(03-01-2017 03:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 03:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I agree to an extent, but that wasn't the point of my post.
The point of my post was that the Commander in Chief was not taking responsibility for his decision to green light the operation.
I too agree that those trying to point to the death of a SEAL as a sign that the raid was botched must misunderstand that a casualty doesn't always equate to success/failure. However, as more information comes out about the raid (last I read, no useful intelligence was gathered from the raid) it sounds like it was botched in the sense that there was no net positive from the raid.
Again, that wasn't what I wanted to highlight - I wanted to highlight the rather dishonorable nature of the Commander in Chief's suggestions that the buck apparently stops with someone else.

I admit that I haven't followed this one closely, because it has struck me as an effort to make a tempest in a teapot by those who want to do anything to discredit Trump, but I really haven't seen that, including in the video linked to the earlier post. Perhaps you could point out clearly and explicitly what you are talking about.

Read my original post -I bolded Trump's quote so it would be hard to miss.

(03-01-2017 03:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 03:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 03:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I agree to an extent, but that wasn't the point of my post.
The point of my post was that the Commander in Chief was not taking responsibility for his decision to green light the operation.
I too agree that those trying to point to the death of a SEAL as a sign that the raid was botched must misunderstand that a casualty doesn't always equate to success/failure. However, as more information comes out about the raid (last I read, no useful intelligence was gathered from the raid) it sounds like it was botched in the sense that there was no net positive from the raid.
Again, that wasn't what I wanted to highlight - I wanted to highlight the rather dishonorable nature of the Commander in Chief's suggestions that the buck apparently stops with someone else.

I admit that I haven't followed this one closely, because it has struck me as an effort to make a tempest in a teapot by those who want to do anything to discredit Trump, but I really haven't seen that, including in the video linked to the earlier post. Perhaps you could point out clearly and explicitly what you are talking about.

Read my original post -I bolded Trump's quote so it would be hard to miss.

I didn't miss it. I don't interpret it the way that you do. As far as I know, everything said by Trump there is factual. Is there some part that is not?

(03-01-2017 03:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 03:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 03:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 03:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I agree to an extent, but that wasn't the point of my post.
The point of my post was that the Commander in Chief was not taking responsibility for his decision to green light the operation.
I too agree that those trying to point to the death of a SEAL as a sign that the raid was botched must misunderstand that a casualty doesn't always equate to success/failure. However, as more information comes out about the raid (last I read, no useful intelligence was gathered from the raid) it sounds like it was botched in the sense that there was no net positive from the raid.
Again, that wasn't what I wanted to highlight - I wanted to highlight the rather dishonorable nature of the Commander in Chief's suggestions that the buck apparently stops with someone else.

I admit that I haven't followed this one closely, because it has struck me as an effort to make a tempest in a teapot by those who want to do anything to discredit Trump, but I really haven't seen that, including in the video linked to the earlier post. Perhaps you could point out clearly and explicitly what you are talking about.

Read my original post -I bolded Trump's quote so it would be hard to miss.

I didn't miss it. I don't interpret it the way that you do. As far as I know, everything said by Trump there is factual. Is there some part that is not?

You don't interpret this:

Quote:“This was a mission that was started before I got here. This was something they wanted to do,” he said. “They came to me, they explained what they wanted to do ― the generals ― who are very respected, my generals are the most respected that we’ve had in many decades, I believe. And they lost Ryan.

As Trump indicating that the responsibility for the raid was basically falling on other's shoulders'? How else am I supposed to interpret the comment "And they lost Ryan."

Using the word "they" certainly appears to me that Trump is not saying HIS raid lost Ryan.

I am not trying to say that Trump is lying as you suggest. I don't think he is making up some funny narrative that isn't truthful. I think he is being a shi**y leader who is unwilling to admit that he has the final authority over these military operations and HE, not THEY, lost the SEAL.

And as I said in my original post, the loss of life is not the issue, it is the unwillingness to take responsibility for it that is.

Please explain how my interpretation of that quote is incorrect.

