On the same day that Nancy Pelosi announced the U.S. House of Representatives would proceed with impeachment against President Trump, the Wall Street Journal reported that the president is considering sending 14,000 more troops to the Middle East. This is on the top of thousands that have already been sent to the region in the last year, and the endless wars in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Middle East and Africa.
Pelosi claims she is protecting the Constitution, but President Trump’s call to Ukraine is not illegal and therefore is not even close to a “high crime and misdemeanor.” The Democratic impeachment theater is a complete sham, and nobody should support it.
What we should support, however, is a massive change in U.S. foreign policy, and unfortunately Trump is going back on his many, many promises to get us out of foreign wars. If he goes through with another large troop deployment, he will completely erase all of the good he has done speaking out against the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Trump gets credit for pulling troops out of Syria (something Hillary Clinton never would have done), but many of the troops were simply sent to Iraq.
The U.S. Constitution says in the most clear terms possible that Congress has the responsibility for declaring war. No war has ever been declared in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else in the Middle East. All of the troop deployments in that region are unconstitutional. Bush should have been impeached for sending troops there without a declaration of war, and Obama should have been impeached as well. And I would support the impeachment of President Trump for the same reason.
I want to quote at length from a talk called “Let Us Have Peace” from 1947 by J. Reuben Clark of the First Presidency:
Nor may we overlook that great doctrine of neutrality set up under Washington himself and Jefferson and Hamilton, which was aimed at and brought about the localizing of international armed conflicts, and the preservation , under prescribed rules, of peacetime intercourse between belligerents and nonbelligerents. War was to curse as few people as possible. This has been jettisoned for the concept that every war should involve all nations, making all suffer the ravages of a global war.
Until the last quarter of a century, this gospel of the Fathers was the polar star by which we set our international course. In the first hundred thirty years of our constitutional existence, we had three foreign wars, the first merely the final effort of our Revolution, which made good our independence. During the century that followed we had two foreign wars, neither of considerable magnitude. During the next twenty-three years, we had two global wars. While the gospel of the Fathers guided us we has peace. When we forsook it, two great wars engulfed us.
It is not clear when we began our wandering, nor is it necessary to determine the time. President Theodore Roosevelt was hinting our straying when he uttered the dictum “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” We were to force others to do our bidding. President Wilson had the full departure in mind when he declared: “Everybody’s business is our business.” Since then we have leaped ahead along the anciently forbidden path.
In our course under the new gospel of interference with everything we do not like, we have gone forward and are going forward, as if we possessed all the good of human government, of human economic concept, of human comfort, and of human welfare, all of which we are to impose on the balance of the world,— a concept born of the grossest national egotism. In human affairs no nation can say that all it practices and believes is right, and that all others have that differs from what it has is wrong. Men inflict an unholy tragedy when they proceed on that basis. No man, no society, no people, no nation is wholly right in human affairs; and none is wholly wrong. A fundamental principle of the operation of human society is to live and let live.
Yet, to repeat, we have entered into new fields to impose our will and concepts on others. This means we must use force, and force means war, not peace.
What has our apostasy from peace cost us?
In men, our two recent adventures have cost in casualties, dead, wounded, and missing, 1,402,600, with almost as many saddened and crippled homes.
In money it has cost, in World War I, some $60 odd billions; and World War II cost us some $400 odd billions, including increased civilian help, in total, almost a half a trillion, the great bulk of which we still owe.
In spiritual values it has brought great numbers of our youth and older men to the very depths of desponding atheism. Our whole social structure seems undermined. We are becoming a blaspheming, unchaste, non-Christian, God-less race. Spiritually we seem ripe for another war.
President Clark was prophetic: just a few years after this talk, the Korean War started, without a declaration of war. Then Vietnam, and then a series of smaller engagements in the Middle East and elsewhere, leading finally to our current never-ending conflict in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya and elsewhere. There have been no declarations of war since World War II, and all of these wars were unconstitutional.
So, yes, let’s have impeachment, but for the right reasons. But of course the world loves war and always comes up with new excuses for military conflict rather than peace. Satan always is ready to buy up armies and to reign with blood and horror on this Earth. As latter-day Saints, we should recognize this pattern and oppose it. Let’s oppose war and proclaim peace, even if there are only a few small voices doing it.
