You were saying that TRUMP was guilty, before Mueller finished his investigation, as well in the other ongoing investigations before they were finished, and in which none convicted Trump of the crimes which you claimed he was guilty of. You consistently were not, as you claim I must be, PATIENT. And were proved wrong.

You're the one who keeps denying.

Reminder: There's not "a" grand jury investigating Trump's flunkies.

DOJ has used at least six grand juries to investigate January 6.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know you're chompin at the bit. Patience.

Oh, as you can see I am patient
However I see Trumplicans are confused again
Donald Trump did not kill Bin Laden. He did invite the Taliban to Camp David on 9/11 though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Biden invited the Taliban to take over Afghanistan.

Donald Trump released 5000 Taliban and leaders.

“The signing of the Doha agreement had a really pernicious effect on the government of Afghanistan and on its military – psychological more than anything else, but we set a date – certain for when we were going to leave and when they could expect all assistance to end,” McKenzie said.

He was referring to a February 29, 2020, agreement that the Trump administration signed with the Taliban in Doha, Qatar, in which the US promised to fully withdraw its troops by May 2021 and the Taliban committed to several conditions, including stopping attacks on US and coalition forces.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Biden invited the Taliban to take over Afghanistan.

Trump entered into an agreement with the Taliban excluding the Afghan government. It was signed February 2020. And it said that the United States will pull out all of its forces by May 1. And what was remarkable about it is that after February 2020 no American soldiers were killed in Afghanistan by the Taliban. So the Taliban held to their word of not killing Americans, but started killing all the educated classes of Afghans and destroying the government.
So Biden was left with a choice, start the war over by increasing boots on the ground or get out.
He made the correct choice after years of horrendous decisions by our government in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan was invaded because of 9/11, the majority involved in that attack were Saudi, no Afghans were there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Biden invited the Taliban to take over Afghanistan.

Trump already kneecapped the Afghan government.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Biden invited the Taliban to take over Afghanistan.

Afghans let the Taliban take over Afghanistan.. get your facts right..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I got my facts right. Leaving Afghanistan was an open invitation to the Taliban. You changed the verbs--inserted "let" in place of "invited."

So how long did you expect us to stay? What time frame would make you feel better

And how I am I wrong

Afghans let the Taliban take over Afghanistan

Last time I checked they had no Stars and Stripes on their flag

Same with the Ukraine flag

But some how conservatives thinks it’s Biden’s fault lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Detbuch thinks that nation building was the solution to Afghanistan.
Never mind that we tried for a couple of decades.
In his mind Afghanistan was worth more lives, never mind wealth.
Ukraine meh…..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Some anti-Trumpers think it's Trump's fault. As for Biden, I stand by what I said. I didn't try to cast "fault." I responded, sarcastically, to Pete F. who was insinuating Trump was at fault for something or other when he said that Trump invited the Taliban to Camp David on 9/11.

Another one of your lies. I didn't say that. I said the opposite. I said, on this forum back in August of 2021:

"We should not have occupied Afghanistan to begin with. If they had Osama and wouldn't turn him over to us, we should have just carpet bombed that country and left a message on top of the rubble for the survivors and leaders that we would be back with more if they messed with us. I said that here on the forum way back then.

"Having not done that, but intruding ourselves into their wonderful Islamic nation, we should only have done it after totally defeating the Taliban, totally wiped it out, then peacefully cleaning up the mess we made, and offer them assistance in rebuilding and occupying for a while.

"We needed to leave. Maybe there was a better way. No opinion on that. Maybe there is a lesson to be learned. Islam is not peaceful. Nor is it compatible with our culture nor with democracy. Reforming it so that it would be compatible with Western values would be making it something totally different than it actually is."

You know that since I went back and forth with you in that thread with your insinuation that I wanted to commit genacide.

So, as you are wont to do, you lied about me here. As I have often said, you're a liar. It's one of the key elements in your consistent propaganda.

So we should have destroyed the Taliban before we built them a new nation?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Taliban having been destroyed, wiped out, it would not be their nation. And we would not build that nation, but help clean up the destruction we caused, and then leave.

You lied saying I wanted to nation build. I said we should not have occupied Afghanistan in the first place.

BUT WE DID. We intruded ourselves into that nation, which I said we shouldn't have done. So, HAVING DONE THAT, we should have totally wiped out the Taliban, helped clean up the mess we made, occupying only for a while and assisting their rebuild, then leave.

I said we needed to leave.

You lied. Not unusual for you.

Umm, that’s the classic definition of nation building.

But here you go, the beginners guide to nation building

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/ran...RAND_MG557.pdf
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Umm, what I said is nowhere near what your beginners guide requires. To begin with, I didn't say it was to be a liberation. I said it was to totally eradicate the Taliban. The purpose was to annihilate an enemy who refused to turn over another avowed enemy. The help to rebuild was merely to "help" refurbish the infrastructure we destroyed. The short time required to do that would also include sticking around long enough to assure that the Taliban in Afghanistan was inoperative or even to allow it to give up Bin Ladin, as much as that could be done. But I did not say to stay there for years. I mentioned nothing about all the other things listed in chapters 1-9 in your beginners guide. Perhaps you didn't read it.

