You expect Trumps cabinet and closest advisors to openly not support his side?

Yeah, like the other posts said, that doesn't contradict what I posted. Sounds like there were some local issues with the Navy base and maybe what Trolly suggested - some kind of rivalry. Maybe sailors were out drunk puking on people's yards a lot.

I was thinking of late 19th/early 20th century Europe, but there's a lot more. Post war USSR/Russia is a good possible example, but maybe places like Thailand, India, North Korea as well? I don't know, but continental Europe, especially Germany, has probably rejected public displays of militarism more than anywhere else.

He's just new to this

Good post and thread. If you have to become Hannity to beat Hannity then it's not a fight worth having in the first place.

"If you have to kill nazis to stop them killing over six million Jews, it’s just not a fight worth having," said no one ever.

I take that back, plenty of anti-semites said that here in America.

Dumb Analogy of the Day Award Winner

I would admit it’s a dumb analogy if republicans weren’t a couple statehouses away from rewriting the constitution to give white fetuses more rights than black humans.

well, I dunno about that. if it would work, I would say it is absolutely worth it.

but I would say the reason this tweet is correct

Laura Seay‏Verified account @texasinafrica 12h12 hours ago
More
To politicize this tragedy in the way the far right politicized Benghazi - in both cases with no evidence of wrongdoing - is a mistake. 24/n

is simply bc it wont work. the republicans are just too good at the media game.

It would be good to know where in Niger the Chadian army was operating before they pulled out. Chadian forces not being near the ambush doesn't automatically mean the ISIS attack wasn't triggered by Chad's withdrawl, it just makes it a harder story to sell.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...trump-al-smith

Or that hippies owned lawns in Norfolk. That's been a navy town for the better part of the 20th century.

just want to make sure i get this right. republicans love the military and troops so much they don't want to launch any type of investigation into Niger where four american troops were killed. gotttt it

lol joke's on him

What you have wrong is that you're trying to make some sort of cohesive sense. That is incorrect. "Support our troops" is a hollow phrase to be used as a cudgel against dissenters. It is nothing more.

Kelly flat out lied about the FBI building funding. What a dishonorable man.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/br...story,amp.html

It's not totally random. You can make sense of it.

Bengahzee was a huge national crisis and world-changing TERROR attack against America because they could blame the Democratic administration and contort themselves into making it especially the fault of the favorite to be the Democratic nominee.

Any reflection or focus on Niger would result in Republicans looking bad, so don't bother.

Viewed from that angle, it makes perfect sense. Dismiss all the patriotic, nationalist, foreign policy, military tactics, etc. commentary and distill it to how it plays out in a partisan fashion, and the right-winger point of view here is entirely logical and rational: Democrats do great crimes against America and multi-year investigations are required to get the bottom of their malfeasance. Similarly, any scrutiny of Republicans is an insult to the flag and military sacrifice.

This and the other current discussion reminds of something from when I was a kid. My little brother who was probably 10 or so at the time, believed it was pretty close to literally impossible for someone in the military to lie.

Good call. The unmentioned distances, and different enemies change Rachel's story. Sounds like it'll be more accurate in a week or two when the brigandage increases in the eastern part of Niger.

Evidence #3721383 Trump is a lying phony. Trump says he has an original Renoir. Chicago Institute of Art says nah.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc...anada-41686623

It doesn't mention it in the piece but after this

Trump continues to argue with the guy and the guy keeps insisting that he's seen the original IN THE MUSEUM and eventually they just drop it and move on only to have Trump on the plane the next day drop that the Renoir in the plane is the original as if their conversation the previous day didn't happen.

I want to clarify a little:

It would totally be worth it to become Hannity if that caused victory. It won't. Our mistakes get fact checked and result in apologies, there are consequences. We can't be Hannity and win.

Trying to make Niger Trump's Benghazi will simply never connect for reasons laid out in DVaut's posts. GOP partisans don't sincerely give a **** about "the troops", they never have, they never will. Trying to cloak ourselves in the flag and out-rah-rah the Toby Keith demo is impossible, because jingoistic nationalism is a built in conservative value.

Uh, as far as Trump was concerned, it didn't. Or maybe he remembered O'Brien disagreeing and of course that just wouldn't do, and figured he'd eventually come around, or something. He's so dumb, who knows.

rara the locals didn't dislike you because you were a sailor, they disliked you because you're an *******.

agree with this. ppl saying not to go hannity bc it somehow is immoral or degrades us in some way are totally off. its win at all costs at this point.

and ya, as I argued above, we shouldnt go hannity simply bc it wont work.