Well done, Geoff. I strongly disagree with you in the matter of the legality of Trump’s statements and actions in regards to Ukraine (with the addendum that, as “high crimes and misdemeanors” is an entirely political judgment call, the fact that you and I disagree on the legality of such things is, at present, only a marginally relevant disagreement), but we’re in agreement that every president since Nixon has violated the War Powers Resolution, which is the law of the land, and an impeachment effort on such a basis against any or all of them would have been, and still would be, an extremely beneficial thing for this country.
Just calling Ukraine is not a crime, true. However:
“The impeachment inquiry into Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States, uncovered a months-long effort by President Trump to use the powers of his office to solicit foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 election. As described in this executive summary and the report that follows, President Trump’s scheme subverted U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine and undermined our national security in favor of two politically motivated investigations that would help his presidential reelection campaign. The President demanded that the newly-elected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, publicly announce investigations into a political rival that he apparently feared the most, former Vice President Joe Biden, and into a discredited theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 presidential election. To compel the Ukrainian President to do his political bidding, President Trump conditioned two official acts on the public announcement of the investigations: a coveted White House visit and critical U.S. military assistance Ukraine needed to fight its Russian adversary.”
That is the first paragraph of this:
https://intelligence.house.gov/report/
It makes chilling reading, if you actually read it.
Trump illegally delayed crucial House-approved aid to a crucial US ally, and only released it when the whistleblower report became public. (He was caught in the act.) He publicly obstructed justice by ordering the Executive Branch to withhold testimony and documents. When several important witnesses (including first hand eye-witnesses), came forward anyway, Trump publicly threatened and intimidated witnesses. That is illegal too. In doing all of this (and much more), he demonstrates an ongoing pattern of illegal and constitutionally impeachable behavior.
It was the circumstances and content of the call, all of which are elaborately detailed in the House Report, (which is exceptionally informative reading) that describes the crimes and the constitutional framework that defines them as such. It is easy to dismiss what you do not acknowledge and confront (as the Republicans like Nunes demonstrate, with their approach of misdirection and name-calling, which all remind me forcefully of Nibley’s essay on “The Rise of Rhetoric and the Decline of Everything Else”).
And yes, war is bad, as we can see by watching what happened to our Kurdish allies when our bonespur/deferment Commander impulsively decided to betray them since “where were they on D-Day?” (not mentioning to say where he was when duty called), and we now can watch the Russian flag fly over our former outposts in Syria. But hey. It’s not our blood. And I agree. Clinton would not have betrayed the Kurds.
Interesting to note that people are obsessed with a president they don’t like politically but have no problem with war and killing. Yes, Satan is having a jolly old time watching the political theater in the United States right now.
And I cannot let the ridiculous “abandoned the Kurds” comment go. Since the spring, the Kurds have made an agreement with Assad, which was going to happen one way another regardless of U.S. actions. The Kurds are much safer having an alliance with the Syrian government, which will be around for years, than the U.S. Syria is not in the U.S. sphere of influence, and the U.S. cannot keep troops there forever. Hillary Clinton’s (and Evan McMullin’s) horrific, bloody foreign policy would have committed the United States to another reckless, endless war and a likely confrontation with Russia. Millions of Syrians have already been displaced, but now they are finally moving back because the U.S. has left Syria. Under Hillary, millions more would likely be turned into refugees, with tens of thousands of additional deaths. So, again, people are obsessed with Trump’s minor infractions but care nothing of tens of thousands of possible deaths. Where is our morality?
I wrote more about this here:
https://www.millennialstar.org/evan-mcmullins-dangerous-syrian-policy/
Hitler was kind to dogs and apparently loved Eva Braun. His ideology was obviously evil, but if he had never implemented it he would have been just another crackpot writing crazy tracts in an attic. I am unaware that he ever killed anybody with his own hands. What made Hitler evil was that he took power and then used it to bring about millions of deaths. Good and evil are not always obvious, but we think of Hitler when we think of evil because of all those deaths.
