world

Trump won't reveal North Korea plan as tensions mount

107 Comments
By STEVE PEOPLES and CATHERINE LUCEY

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

107 Comments
Login to comment

Trump reveals no plans because he has no plans.

20 ( +24 / -4 )

It's a dangerous world. We don't want someone so unprepared and ignorant as Trump in charge.

16 ( +21 / -5 )

This is getting serious. Here's the point: Iran is a rational actor with a semi-democratic government, so Obama's deal with them could have been expected to succeed - and thus far, after one year, it has.

North Korea is exactly the opposite. Negotiation is impossible for a variety of reasons. A few minor sanction steps are still possible, including pressuring countries into not accepting NK workers. However, with the majority of these workers in Russia and China, their cooperation would be required.

Fundamentally, NK comes down to Sino-US relations. NK would collapse in a year if China sealed the border. This might be in China's best interest, but they do not trust the US - and for good reason. So NK is the stick and the US is the carrot. Perhaps some understanding can be reached involving security guarantees and concessions in other areas. Short of war, this is the only outcome I see. A very, very difficult situation for either candidate.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Trump wouldn't have much he could do since he seems to be alienating friends and allies here in Asia.

Just like katsu78 wrote above, "No plans".

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Stopping Trump and keeping this candidate from becoming the next President should be a bi-partisan goal. A great many Republicans are either not voting or are voting for Clinton simply because they are educated and intelligent enoughto see that Trump isutterly unfit and unqualified for the position. The Republican Party has already destroyed itself by allowing this man to ecome their candidate. So please let's cut the attacking Republicans nonsense. At this stage I consider keeping this con man out of the White House to be a matter of national security.

13 ( +16 / -3 )

A great many Republicans are either not voting or are voting for Clinton

And you? This is the third time I've asked.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

A great many Republicans are either not voting or are voting for Clinton

The other scenario: you could be right and also there is that silent majority that will vote for Trump, but can't say at the dinner table or to their friends for being ridiculed.

-18 ( +1 / -19 )

I can't imagine it really matters if Trump came up with a good plan, a bad plan, or a nonsensical plan. His supporters don't really look to him for policy beyond immigration.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

I can't imagine it really matters if Trump came up with a good plan, a bad plan, or a nonsensical plan. His supporters don't really look to him for policy beyond immigration.

What's Hillary good plan on anything except cuddling up to more Wall street and lying to the Black community that everything will be ok, swell and dandy?

-12 ( +2 / -14 )

“Maybe we shouldn’t be so honest when it comes to military strategy,”

Good luck working with your allies.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

The other scenario: you could be right and also there is that silent majority that will vote for Trump, but can't say at the dinner table or to their friends for being ridiculed.

Americans would need to be seriously stupid for that to happen... and certainly deserving of the ridicule. I don't particularly like anybody in politics at the moment... just Trump takes the cake.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Americans would need to be seriously stupid for that to happen... and certainly deserving of the ridicule. I don't particularly like anybody in politics at the moment... just Trump takes the cake.

But there are a lot of people that think the exact opposite when they think of Hillary, keep that in mind.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

I actually do believe that Trump has a plan, but I also believe that his plan would most likely bring us all closer to war rather than a peaceful resolution to the matter.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

See, this is what I don't understand, the guy has been so outspoken against the Iraq war and wars in general. The left until this day is still suffering from Bush syndrome and now you have a guy that speaks out about the disaster of that war and believes we shouldn't be involved in any military conflict, but the left admire a woman that voted for the Iraq war and is extremely hawkish and wouldn't bat an eyelash to use military force. Sometimes, I feel the left is drinking the Kool-aid just a tad bit too much.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

the guy has been so outspoken against the Iraq war

No, because Republicans started it so he was for it.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

the guy has been so outspoken against the Iraq war and wars in general. The left until this day is still suffering from Bush syndrome and now you have a guy that speaks out about the disaster of that war and believes we shouldn't be involved in any military conflict, but the left admire a woman that voted for the Iraq war...