Owl #s, I know you're a fan of Bear Bryant: “If anything goes bad, I did it. If anything goes semi-good, we did it. If anything goes really good, then you did it." Nothing the president said was incorrect, but it would have gone over better if he'd used the word "we" instead of saying "they lost Ryan."

(03-01-2017 04:14 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Owl #s, I know you're a fan of Bear Bryant: “If anything goes bad, I did it. If anything goes semi-good, we did it. If anything goes really good, then you did it." Nothing the president said was incorrect, but it would have gone over better if he'd used the word "we" instead of saying "they lost Ryan."

Exactly.

He literally tried to explain away his involvement....

It was started before I got there.

THEY wanted to do it.

THEY explained what was going to happen.

THEY lost Ryan.

When the POTUS is actually involved with decision making (like green-lighting cover ops) he actually needs to be linked to the outcome. When it comes to less directly linked things (like job #s) it's a lot easier to say the POTUS didn't play a role and either can't be blamed or shouldn't take responsibility.

I think Trump is like former Boston Celtic and Phoenix Sun Danny Ainge. If he's on your team, you like him, and all his elbows and shenanigans are just "grit" and "toughness." If he's on the other team, you hate him because he's a "whiner" and plays a bit "dirty." If you like Trump, you can look past a lot of his character traits; you may even find virtue in them. If you hate Trump, then you find his traits terrible.*

I do believe that, if Obama had been president during this raid and said the same exact words as Trump, many people who are giving Trump a pass on these comments would be raking Obama over the coals. Do I think Trump's comments were the worst thing in the world? No. Do I think they're kind of sh-tty for a president? Kind of.

*I always really disliked Danny Ainge. I never thought he was bad for the country and the world, however.

(03-01-2017 04:55 PM)Barrett Wrote:  I think Trump is like former Boston Celtic and Phoenix Sun Danny Ainge. If he's on your team, you like him, and all his elbows and shenanigans are just "grit" and "toughness." If he's on the other team, you hate him because he's a "whiner" and plays a bit "dirty." If you like Trump, you can look past a lot of his character traits; you may even find virtue in them. If you hate Trump, then you find his traits terrible.*

I do believe that, if Obama had been president during this raid and said the same exact words as Trump, many people who are giving Trump a pass on these comments would be raking Obama over the coals. Do I think Trump's comments were the worst thing in the world? No. Do I think they're kind of sh-tty for a president? Kind of.

*I always really disliked Danny Ainge. I never thought he was bad for the country and the world, however.

Maybe it will be a Nixon to China kind of thing.
It seems that in the past whenever infrastructure projects were proposed by Democrats, they were derided as make-work boondoggles.

(03-01-2017 04:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You don't interpret this:

Quote:“This was a mission that was started before I got here. This was something they wanted to do,” he said. “They came to me, they explained what they wanted to do ― the generals ― who are very respected, my generals are the most respected that we’ve had in many decades, I believe. And they lost Ryan.

As Trump indicating that the responsibility for the raid was basically falling on other's shoulders'? How else am I supposed to interpret the comment "And they lost Ryan."
Using the word "they" certainly appears to me that Trump is not saying HIS raid lost Ryan.
I am not trying to say that Trump is lying as you suggest. I don't think he is making up some funny narrative that isn't truthful. I think he is being a shi**y leader who is unwilling to admit that he has the final authority over these military operations and HE, not THEY, lost the SEAL.
And as I said in my original post, the loss of life is not the issue, it is the unwillingness to take responsibility for it that is.
Please explain how my interpretation of that quote is incorrect.

No, I didn't.

I probably have more trouble with the, "This was something they wanted to do," part than with the, "They lost Ryan," part, although the amplification of the former in the sentence that follows it pretty much deals with my issues there.

If the mission uncovered a treasure trove of intel, I'd still play it as not having found a whole lot. That was one problem I had with Obama's handling of the bin Laden raid was all the spiking the football about how much intel they recovered. You don't want the enemy to know that.