BTW, I'm not against some of the things done in your guide's version of nation building. It would depend on circumstances. One circumstance that would make it perhaps too difficult, is trying to build an Islamic nation into a democratic Western style nation founded on individual freedom and secular rule of law. Islam is totally incompatible with such a nation.

Perhaps we could have done a Hiroshima/Nagasaki type operation. Utterly destroy one large Afghan city, and if that didn't cough up Bin Ladin, do it to another large city, and keep doing it until either we got Bin Ladin or the Taliban and Afghanistan was totally destroyed. Kinda like what Putin is doing to Ukraine, whatever his motive is.

So, you’re proposing that we should have committed war crimes, because your belief is that the Muslim faith is incompatible with what you perceive to be the state religion of the United States?

So then, just how are you rationalizing Putin’s tactics or motives?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not. I made a comparison (no comparison is perfect). Putin is asking for something that is not being given and he is responding in a manner that he thinks is legitimate on his stage of what is ethical in war. Perhaps he is telling NATO and Ukraine that their romance is reneging on the agreement that Ukraine would not be welcomed into joining NATO. Perhaps he is broadcasting how he will react if the romance spreads to other countries that were not allowed to join NATO.

Or, perhaps, he's a bloodthirsty criminal.

What “agreement”, the Budapest memorandum?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Putin and the Russians saw it as an "agreement." In spite of the fact that there was no formal "agreement," Russia saw the discussions with Western leaders re NATO as assurances that NATO would not expand eastward. It is Putin's point of view that needs to be considered in an analysis of why he is destroying Ukraine.

For instance, exerpts from Politifact:

Baker told Gorbachev that "if we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO 1 inch to the east."

Those comments, along with similar remarks from Baker’s European allies, like Genscher and Kohl, were part of what researchers at George Washington University’s National Security Archive called a "cascade of assurances" offered to the Soviets.

Jack Matlock, the last U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, and Robert Gates, the deputy national security adviser at the time. Gates said the Soviets "were led to believe" NATO would not expand eastward.

Gorbachev insisted that he was promised NATO would not "move 1 centimeter further east."

you have the very adamant Russian position: ‘We were totally betrayed, there’s no doubt about it.’

The [German Foreign Ministry] reported that Yeltsin’s complaint was formally wrong, but it said it could understand "why Yeltsin thought that NATO had committed itself not to extend beyond its 1990 limits,"

Shifrinson, an associate professor of international relations at Boston University, wrote that while no formal agreement restricted NATO’s expansion, Baker and other diplomats had offered the Soviets verbal assurances that NATO would not enlarge to the east.

The record, from 1991, quotes a German official as telling British and American policymakers, "We had made it clear during the 2+4 negotiations that we would not extend NATO beyond the Elbe (a river in Germany). We could not therefore offer membership of NATO to Poland and the others."

Shifrinson said "There is a legitimate point to say that the U.S. offered assurances to the Soviets that NATO would do something, but that is not the same thing as saying NATO offered an agreement,"

Marc Trachtenberg, a professor emeritus from the University of California, Los Angeles, has summarized the research on the NATO-enlargement-promise debate. His writing also argued that U.S. officials made assurances to the Soviets that they ultimately reneged on.

Trachtenberg said that the term ‘tacit understanding’ [rather than formal agreement] is a better way to put it."

Given all that info as related by Politifact, it is not difficult to see why Putin, given his self-serving view of the world, would understand that NATO was reneging.

So how’s that working out for him
Finland, Sweden and more joining NATO.
Putin’s armed forces destroyed.
Russians committing and supporting war crimes.
Typical Authoritarian
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Authoritarian Pete self-importantly states the obvious when he doesn't need to spread a lie.

The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary, on 5 December 1994, to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers: the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States.
The memorandum prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.

Bad move . . .

Not that the disgraced former president of the USA ever withheld aid, prestige or anything from Ukraine while hosting Lavrov in the Oval Office.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Biden admitted that he coerced Ukraine. Zelensky said that Trump didn't coerce him. But that's not the point. The point is that we don't have some higher moral ground in that respect of the Budapest Memorandum than Russia. And that Putin may well believe his action is a desperate defensive measure against NATO encroachment.

I'm trying to see it through Putin's eyes, not mine. I despise what he is doing.

Russian President Vladimir Putin may use the Biden administration’s support for Ukraine as a pretext to order another campaign to interfere in American politics, U.S. intelligence officials have assessed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There you go.

For the first time in American history, white men are a minority on the Supreme Court.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hurray--I guess. Are they the only minority?