Trump was only strongly against the war after it became politically safe to be against the war because it was obviously a failure. Before the war, when his opinion actually mattered, he's on record being disinterestedly for the war.

75% of the American public was for the war in the beginning. I remember, because I was practically alone on the street protesting it. So a politician supporting the war isn't in and of itself a black mark for me. But dishonestly pretending to havebeen against the war when you weren't? That's parasiting yourself on my foresight and that's inexcusable.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Trump will reveal his plans - as soon as he's had time to read them on Facebook.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Trump will fire the generals. Or he will rely on them. Who knows. For his supporters, who cares?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

No, because Republicans started it so he was for it.

And later was totally against it.

Trump was only strongly against the war after it became politically safe to be against the war because it was obviously a failure. Before the war, when his opinion actually mattered, he's on record being disinterestedly for the war.

As many of us were, until it turned South and a lot of us were speaking out against it.

75% of the American public was for the war in the beginning. I remember, because I was practically alone on the street protesting it.

In the entire US????

So a politician supporting the war isn't in and of itself a black mark for me. But dishonestly pretending to havebeen against the war when you weren't? That's parasitizing yourself on my foresight and that's inexcusable.

But it really doesn't matter theoretically, because Trump wasn't a politician at that time, Hillary was and voted for it, so do you find it equally disturbing that she voted for it, signed off on it, basically giving it the green light and now running for office? Your blood must be boiling over, I know mine is.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

"Whatever happened to the spoils of war?" "We should just have taken their oil."

Donald Trump

So now he wants to turn the U.S. military into a force of thieves? No plan for NK, No plan for anything. He won't get my vote. He's not qualified to be President of a PTA board much less the USA.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

See, this is what I don't understand, the guy has been so outspoken against the Iraq war

No he wasn't. He was in support of it at the time, and even 17 months after it started, he was still waivering on whether it was a good thing or not. He was never decisively against it, until everyone else was as well, when it was finally apparent that the WMDs were a lie.

and wars in general.

This is the guy who wants to continue the war with ISIS. He is as much as warmonger as you accuse Hillary of being.

the left admire a woman that voted for the Iraq war and is extremely hawkish and wouldn't bat an eyelash to use military force.

Voting for the war was wrong. Everyone who supported it should be criticized, though to be fair, most of them were just following the lies that Bush and company had promoted. But as far as being hawkish, and ready to use military force, this is an important trait in a president. Obama is the same. The question isn't whether someone is willing to use the military, the question is whether they have the intelligence to know when to not use it, and when they have the intelligence to not make up lies so as to use the military to invade foreign countries based on those lies.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Here's Hillary's plans: "The former secretary of state, in a statement, called for new sanctions in addition to those endorsed by the Obama administration"

That'll take care of it!

Trump leads 55% to 36% among veterans and active-duty service members, according to a new NBC poll. That poll must be bogus...

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

So please let's cut the attacking Republicans nonsense.

Uhm. Trump is the Republican candidate for president.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

This is ironic:

Here's Hillary's plans: "The former secretary of state, in a statement, called for new sanctions in addition to those endorsed by the Obama administration"

That'll take care of it!

The right calls her a warmonger hawk, then complains when she promotes a non-war solution.

The smear campaign continues.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

No he wasn't. He was in support of it at the time, and even 17 months after it started, he was still waivering on whether it was a good thing or not.

But as a private citizen and now we have Hillary a public official, paid for by the dictators.....I mean, tax payers of the country. Either way, foreigners don't have to worry since they can't vote in our election anyway.

This is the guy who wants to continue the war with ISIS. He is as much as warmonger as you accuse Hillary of being.

He should.

Voting for the war was wrong.

Depends on who you are asking....

Everyone who supported it should be criticized, though to be fair, most of them were just following the lies that Bush and company had promoted.

So how is that different from the Hillary lies and Benghazi? Isn't a lie a lie? Hillary thinks she's innocent and Bush and Blair think they are innocent, so basically, all these people are innocent.

But as far as being hawkish, and ready to use military force, this is an important trait in a president. Obama is the same.

I see, when Democrats are hawkish it is an important trait, but when a Republican is hawkish, that's just downright bad as bad can get? LAMO!