How, then, are we to judge leaders who come to power and then cause war, death and destruction? I am not saying that Trump or Obama or Bush or Truman are as bad as Hitler. What I am saying is that we need to do a much more thorough job considering the morality of war. LDS prophets have a long history of opposing war precisely because it is the tool that Satan uses to cause suffering and decrease spiritual awareness. Every U.S. military intervention has had effects that are long-lasting. In some cases, I think you could argue the effects have been mostly positive. Japan and Germany are better places now than they were in the 1930s and early 1940s. But World War II was a defensive war for the United States. Most of the U.S. wars since then, all of which have taken place without a declaration of war, are not defensive but instead wars of choice. The Book of Mormon makes it clear that only defensive warfare is moral.
We need to examine very carefully any support of war. I believe that only defensive wars in which the United States is directly attacked are morally defensible. The first year of the Afghanistan war was moral, but the United States should have left long ago.
Being moral does not just include our personal actions. It includes choosing moral politicians and leaders. But morality is not just about vulgarity. It also has to do with whether our leaders support unnecessary wars. People who oppose Trump because he is vulgar but who do not care about the immoral actions of past leaders who launched unnecessary wars are on the wrong track, in my opinion. Remember, Hitler was particularly evil because of all of the deaths. Being moral means caring deeply about unnecessary deaths caused by war. As a follower of the Prince of Peace, I will always speak out for peace.
I am no fan of war. However, it is difficult to take your commentary seriously when you pair it with a defense of the current president’s behavior as not serious. Why the pairing? You could have simply focused on the war issue or a defense of the president’s actions. By pairing it in the way you did it looks like an attempt to distract and that’s a shame because the war issue is a serious one. But so is the president’s flaunting of the constitution.
We have no pacifist candidates for President and no pacifist candidates for the Congress from either party to choose from. We have to be prudent and practical about our politics, while playing with the cards that are dealt.
JI, I don’t believe the Lord’s policy is completely pacifist. The Book of Mormon makes clear that defensive wars are justified. People are justified in defending themselves when attacked in their personal lives. In terms of candidates to choose from, there are a few candidates from both parties that are generally against aggressive war. For the Democrats, Tulsi Gabbard is one. For the Republicans, there was the great Ron Paul, but today there are several other anti-war Republicans. Of course, war is just one issue. In my personal opinion, the greatest threat to the United States is socialism, so I vote for candidates who oppose socialist economic policies and who are generally anti-war. This means that I don’t vote for a lot of traditional candidates sometimes. (I voted for the Constitution Party candidate for president in 2016).
I will point out that being anti-war has not been popular the last 20 years. Look at how Hillary Clinton tried to destroy Tulsi Gabbard just this year, for example. The establishment makes a lot of money off of war, and we are bombarded with constant propaganda about how this new weapon system is necessary or how the U.S. must send troops to some new spot or another. Note that none of this is actually about defending the United States, which is facing $1 trillion deficits due in part to all of the war spending. If people really wanted to defend the United States, they would bring all of the troops home and balance the federal budget.
Remember the warnings of the Book of Mormon and remember Spencer W. Kimball warning just just a few years ago:
“We are a warlike people…easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel — ships, planes, missiles, fortifications — and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become anti-enemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching [to love your enemies].”
Or Dallin H. Oaks saying:
“The peace the gospel brings is not just the absence of war. It is the opposite of war. Gospel peace is the opposite of any conflict, armed or unarmed. It is the opposite of national or ethnic hostilities, of civil or family strife.
…
The blessings of the gospel are universal, and so is the formula for peace: keep the commandments of God. War and conflict are the result of wickedness; peace is the product of righteousness.”
Or President Monson:
“The planners of war rarely face the suffering that the people do. It’s when whole families and entire cities face suffering that we see the real horror. We ought to be grateful for peace every day of our lives, but we ought to be vigilant to prevent the types of warfare, the aggressive behavior, the dominance of one military force over another that we have witnessed in the past.”
Trump has committed no crimes since taking office. His only real crime was that he beat Hillary Clinton and frustrated the Democratic Party’s long-term plans for fundamentally transforming the United States.
The above commentators are going to have to do more than simply regurgitate House Democrat talking points if they want to be taken more seriously. I no longer listen to sock puppets.