I try to think would I have a problem if I were a member of the SEAL team or one of the generals, and I don't really see where I would.

(03-01-2017 06:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 04:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You don't interpret this:

Quote:“This was a mission that was started before I got here. This was something they wanted to do,” he said. “They came to me, they explained what they wanted to do ― the generals ― who are very respected, my generals are the most respected that we’ve had in many decades, I believe. And they lost Ryan.

As Trump indicating that the responsibility for the raid was basically falling on other's shoulders'? How else am I supposed to interpret the comment "And they lost Ryan."
Using the word "they" certainly appears to me that Trump is not saying HIS raid lost Ryan.
I am not trying to say that Trump is lying as you suggest. I don't think he is making up some funny narrative that isn't truthful. I think he is being a shi**y leader who is unwilling to admit that he has the final authority over these military operations and HE, not THEY, lost the SEAL.
And as I said in my original post, the loss of life is not the issue, it is the unwillingness to take responsibility for it that is.
Please explain how my interpretation of that quote is incorrect.

No, I didn't.

I probably have more trouble with the, "This was something they wanted to do," part than with the, "They lost Ryan," part, although the amplification of the former in the sentence that follows it pretty much deals with my issues there.

If the mission uncovered a treasure trove of intel, I'd still play it as not having found a whole lot. That was one problem I had with Obama's handling of the bin Laden raid was all the spiking the football about how much intel they recovered. You don't want the enemy to know that.

I try to think would I have a problem if I were a member of the SEAL team or one of the generals, and I don't really see where I would.

So let me get this straight - Trump saying multiple times that others were why the raid happened and that those others are the ones who were responsible for the SEAL's is not Trump trying to pin the blame on those others?

That's what I am saying he is trying to do. You're trying to refute that?

(03-01-2017 06:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So let me get this straight - Trump saying multiple times that others were why the raid happened and that those others are the ones who were responsible for the SEAL's is not Trump trying to pin the blame on those others?
That's what I am saying he is trying to do. You're trying to refute that?

No, you don't have it straight because that's not what he said. You are adding a bunch of words that he didn't say. I suppose that you are free to interpret it that way, but I think that's taking a very prejudiced view.

Just for information, what was the context of Trump's remarks?

(03-01-2017 06:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 06:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So let me get this straight - Trump saying multiple times that others were why the raid happened and that those others are the ones who were responsible for the SEAL's is not Trump trying to pin the blame on those others?
That's what I am saying he is trying to do. You're trying to refute that?

No, you don't have it straight because that's not what he said. You are adding a bunch of words that he didn't say. I suppose that you are free to interpret it that way, but I think that's taking a very prejudiced view.

Just for information, what was the context of Trump's remarks?

What words am I adding? Please outline the words I am adding to Trump's statements in detail. I think you're perhaps confusing adding words with misinterpreting?

To you other question, the context was that Steve Doocy asking for Trump's reaction for the SEAL's father not wanting to talk to him. Trump's response started with the quote I provided: "This was a mission that started before I got here. This is something they came to me, they explained..."

So, Trump 100% starts out by distancing himself from the mission by stating that it was already in the works before he got there. That fact is irrefutable, and him stating that it was in the works, what purpose does it serve other than to try and shift blame?

So on to the rest. Since you haven't done a good job explaining why you think I'm off, I'll try to construct your argument for you. Let's see how the rest of the quote could be about something else besides Trump trying to dodge responsibility.

Well, we know Trump isn't great with speaking in what I would call a logicial and linear manner, so maybe that's what's going on here. Perhaps he has a poor grasp on grammar and is using "they" interchangeably? That would work if he is using it to describe both the the generals (as he specifies) and perhaps the SEAL's parents. He could be going back to the original comment from Doocy and referring to why the father doesn't want to talk to him, because he ("they" in this instance) just lost a son.

Here is a clip for you to watch and help me decipher: https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status...wsrc%5Etfw

(03-01-2017 07:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 06:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 06:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So let me get this straight - Trump saying multiple times that others were why the raid happened and that those others are the ones who were responsible for the SEAL's is not Trump trying to pin the blame on those others?
That's what I am saying he is trying to do. You're trying to refute that?