The question isn't whether someone is willing to use the military, the question is whether they have the intelligence to know when to not use it, and when they have the intelligence to not make up lies so as to use the military to invade foreign countries based on those lies.

Well, then that would and should exclude Hillary for sure.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

But as a private citizen and now we have Hillary a public official

It's weird that you think this matters. You always give him a pass for everything. ROFLBenghazi.

So how is that different from the Hillary lies and Benghazi?

Because even if you believe the smear campaign that Hillary is lying, none of her supposed lies led to invading a sovereign nation, causing the deaths of around a million people, destroying a country, and creating the environment that led to ISIS which has led to the deaths of thousands more.

Isn't a lie a lie?

So you think that when a girl asks if her butt looks fat, and her boyfriend says 'no', it's equivalent to Bush's lies that led to the war in Iraq? Give me a break. No, a lie isn't a lie, there are varying degrees.

Hillary thinks she's innocent and Bush and Blair think they are innocent, so basically, all these people are innocent.

No, Hillary has been investigated and found to be innocent. Bush and Blair have never even been investigated.

I see, when Democrats are hawkish it is an important trait, but when a Republican is hawkish, that's just downright bad as bad can get? LAMO!

Um, no. It's an important trait that a president needs to have. But the left isn't the one that has been throwing it around as an insult, the right as. So your statement literally makes no sense here.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

It's weird that you think this matters. You always give him a pass for everything.

When Trump does something idiotic, I never have given Trump as pass.

Because even if you believe the smear campaign that Hillary is lying, none of her supposed lies led to invading a sovereign nation, causing the deaths of around a million people, destroying a country, and creating the environment that led to ISIS which has led to the deaths of thousands more.

I don't believe in smear campaigns, but I don't believe Hillary either and that's just going by her history. But as I said, I believe at the time, I didn't object to the war and If the US needs to protect its interests or if we are attacked we should respond, of course I believe that.

No, Hillary has been investigated and found to be innocent.

To the Hillarybots here and over in Europe, but you guys don't need to worry, you guys can't vote in the US election anyway.

Bush and Blair have never even been investigated.

As Obama himself has described them in words and structure strikingly similar to the Holder statement: “I don't believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards. And part of my job is to make sure that for example at the CIA, you've got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don't want them to suddenly feel like they've got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering up…”

I guess there was NO wrong doing, because if there were, Bush and everyone else would have been prosecuted, Obama and Holder had it in for Bush, they have everyone in the MSM media on their side and yet, nothing and Holder is a smart man, so I'm sure he relentlessly did whatever he could to find something to get Bush and couldn't.

http://www.worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5351:eric-holder-signals-no-prosecutions-of-bush-war-criminals&catid=117:homepage&Itemid=289

Um, no. It's an important trait that a president needs to have. But the left isn't the one that has been throwing it around as an insult, the right as. So your statement literally makes no sense here.

Yes, exactly and that's why Obama can't and will never get respect from our enemies. China laughed at Obama, Duarte, Putin and Kim Jong On, none of these people could care what this weak president (soon to be gone) thinks. The guy is a total embarrassment!

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Republicans are either not voting or are voting for Clinton simply because they are educated and intelligent enoughto see that Trump isutterly unfit and unqualified for the position.

Wrong! They just want to keep the status quo. The hegomonic war machine and the corporate central banker cabal. Fear is the mind killer.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

When Trump does something idiotic, I never have given Trump as pass.

And yet when he has done something that you incessantly criticize Hillary for, you give him a pass.

To the Hillarybots here and over in Europe

Um no, she was investigated by Americans, with American interests. Not only that, she was investigated by your own party, and found to have done no wrong, and she was investigated by the FBI, whose goal is to prosecute wrongdoers, and was found to have done nothing illegal.

I guess there was NO wrong doing, because if there were, Bush and everyone else would have been prosecuted

You realize that this conclusion is not supported by the quote you quoted, right? Well, if you don't, anyone else who reads it will.

Yes, exactly and that's why Obama can't and will never get respect from our enemies

Who cares about respect from enemies? Do people who hate Putin respect him?