I am always concerned when some Latter-day Saints tell other Latter-day Saints how they should vote, stating (or suggesting) that their counsel is correct and holy (in contrast to other possible choices which are incorrect and unholy). I choose not to go any further than affirming that we have to be prudent and practical about our politics, while playing with the cards that are dealt. Each Latter-day Saint may make his or her own decision based on his or her hopes and understandings.
Like others, I am hopeful for peace in our world.
JI, I am Ok with that. I misread your comment as asking for advice on candidates who fit my viewpoint, but now I see that was not the point of your comment. No problem.
I must say that when I saw Nancy Pelosi saying that she was “defending the Constitution” by trying to oust Trump, I literally burst out laughing at my computer screen. This is the same Nancy Pelosi who is against the electoral college when it gives her results she doesn’t like, but there is that inconvenient electoral college thing — right there in the Constitution! I doubt she has actually read the entire document. What she does is pick and choose certain words that support her ideology. Notice how she has moved to “bribery” as Trump’s supposed crime because that is a word actually in the Constitution. But she is so stupid that she did not consider that it was used to prevent people bribing the president, not the president trying to (supposedly) bribe another foreign president with foreign aid. The whole political theater is so absurd that it is almost as if the Democrats are trying to lose. But it does provide a lot of entertainment.
I agree with everything in your last comment, but it is a sad entertainment. I have tried to understand the motivation, but the facts as I see them suggest that the pro-impeachment Democrats are trying to undo to 2016 election and rig the 2020 election. I am not a fan of the President, but I support our Constitution and our constitutional processes — I care more about respecting and sustaining our Constitution and our constitutional processes than I do about particular outcomes. We will survive this present unpleasantness.
We may survive the *present* chicanery, but Democrats have done, and are currently doing, grave damage to our political institutions and the unwritten constitutional order. Their refusal to accept the 2016 results and their attempt to rig 2020 has pushed us far, far closer to a real constitutional crisis than anything Trump has said or done in the last three years. The media and the press, particularly CNN, New York Times, and Washington Post, have acted as Democratic Party adjuncts and have lost all credibility.
Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, and the rest of them are the ones who really need to be impeached. In fact, almost every member of Congress, both parties, ought to lose their seats and their jobs, and fresh faces enter. (I say almost, because there are a very few who do their oath of office great credit.)
A new poll came out yesterday. Trump’s approval rating stood at 52%. And this, after months of “impeachment inquiry.” Democrats are losing, and that is why you see Pelosi wrapping herself in the mantle of her “Catholic faith” and Biden challenging fat guys to push-up contests.
They are a sorry, risible lot.
Diagnose the problem at it’s root. You can’t depend on angelic leaders to not use the military unwisely.
You can’t depend on Congress to not play along if required (Patriot Act, Iraq).
What can stop intervention?
Consider this: your son just graduated high school. He’s looking forward to college. But today, the President just announced that he’s calling up 14,000 soldiers to go to Saudi Arabia. There will be a draft to cover the call up.
How would the population respond? There would be a lot of people asking why were adding more to the draft to go to Arabia when we already have them stationed in Korea, Germany, Japan, Italy, Afghanistan, etc etc.
The draft changes all of this. A large volunteer standing army that’s more than large enough to cover national defense of the nation’s borders is said to be more professional.
True, and it’s also designed to be used. Frequently. That’s practically the definition of professional.
Want to put more pressure on government to restrict foreign deployment? Institute a draft to cover 50% or more of the nation’s military forces.
Geoff B
Agree with your thoughts on war. You may be aware that America is regularly pressuring its allies to join it in such ventures.
As Russel points out impeachment is not about whether the president did something illegal. Did Bill Clinton do anything illegal? Consenting adults.
Trump has undermined democracy throughout the world. He is an example of how to destroy morality, and yet people continue to support him. Makes you wonder about their moral judgement.
You are obsessed with socialism, what policies do you see as socialist, and what determines that a policy is socialist. If for example universal health care is adopted, because it costs less than half to provide than the present system, and produces better results, would it be socialist? Or just good financial judgement?
“Did Bill Clinton do anything illegal? Consenting adults.”
Pure political ignorance here. Bill Clinton was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice in two articles of impeachment. Those are, in fact, crimes. He was not charged with receiving blow jobs in the Oval Office.
