Impeaching Donald Trump

[LesPalenik]

Would you give Trump the credit he deserves?

How was the Trump involved in this operation?

[Alan Klein]

How was the Trump involved in this operation?

Like Obama and Bin Laden, presidents make the decision and give the orders.  They get credit for successful operations and blame for the unsuccessful ones.  After all, the President is the Commander-in Chief.  If this came out bad, everyone would be chastising him.  How many Nazis did Churchill personally kill during WWII?

[LesPalenik]

More info about about the raid on Baghdadi.

U.S. intelligence officials were able to “scope out” his exact location two weeks ago, while Trump himself became aware of the planned raid three days ago.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-baghdadi-raid-timeline/timeline-anatomy-of-a-raid-how-the-united-states-took-out-baghdadi-idUSKBN1X60P8?il=0

[John Camp]

Like Obama and Bin Laden, presidents make the decision and give the orders.  They get credit for successful operations and blame for the unsuccessful ones.  After all, the President is the Commander-in Chief.  If this came out bad, everyone would be chastising him.  How many Nazis did Churchill personally kill during WWII?

I'm pretty sure Trump himself would have been there for the kill, except the bone spurs on his feet probably would have made that impossible.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Trump, the murderer of religious scholars.

How our dear free press reported the news and some totally unrelated and unwarranted twitter obituaries:

[James Clark]

Trump, the murderer of religious scholars.

How our dear free press reported the news and some totally unrelated and unwarranted twitter obituaries:

That was the second of three edits, FWIW.  All three were radically different in tone, as well.  It was weird...

[JoeKitchen]

That was the second of three edits, FWIW.  All three were radically different in tone, as well.  It was weird...

It is bewildering to say the least!  The fact that you would write a nonchalant, almost woeful, headline about such an infamous person is simply crass. 

I also look at it as another great example of Trump-derangement-syndrome and how the mainstream media goes out of it was to belittle anything Trump does, even at the expense of coming off as obtuse.  And people wonder why Trump canceled the WP from the White House. 

[James Clark]

It is bewildering to say the least!  The fact that you would write a nonchalant, almost woeful, headline about such an infamous person is simply crass. 

I also look at it as another great example of Trump-derangement-syndrome and how the mainstream media goes out of it was to belittle anything Trump does, even at the expense of coming off as obtuse.  And people wonder why Trump canceled the WP from the White House.

Are you aware of what the first headline was?  Or the third?  Doesn't really fit with your theory.  As an aside, it's disturbing to see a self-professed moderate/libertarian starting to parrot the "mainstream media is out to get Trump" nonsense.  The "mainstream media" is perceived as "anti-Trump" because Trump is a ginormous fool.  As I believe I said here before, if a purveyor of sh*t sandwiches is in a kerfluffel because Italian restaurants continually get better reviews, it's not because the media is biased against poo.

All you have to do is look at media that was reliably conservative (Dallas Morning News) or previously non-committal (USA Today), and then look how they treat Trump.  It's not because they hate conservatives, it's because Donald Trump is unfit to serve in intellect, temperament, and judgment.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... the "mainstream media is out to get Trump" nonsense...

If it is nonsense, how do you explain the WaPo headline? Just as "weird"?

[James Clark]

If it is nonsense, how do you explain the WaPo headline? Just as "weird"?

Well, it IS weird.  But I don't it has anything to do with Trump, honestly.   The first headline was something like, "Master Terrorist Killed blah blah blah..." The second was the completely bizarre "Islamic Scholar" nonsense, and the last was something more or less factual as I recall.

My opinion?  The first was overly dramatic, and whoever revised it over-reacted in a really odd way.   If anything it strikes me more as something some would consider "PC pandering" than any sort of reflection on Trump. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

Would you give Trump the credit he deserves?

Neither Trump nor Obama deserve any credit other than saying yes to the assassination(s).  The military and intelligence did 98% of the work.  I never gave Obama any credit for bin Laden and I won't give Trump any credit for this.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Well, it IS weird.  But I don't it has anything to do with Trump, honestly.   

What is weird and does have to do with President Trump is that he did not notify House Speaker Pelosi about what was going to happen.  He offered some phony excuses about leaking information ignoring that Congresswoman Pelosi served on the House Intelligence Committee for 20 years and was never accused of leaking sensitive information.