It's your friends you need respect from not your enemies.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Trump reveals no plans because he has no plans.

Yeah,how about Hillarys plans? Barack Obama sure had a plan didn't he?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I actually do believe that Trump has a plan, but I also believe that his plan would most likely bring us all closer to war rather than a peaceful resolution to the matter.

Contain North Korea now before its to late.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I actually do believe that Trump has a plan, but I also believe that his plan would most likely bring us all closer to war rather than a peaceful resolution to the matter.

I love the cognitive dissonance among the left.

Trump is an isolationalist that wants to leave NATO! Trump is going to start new wars! Trump is working for the Russians! Trump is going to start WW3 with Russia!

Clearly if we want to prevent war, we need to all vote for Hillary Clinton that supported every war the US has been involved in for the past 20 years.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Clearly if we want to prevent war, we need to all vote for Hillary Clinton that supported every war the US has been involved in for the past 20 years.

Speaking of cognitive dissonance, Trump supported the Iraq war, and has already stated his intention to go to war with ISIS.

I love the cognitive dissonance among the left.

As compared to the hypocrisy on the right (as shown by my above statement)?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Perhaps it is time for a grand bargain with China. NK harvest looks poor again this year, and capitalist practices have made major inroads, from small-scale markets to the new "donju" (literally, "masters of money) middle class - and there's no going back on these, not only because it would leave to an economic collapse but but also to large-scale revolts.

China seems to want to keep Kim on life support only because, as they see it, it is their least-bad option. Persuading China that getting rid of Kim would be preferable is key, and that is where the grand bargain comes in. The US and SK could assure China that, in the event of a NK collapse, China would call the shots (to be fair, most refugees would likely rush to the Yalu rather than the DMZ). China could offer Kim exile and use his base of cadres to effectively rule the country with the goal of Korean unification. In return, the US could assure China of gradual steps which would lead to a complete withdrawal of US forces on the peninsula (though the alliance would continue), contingent on previously described benchmarks. SK would likely go for it as they dislike the American presence barely less than they do Kim. Meanwhile, the US would maintain its presence in other Asian countries.

It would be a bold plan and would require close cooperation between multiple countries but this sh!t is getting real, so perhaps it is time for such a bold step. I can see Hillary perhaps pulling this off. Trump? Ha ha ha ha!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

China is probably not going to actively campaign against Kim, nor push for his replacement, as it's a war they don't need nor want to fight.

In their minds, they are better off just leaving NK to be dealt with by NK and whomever wants to try to enact regime change in NK.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Don't agree, Stranger. This would take some time, but Kim and his associates are not suicidal - if China decisively turns against the regime, he's done for, and he knows it. Just sealing the border would do it - and that would be easy, with only four border crossings. It would not have to be a war - it would be a request impossible to refuse, with a rathole available either in China or Russia and a Swiss bank account. Given the choice, my bets are that Kim would take it, and no one in NK would be the sadder.

So that's my point: how to bring China onboard. Kim is doing his part with increasingly powerful nuclear weapons and ballisitic missiles, increasing the chance that SK and its allies will act on their own, leaving China with no influence whatsoever.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Clearly if we want to prevent war, we need to all vote for Hillary Clinton that supported every war the US has been involved in for the past 20 years.

Would she have started the war after 9/11? And even so it's easy to imagine she would have run it better and can change thoughts. Cheney will think to his death bed that Al Queda was in Iraq. He is a sick man. And under Bush/Cheney we have Libby who betrayed national security by outing a CIA spy. Clinton would never do such a bad thing. She is too good for that.

Hillary haters just hate Hillary because she is Hillary. They just love to hate Hillary because they need something to hate. So who else for the Hillary haters to hate but Hillary. They just hate Hillary and they have no real logic for it. It's just natural for Hillary haters to hate Hillary just like it's natural for a dog to chase cats. Must be a DNA thing?

It's also natural for Trump to believe that Obama was born in Kenya and he always brings it up.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

And yet when he has done something that you incessantly criticize Hillary for, you give him a pass.