“Trump has undermined democracy throughout the world” — A histrionic, bloviating bit of bovine fecal matter. Examples, please, of Trump doing this. Specific examples.
Look, dude, if you want to be credible with this stuff, you need to get your facts straight first. Go do your homework, and then come back and we can play ball.
I wouldn’t put it as harshly as Michael, but Bill Clinton did demonstrably lie under oath; he was not impeached for sex.
Whether that was worthy of impeachment or not (or whether Trump should be impeached), I will leave to other commentators (though I will say I was skeptical of impeachment for Clinton, but I also admit I was too young at the time to really have any solid, informed idea). But don’t lie and say Clinton was impeached for sex and did not commit any crimes.
[This is somewhat similar to people who say Nixon was impeached; no, he resigned. Get your facts straight before making historical claims].
For the record, all of the US impeachments have been purely political acts, from Johnson to Nixon (not impeached, but he was going to be) to Clinton to Trump. In that sense, they are all the same. Hillary Clinton committed crimes much worse than any of these presidents, but she walks free now. I was against the Clinton impeachment, and I am against the Trump impeachment (for the charges we are discussing — if we start discussing unconstitutional wars, as I said the situation changes). The interesting fact that the Dems are ignoring is that impeachment is not popular. Trump will win in 2020 — certainly more easily than he would have without impeachment. Bill Clinton became more popular after Republican impeachment attempts. People want their government to do other things than spend time fighting between R’s and D’s, which is all impeachment is at the end of the day. The Dems have boxed themselves in. Their base is completely bat dung crazy, and they can’t do anything without their base. So, here we are with the Dems committing political suicide. I can’t say I will mourn their losses at all, but I still am unhappy with the whole thing. It is creating a very toxic environment nationwide, and it is a shame to see Americans so divided.
Geoff A,
I feel very sorry for you. You are a troll. There are two types of trolls: those who deliberately and maliciously leave comments intended to bother other people, and those who are so sure of their rightness that they must constantly harass and bother people who disagree with them. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are the second type, because no Latter-day Saint should be the first type. What a sad, pathetic life you lead. You sit at a computer, allowing yourself to get upset because somebody on the other side of the world disagrees with you. Have you ever looked in the mirror and said to yourself: “I really have to change my life?” Take it from those who know: you need to change your life. You have changed your moniker many times to get by moderation. Can you see how pathetic this is? Nobody agrees with you, and you convince no one. You only elicit pity.
I will continue to block you, and believe me I can block you easier than you can come up with new ways to sign on. We can see that your IP address is from Australia. You will be easy to block. Go do something with you life. If you are really a member of the Church of Jesus Christ, go out and do some ministering, do your calling, go help people at a homeless shelter. Go to the temple. Please. For your own good, stop leaving comments on this site. Nobody here wants your comments.
I will say that I heard it here first–Trump winning the 2020 ticket (yes, I live under a rock)–and thinking about that makes me dread even further toxicity down the road. He is simply a magnet of division. Clinton underwent impeachment in his second term, so re-election was never an issue, only his legacy and reputation were at risk. Does anyone think the Dems will cease their attempts to impeach and undermine Trump at any and every opportunity throughout his second term? Not bloody likely. Can the oldest man to ever serve as president withstand another four years of intense vitriol from the press and his enemies within and without, while maintaining his presidential duties (such as tweeting from his throne)? That would be impressive. And I’ve never been impressed by Trump. But if he can endure the next five years (assuming he wins again) with his presidency intact, then I will certainly applaud him.
Tiger, I have heard Donald J. Trump Jr and others close to Trump say that he loves the conflict and the fight. I would not be able to handle it, and almost all other people would not, but Trump is a unique character who has been in the limelight for good and bad for decades now. Do you remember his first divorce and how he was in the news for years? He apparently loved it. I have said since the beginning that Trump does both good and bad things, and he is not my type of person — not by a long shot. But I just don’t think he will mind all of the Dem attacks for the next five years. He will love them. He appears to be the only U.S. president perhaps ever who has not aged noticeably. Have you noticed that? Very weird.
Josh Black is a young, rising constitutional scholar. He has co-authored a blistering take-down of the current bribery theory for impeachment.