EDIT:  Obama notified the leaders of both Congressional parties and the relevant intelligence committee chairs prior to the bin Laden assassination

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

What is weird and does have to do with President Trump is that he did not notify House Speaker Pelosi about what was going to happen...

Given the current political climate of lynching the president at all and any costs, it is not inconceivable that Pelosi, other Democrats, or their staff would leak the info just to make Trump look bad. You think I am exaggerating? Rumor has it that Reagan asked the Iranians to free the hostages not during Carter's reign, but when he comes to power. Literally twenty minutes after Reagan's inauguration speech, the hostages were freed. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory

[JoeKitchen]

Are you aware of what the first headline was?  Or the third?  Doesn't really fit with your theory.  As an aside, it's disturbing to see a self-professed moderate/libertarian starting to parrot the "mainstream media is out to get Trump" nonsense.  The "mainstream media" is perceived as "anti-Trump" because Trump is a ginormous fool.  As I believe I said here before, if a purveyor of sh*t sandwiches is in a kerfluffel because Italian restaurants continually get better reviews, it's not because the media is biased against poo.

All you have to do is look at media that was reliably conservative (Dallas Morning News) or previously non-committal (USA Today), and then look how they treat Trump.  It's not because they hate conservatives, it's because Donald Trump is unfit to serve in intellect, temperament, and judgment.

f

Well, if you are so enlightened, please tell use the first and third headline. 

Perhaps the WP has an incredibly obtuse editor out of touch with the current reality of things.  Or perhaps the first headline was a little too positive for Trump, just like with the NYT's headline months ago, so a change was done, but oops, that went a little too far and a 2nd change was needed. 

[faberryman]

Why is everything a conspiracy with you guys?

[JoeKitchen]

Why is everything a conspiracy with you guys?

It is either the editor was beyond incompetent, or it was a nefarious action.

Take your pick.  Right now, I give it a 50/50, although I would assume with the former the editor would eventually be reprimanded in some fashion. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Why is everything a conspiracy with you guys?

If you read the Wikipedia article, you'd find at the very beginning this:

Nevertheless, several individuals—most notably former Iranian President Abulhassan Banisadr,[4] former naval intelligence officer and U.S. National Security Council member Gary Sick, and former Reagan/Bush campaign staffer and White House analyst Barbara Honegger—have stood by the allegation.

[Alan Klein]

Perhaps the WP has an incredibly obtuse editor out of touch with the current reality of things.  Or perhaps the first headline was a little too positive for Trump, just like with the NYT's headline months ago, so a change was done, but oops, that went a little too far and a 2nd change was needed.

It is either political correctness taken to obscenity.  Or a misplaced anti Trump refusal to give even a modicum of credit. Typical Washington Post bias - fake news.

[JoeKitchen]

What is weird and does have to do with President Trump is that he did not notify House Speaker Pelosi about what was going to happen.  He offered some phony excuses about leaking information ignoring that Congresswoman Pelosi served on the House Intelligence Committee for 20 years and was never accused of leaking sensitive information.

EDIT:  Obama notified the leaders of both Congressional parties and the relevant intelligence committee chairs prior to the bin Laden assassination

Come on now.  The Dems are currently holding secret hearings and selectively leaking what supports their narrative to the public, not to mention the two year Muller probe that was put into motion before Trump was even sworn in.  On top of that, officials in the White House have been leaking information to the press since Trump was first sworn in.  Last, in the coming weeks a book is being released supposedly written by a (coward who lacks his convictions too quit) senior official in the White House. 

"It's not paranoia if they're really out to get you."

[Alan Klein]

Come on now.  The Dems are currently holding secret hearings and selectively leaking what supports their narrative to the public, not to mention the two year Muller probe that was put into motion before Trump was even sworn in.  On top of that, officials in the White House have been leaking information to the press since Trump was first sworn in.  Last, in the coming weeks a book is being released supposedly written by a (coward who lacks his convictions too quit) senior official in the White House. 

"It's not paranoia if they're really out to get you."

Years ago,  Democrat and Republican political fights used to end at American shores. No longer.