When he's right, he's right. When he's wrong, he's wrong. I'm just not the kind of guy that hates liberals that go around pointing the fingers at Republicans claiming, I'm better because I would never vote for any wars when many of them do, especially Hillary who is known to be a hawk and then tries to pass herself off as a peaceful dove. Not buying it for a millisecond.

Um no, she was investigated by Americans, with American interests.

Exactly, hence the drop in untrustworthy. You just made my point for me! That's exactly, what I was referring to!

You realize that this conclusion is not supported by the quote you quoted, right? Well, if you don't, anyone else who reads it will.

And I respect your opinion, but I beg to differ....

Who cares about respect from enemies? Do people who hate Putin respect him?

Uh-huh...spoken like a true liberal and on to my second point, that's the reason why the Chinese were laughing their butts off that Obama had to take the Airforce One backdoor because the Chinese wouldn't provide a staircase, getting called a SOB by the philippine president, Kim Jong Un completely dismissing Obama's rhetoric and keeps launching more missiles into the seal, Putin looking at Obama like he's a weak punk, but yeah, who cares, he'll be thankfully out of her soon enough.

It's your friends you need respect from not your enemies.

Seems like his so called friends could care less what this embarrassment thinks.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

And yet when he has done something that you incessantly criticize Hillary for, you give him a pass.

When he's right, he's right.

You just admitted your bias/smear campaign. When Hillary does it, you criticize. When Trump does it "he's right".

And I respect your opinion, but I beg to differ....

It doesn't matter what you beg - it just matters that what you said isn't supported by what you quoted. It's a non-sequitur.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Speaking of cognitive dissonance, Trump supported the Iraq war, and has already stated his intention to go to war with ISIS.

Trump wants to go to war with ISIS? Are you implying that we're not at war with ISIS right now? When did dropping bombs and committing airstrikes no longer mean we were at war? Not only that, we have hundreds of 'advisers' and special forces on the ground in Iraq as well (gee, kinda sounds like Vietnam). We have boots on the ground. We're dropping bombs. We're at war with ISIS this very second. It sounds to me like Hillary Clinton's policy is the status quo (never-ending war with ISIS, great for the MIC), whereas Trump actually wants to put a strategy in place that would end the war.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Don't agree, Stranger. This would take some time, but Kim and his associates are not suicidal - if China decisively turns against the regime, he's done for, and he knows it.

I don't think you're disagreeing with me, as I agree with you on what you are saying. My point wasn't that pressure from China wouldn't work - it very likely would. My point (which may not have been clear) was that China doesn't have an interest in taking an active stance against NK. There isn't really any benefit to them, as they aren't the target of NK anger/aggression/saber rattling.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Stranger, read my post again. China has many incentives to see off the Kim regime: In particular, Kim has no love for China and thumbs his nose at Beijing's exhortations. This is not to mention reactions forthcoming to the most recent provocation and the small but growing likelihood that the US, SK and JAPAN will act on their own, leaving China in a worse place than it already is. Beijing is clearly already stymied as it has shown by its words and actions, but responses on all sides to date have been piecemeal. That is why I think time for a grand bargain is ripe.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Would she have started the war after 9/11?

Would she have started it? SHE VOTED FOR IT. And she would have had access to more information as a US Senator than just about anyone else at the time. She's as hawkish and neo-con as a Democrat can be. Just look at the war she was most responsible for, Libya. Now a failed state that has sent millions of refugees to Europe. If this was a Republican she would be held up as a face of neo-conservatism. The 2008 anti-war liberals would be aghast at the double think the left is having to do to justify the Democrat Party's candidate.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

I hope you're right Laguna. Sanctions probably aren't going to remove Kim if they don't have the support of China. So if they can come on board, it would be a good thing.

I don't see it happening though. Keeping NK there is almost like a target to deflect from their own issues.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You just admitted your bias/smear campaign. When Hillary does it, you criticize. When Trump does it "he's right".

