.

      Ahh….. good times….

      Remember when CNN covered their front page with outrage pieces about all those celebrities and politicians who were issuing actual calls for violence against that teenage kid wearing a MAGA hat? Because attacks on the first amendment are super important to the media. Particularly if they involve threats of violence conveyed on Twitter.

    2. Pffff. He wishes. Baldwin getting shot by a Trump supporter would bring serious street cred.

    3. Frankly, Trump shouldn’t bother. Everyone knows Arec Bardwin is worfress.

    4. “I wonder if the MSM exhorting their followers that #SmilingWhileWhite qualifies me as an Evil Racist Nazi Klansman constitutes a threat to my safety and that of my family?”

  32. Huffpo thinks climate change is too important to quibble over details like how much you are spending to fix it.

    Which is really nice work, managing to both validate their own position and the position of “climate deniers” on the right who believe that the whole thing has been grasped upon by the left as a means for justifying the takeover of huge segments of the economy.

    1. There’s really no point in reading HuffPo, not even their own writers take them seriously.

    2. Spending an unlimited amount of money on something in order to enjoy an quantified benefit to the climate is another example of something that is irrational regardless of whether climate change is a hoax.

      1. Criticizing environmental policy on efficiency grounds is like criticizing communion wafers on nutritional grounds.

  33. A short, tough punitive expedition into Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 would have been justified and made geopolitical sense. Spending seventeen years in failed attempts to turn one of the least civilized places on the planet into a proper nation while converting American soldiers into an occupying police force with targets on their backs is unjustified and makes no geopolitical sense. Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq was a strategic blunder on the level of Johnson’s war in Vietnam. Obama’s adventure with Libya was a disaster. The record of the “adults” of both parties is not a good one. With ISIS mainly defeated, those wanting a permanent US occupation of parts of Syria need to make a better case for it than I’ve heard yet. Indeed those wanting a permanent US military occupation of any place in the Middle East need to make a better case than they have yet.

    1. Davis Doctrine: Make the rubble bounce and go home.

  34. This Libertarian Moment brought to you by Orange Man and the Deplorables who supported him, over the hysterical pants shitting opposition of Reason.

    You’re welcome.

  35. Great article, one that is actually fair and balanced. We have no place in Syria, amazing how the so called Democratic anti war people suddenly want a war with Russia and Syria. Trump got this right, though he is a moron on many other things.

  36. Lemme axe you something: what do you think is more important, from a libertarian POV? An open border or endless war? And, if only Trump is going to end the wars, is that enough to support him? Of course not, because Orange Man Bad even when he does good things. The man has lowered taxes, cut regulations, supports criminal justice reform, and gladly takes on both socialists and the intelligence community. But, Orange Man Bad!

    1. Orange Man Bad!

    2. You left out has chill he has been on weed and The Gays!

      The level of delusion people have to have about him to think he is pure evil is insane.

  37. The shipping is “free” but you have to spend $5 a month to qualify. If you don’t spend at amazon during that month you are still down ?8 (that’s about ?100 a year). If you spend something at amazon during the month you are still down the $5 in addition to the money spent at something. >>>>>> http://www.Geosalary.com

  38. I am making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people say to me how much money they can make connected so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my existence. This is what I do?. http://www.Mesalary.com

  39. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+…………….. http://www.Pay-Buzz.com

  40. Quick financial cash offer Apply now no collateral required just 2% interest rate, both long and short term cash of all amounts and currencies I’ll advise you can contact us via email at
    abdullahibrahimlender@gmail.com
    whatspp +917738214856
    Mr Abdullah

  41. You know you are doing something right when that disgraceful Susan Rice is upset with you. What a toadie she is. Not an original thought in her head. Yes Trump is a boor. And really hasn’t change since the 80’s. Although his current wife is stunning. I didn’t like and voted holding my nose for Gary and that progressive idiot he ran with. Nonetheless he is better than expected and victory night was the best television in decades as all the left wing pundits literally melted like the Wicked Witch of the East. I am not carzy about tariffs but we haven’t held China’s feet to the fire and Libertarians better get with the fact they are our enemy and we can’t ignore their focus on becoming “the world power”

  42. I receive loan amount of $50K Then i was told about the step of approving my requested loan amount, a my greatest surprise, the loan amount was credited to my bank account within 24 banking hours without any stress of getting my loan. contact at Calling or whatspp +917738214856
    abdullahibrahimlender@gmail.com
    Mr abdullah ibrahim

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.