For your edification: https://www.lawfareblog.com/defining-theory-bribery-impeachment
“The House might adopt the theory of bribery articulated by Pelosi and others. But going down that path would establish a dangerous and, in our view, somewhat alien precedent to the American legal system. Opening this door will not root out “corruption.” Rather, the impeachment process will simply drive normal politics and compromise underground. Political compromises will still be made—they will just lack transparency. In the end, it is the voters who will lose the most.”
I mis-typed his name, it’s Josh Blackman. And while he’s very conservative oriented, he’s no fan of Donald Trump. But he’s fair and balanced, and that seems to be something about as rare as a non-Botoxed actress in Hollywood.
A of 13 if there is anything virtuous, lovely, of good report, or praiseworthy we a seek after these things. “He that haft the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil”
I can not apply A of F 13 to Donald Trump and he loves contention. I don’t like the Democratic alternates either
As for the Iraq and Afghan conflict any student of history would know that almost all wars there would be long drawn out affairs.
Has the information in the WSJ article been second-sourced or confirmed elsewhere? From what I hear from a couple (conservative-leaning) places, it has been denied by military spokesmen. But that denial could be normal misinformation used as part of military tactics, and it usually is justifiably so.
A popular uprising against the Iranian regime is currently underway. The Iranian regime is known to start foreign fights, and has indicated it would do such, to distract attention away from internal conflict.
The international experts who are regular guests on the John Batchelor Show, (WABC New York) such as Ben Talablu, say that the current Iranian uprising is bigger than the one in 2009. Trump is not going to do what Obama did in 2009.
So if the sending ships and 14,000 troops thing is true, then it seems likely they are being put in place to fend off any foreign adventurism that Iran may have in mind.
If the Iranian regime sees itself as going down, they are the type of crazies who will take as many others down with them as they can, including the Western-friendly nations of Kuwait, UAE, and Saudi Arabia, and fence-sitting Qatar.
I forget what the Islamic equivalent of the Apocalypse is, but if I recall correctly, the current Iranian theocracy sees themselves as part of it, destroying as much of the non-Islamic world as they can, even if it means their own destruction.
The 100-some billion of frozen Iranian assets (that we’ve sat on since 1979) that was returned to Iran by Obama (including a plane-load of 400 million cold hard cash) has apparently run out. The Iranian regime, andthe Iranian people, are desperate.
Book, you are correct that the DoD denied the report from the WSJ. I recognize that the Trump administration will often leak stories like this, either because the leakers are trying to damage the president or as a tactic to see how people will respond. Just in case it is the latter, I wanted to put on record on our small blog that I am opposed to our Middle Eastern foreign policy. Of course all people should want freedom for the oppressed people in Iran. I also want freedom for the oppressed people of North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe and Venezuela, among other places. The question is whether or not it is in the interests of the United States to try to do it. I say no. The people of Iran need to rise up and bring about their own freedom. Our military should be focused on threats closer to home. Have you been watching what has been happening in Mexico these days? That is much more of a threat to American citizens than Iran, I am sorry to say. (I am not calling for an invasion of Mexico — I am saying that our foreign policy should be re-focused towards actual threats).
If only the French had acted morally and stayed out of the Revolutionary War, so much death and destruction could have been avoided from then until now.
Talon, that is a really low-quality comment. In addition to being snarky, it is just ill-informed about history. The French cared not a hoot about “morality” when supporting the American rebels. They were, in the long tradition of European conflicts, supporting the enemy of their enemy, the British. It was this very European game of constant warfare that the Founders wanted to avoid, and they wrote and talked about it neutrality and avoiding entangling alliances constantly. And of course eventually the colonists would have won without the French.
Those Hessians sure were moral fighting on the side of the British, amiright? Unfortunately, very many people in the Middle East today U.S. forces as equivalent of the Hessians.
See also https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/afghanistan-our-lying-military-our-lying-government/
Leo, thank you so much for that link. Anybody still following this issue, please look up the story “Afghanistan Papers.” Google it. Afghanistan is Vietnam all over again. Will we never learn?
I am nothing if not a font of really low-quality comments. 🙂
My comment was intentional nonsense aimed at pointing out the irony that the Founders may have promoted a doctrine of neutrality, but were happy the French did not practice what they preached.
On one thing we can both agree: Donald Trump should be impeached.