Smear campaign is what a person personally thinks it is. please don't distort my words, you know what I said. If Trump is smearing Hillary and it's wrong, then you would have an argument, don't make it as if Hillary is just above from smearing anyone when she was the one that started the birther movement, Trump took over the torch, but it started with her, but I keep forgetting libs have a very short memory.

It doesn't matter what you beg - it just matters that what you said isn't supported by what you quoted. It's a non-sequitur.

And that's your personal opinion, but I disagree completely.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

"When he's right, he's right. When he's wrong, he's wrong."

What exactly is he wrong about? I've asked this a few times without getting an answer.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Smear campaign...

Yes, and Trump's smear campaign when he always says that Obama was born in Kenya. Trump things Obama being born in Kenya is the 100% truth.

Also, Trump's smear campaign toward Hillary about lock her up. Hillary is 100% innocent unlike Libby who outed a CIA agent. The reason for the smear campaign against Hillary is because Hillary haters just have a natural inclination to hate Hillary. And because of this they tried to convince the FBI to go after her when no crime was actually committed by Hillary. All because of the hate Hillary haters have towards her.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Smear campaign is what a person personally thinks it is.

Nope, a smear campaign is when someone's reputation is smeared through non-truths.

please don't distort my words, you know what I said.

I didn't. In reply to my comment that you give a pass to Trump for the same things you smear Hillary about, you argued that when Trump is right he is right. So you are saying that when he says it it is right, but when Hillary says it it is wrong. That's the definition of smearing.

And that's your personal opinion

Opinion means that it is subjective to one's thoughts. I pointed out facts, not something subjective. You quoted some text, then followed it up with a conclusion based on that text, but the conclusion could not logically be made from the facts.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@Bass

There is no evidence whatsoever that Hillary Clinton herself promoted the sinister nonsense of the birthers. Absolutely zero. Trump on the other hand, immersed himself in this racist/partisan crap. As a non-partisan, you must see this.

There are even those who still think Obama is/may be a Muslim. Imagine that, Bass. Imagine just how jaundiced you'd have to be to believe this. Pretty pathetic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bass4funkSEP. 10, 2016 - 09:56AM JST But it really doesn't matter theoretically, because Trump wasn't a politician at that time, Hillary was and voted for it, so do you find it equally disturbing that she voted for it, signed off on it, basically giving it the green light and now running for office? Your blood must be boiling over, I know mine is.

Sorry, it doesn't work like that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77P6fxa2KOs#t=1m40s Stern: Are you for invading Iraq? Tump: Yeah, I guess so. I wish the first time it was done correctly.

He was in a position to speak out if he truly opposed the Iraq War. Not only did he support it, but he supported it with a disinterested tone. He was clearly more interested in how much profit could be had in the Hew York condominium market.

Now, If that were all he did, he would hold similar moral ground to Clinton. But Clinton doesn't repeatedly claim to have opposed the Iraq War when the record shows otherwise - Trump does. So that means both of them had poor judgement, but only Clinton has the integrity to own up to it. Trump just lies, like he always does. And fools believe him.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Trump's smear campaign when he always says that Obama was born in Kenya. Trump things Obama being born in Kenya is the 100% truth.

Since Hillary started it

And the smear campaign continues. Hillary has never made that claim.

Without a doubt, if not, the polls wouldn't be so close

This makes no sense. You were saying that he's going to win because he's got people who aren't telling the pollsters, then you are saying that the polls are close because people are telling the pollsters.

All over the place.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Now, If that were all he did, he would hold similar moral ground to Clinton.

Hahaha, similar moral ground? Let's see, one was a US Senator that had access to information the public did not and ultimately VOTED for the war, the other was a private citizen that gave a half-hearted answer on a radio interview. In what universe is voting to authorize war equivalent to a private citizen's opinion?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Do you have some evidence that she had information that the lies the war were based on were lies? I've never seen anything that has suggested that.

If you have nothing to show that, then it's just more smear campaign. You're blaming her for believing the same lies that trump believed.

And as others have mentioned, she's never lied about having approved of the war. Trump has repeatedly lied about his approval of the war. How do you guys feel about his lies? What is it about these lies that make you give him a pass for lying?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

He was in a position to speak out if he truly opposed the Iraq War. Not only did he support it, but he supported it with a disinterested tone. He was clearly more interested in how much profit could be had in the Hew York condominium market.