No, you don't have it straight because that's not what he said. You are adding a bunch of words that he didn't say. I suppose that you are free to interpret it that way, but I think that's taking a very prejudiced view.
Just for information, what was the context of Trump's remarks?

What words am I adding?

Umm, "multiple times," "others were why the raid happened," and "those others are the ones who are responsible for the SEAL's" (death, I presume you meant to say).

As I said, I haven't followed this too closely, but the coverage I saw early on seemed to be trying to portray this as some crazy scheme that Trump drew up that turned into a cluster-flock. In that context, this reads like a reasonable explanation of what most likely happened.

We must be talking righty pay each other. I have no idea what you're responding to.

(03-01-2017 05:40 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 04:55 PM)Barrett Wrote:  I think Trump is like former Boston Celtic and Phoenix Sun Danny Ainge. If he's on your team, you like him, and all his elbows and shenanigans are just "grit" and "toughness." If he's on the other team, you hate him because he's a "whiner" and plays a bit "dirty." If you like Trump, you can look past a lot of his character traits; you may even find virtue in them. If you hate Trump, then you find his traits terrible.*

I do believe that, if Obama had been president during this raid and said the same exact words as Trump, many people who are giving Trump a pass on these comments would be raking Obama over the coals. Do I think Trump's comments were the worst thing in the world? No. Do I think they're kind of sh-tty for a president? Kind of.

*I always really disliked Danny Ainge. I never thought he was bad for the country and the world, however.

Maybe it will be a Nixon to China kind of thing.
It seems that in the past whenever infrastructure projects were proposed by Democrats, they were derided as make-work boondoggles.

Funny thing about the Obama era stimulus infrastructure spending was how much the monies being spent had *direct* requirements from the then administration to include union participation. And yes, speaking from first hand knowledge here....

Didn't mind the infrastructure spending, but the added 'requirements' were kind of grotesque.

(03-01-2017 09:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We must be talking righty pay each other. I have no idea what you're responding to.

Umm, I'm quoting your words.

I don't know whether to laugh or be mortified ----

use this chrome extension and peruse through Salon or Huffpo.....

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detai...ladmonilah

(03-01-2017 10:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I don't know whether to laugh or be mortified ----

use this chrome extension and peruse through Salon or Huffpo.....

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detai...ladmonilah

They need to update it - Gawker is no longer in business thanks to the Hulkster.

(03-01-2017 10:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 09:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We must be talking righty pay each other. I have no idea what you're responding to.

Umm, I'm quoting your words.

But you aren't. You're suggesting I am misquoting Trump by "adding words" when I am doing no such thing.

If you want to provide evidence of how I am misinterpreting him, I'm all ears.

More Trump-Russia smoke from his administration.

Two interesting articles about Sessions and the distribution of intelligence before the transition. More smoke or just #FakeNews?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/po....html?_r=0

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/01/politics/j...-meetings/

The Sessions news is now causing fellow Republicans to call for Sessions to recuse himself from investigation - most notably Chaffetz.

(03-01-2017 04:55 PM)Barrett Wrote:  I think Trump is like former Boston Celtic and Phoenix Sun Danny Ainge. If he's on your team, you like him, and all his elbows and shenanigans are just "grit" and "toughness." If he's on the other team, you hate him because he's a "whiner" and plays a bit "dirty." If you like Trump, you can look past a lot of his character traits; you may even find virtue in them. If you hate Trump, then you find his traits terrible.*

I do believe that, if Obama had been president during this raid and said the same exact words as Trump, many people who are giving Trump a pass on these comments would be raking Obama over the coals. Do I think Trump's comments were the worst thing in the world? No. Do I think they're kind of sh-tty for a president? Kind of.

*I always really disliked Danny Ainge. I never thought he was bad for the country and the world, however.

I heard a rumor Trump bit Tree Rollins.