Ok, now that we got that out of the way, what's your excuse supporting a politician who's salary is paid for by the tax payer (and that's beside the cash cow foundation) you ok with that. Trump was a private citizen, Hillary had to sign off, so of course the responsibility is on her shoulders and all those people that died, how can you guys support such a liar and a warmonger on top of that?? I don't get it.

Now, If that were all he did, he would hold similar moral ground to Clinton. But Clinton doesn't repeatedly claim to have opposed the Iraq War when the record shows otherwise - Trump does.

Ahhhh, so that makes a world of difference, gotcha! LMAO

So that means both of them had poor judgement, but only Clinton has the integrity to own up to it. Trump just lies, like he always does. And fools believe him.

Right, so what about her integrity owning up to her mails and Benghazi, she did that, I personally would vote for her just for being honest at least once in her life, but I'm not going to hold my breath. Integrity isn't something the Clinton's are exactly known for.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Another Trump hit peice. Meanwhile, the MSM is very silent about Obama's war against the Yemen's and the billions in arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Disgusting!

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Meanwhile, the MSM is very silent about Obama's war against the Yemen's and the billions in arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Disgusting!

What's gets me is that liberals are so highly educated and sophisticated, why they don't know this? This is the first thing that should pop up on their radar, especially since it involves arms sales.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

What's gets me is that liberals are so highly educated and sophisticated, why they don't know this? This is the first thing that should pop up on their radar, especially since it involves arms sales.

It is strange. They care more about some black street thug than Yemeni women and children getting blown to smithereens.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

bass4funkSEP. 10, 2016 - 03:32PM JST Ok, now that we got that out of the way, what's your excuse supporting a politician who's salary is paid for by the tax payer (and that's beside the cash cow foundation) you ok with that.

You do realize how deceitful it looks to ask me a question when the very post you're quoting from answers exactly that question, don't you?

You asked why I support Hillary and not Trump. I answered. Don't waste my time with these transparent point-scoring games, please, I have zero interest in politics as a spectator sport.

Right, so what about her integrity owning up to her mails and Benghazi, she did that,

The emails are overblown and Benghazi is an empty rallying cry for conspiracy theorists who just want to invent a reason to hate everyone with the name Clinton, the same kind of time-wasting nonsense I've been hearing come out of the right since the 90s. When you have some objective evidence of a crime being committed, we'll talk. Otherwise, don't waste my time with nonsense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyway, now that we can get back on track finally. Trump is right to not reveal anything or any plans to any of our adversaries, this is the problem with the current president, he always likes to say to the public what he will NOT do which gives a green light to anyone that wants to plan an attack or just wait out the clock. I true leader doesn't show his hand and that's why Obama has been predictable at every turn and now Clinton is doing the same thing. So for the Chinese, Russians and North Koreans, Hillary would be the best outcome that you would want, that way, you can do as you please and know what the next hand is going to be.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

• “If it’s not accepted that big government, fiat money, ignoring liberty, central economic planning, welfarism, and warfarism caused our crisis we can expect a continuous and dangerous march toward corporatism and even fascism with even more loss of our liberties. Prosperity for a large middle class though will become an abstract dream.”

Too bad Ron Paul wasn't elected. His farewell speech to congress.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Too bad Ron Paul wasn't elected. His farewell speech to congress.

He's pretty nutty in his own ways, but he was the best of the nutcases put forward this campaign. Infinitely better than Trump.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Stranger, good article in Politico about some pressure Obama is facing to expand sanctions to include Chines banks and firms suspected of continued covert cooperation with NK. While I understand the frustration, I also understand Obama's reluctance to antagonize China, particularly when activities are so clandestine.

"You catch more flies with honey," as they say. Taking the fight to China could quite well result in results opposite from those desired. Instead, China needs to better understand how it could benefit from deeper cooperation in this matter in order to obtain desired cooperation.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/obama-north-korea-nuclear-test-227962

1 ( +2 / -1 )

this is the problem with the current president, he always likes to say to the public what he will NOT do which gives a green light to anyone that wants to plan an attack or just wait out the clock. I true leader doesn't show his hand and that's why Obama has been predictable at every turn and now Clinton is doing the same thing.

Back up this assertion with facts, please. As a journalist, you should know that otherwise this comment should be regarded as unsubstantiated polemic.

[Pence] declined to offer any specifics since the information was classified, but said he and Trump would be “ready on day one.”

Tough talk is specific enough for me. Gives me a chubby.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Obama doesn't need to directly attack China. He just needs to keep bleeding NK dry so they become a big enough burden that China acts. Or, just start moving more weapons to the area and call it self defense from a rogue regime. Anything to break the status quo.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

For those of you who don't know or remember. Why the Clinton camp tries to stay out of this one, except for this laughable comment " Clinton said North Korea’s determination to develop a “deliverable nuclear weapon” represents “a direct threat to the United States.”

It was the Clinton administration who gave the NK's the capability for nuclear weapons in the first place. It was the Clinton administration who did nothing when China shot down a U2 spy plane, cut it in half for the world to see as a slap on the face and nothing from the US. It was the Clinton administration who pressed hard to allow China into the WTO and a vote. Now Japan and the rest of Asia is feeling the repression of the Clinton days which includes Hillary.

Need I go on? ....

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

....China shot down a U2 spy plane,

Say what?! You've got to get your particulars down if you want anyone to take you seriously, bj.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Let give him time. He has to fond NK is not SK on maps.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Send in Dennis Rodman.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Back up this assertion with facts, please. As a journalist, you should know that otherwise this comment should be regarded as unsubstantiated polemic.

What are you talking about? That's what his strategy has been for the last 8 years, he's always said to the world what he WON'T do.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Trump will if U offer him the right exchange, He is keeping mump for his own benifit as like any politicians.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Black SabbathSep. 10, 2016 - 07:33AM JST "A great many Republicans are either not voting or are voting for Clinton" And you? This is the third time I've asked.

I have made it clear that I'm not casting a vote for a candidate whom I am convinced is unqualified for job.

Black SabbathSep. 10, 2016 - 11:08AM JST "So please let's cut the attacking Republicans nonsense." Uhm. Trump is the Republican candidate for president.

Please read my entire post. Seems like it went right over your head.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

He would probably launch a foreign adventure and want to bomb the nation back into the stone age. Outside of Pyongyang, its already there so I doubt if military threats are viable. China and Russia need to be shown that is in their own best interests to defang the DPRK.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

See, this is what I don't understand, the guy has been so outspoken against the Iraq war and wars in general

Trump is outspoken .. out of both sides of his mouth.

Hillary voted along with every Republican senator to give Bush the authorization to use the military if inspectors on the ground uncovered WMD. They didn't and Bush attacked anyway, insisting they were there.

When a Democrat crosses over to vote with Republicans in a show of bipartisanship, the Republicans will later hold that same act against them. .Such is their lack of integrity and character.

Clinton later reflected and admitted that she was wrong to vote with the Republicans. Trump has yet to admit he has been wrong about anything -- which is part of what makes him so dangerous.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

When a Democrat crosses over to vote with Republicans in a show of bipartisanship, the Republicans will later hold that same act against them.

Yep. And that is the same reason they very rarely work in a bipartisan manner with the Left.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

When a Democrat crosses over to vote with Republicans in a show of bipartisanship, the Republicans will later hold that same act against them.

Oh, stop! Both sides do this! Don't make it as if the Dems are the compassionate party that would never role over and do the Republicans dirty. I'm not taking sides on this, but both are guilty of stabbing each other in the back from time to time, it's just that under Obama, it's gotten bloodier.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Really? Any examples?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Oh, stop! Both sides do this! Don't make it as if the Dems are the compassionate party that would never role over and do the Republicans dirty.

Can't bear the truth?

I just provided an example of a Democrat crossing over to support a Republican proposal and later getting shafted for it by Republicans. Here are two more examples from recent history:

1) President Bill Clinton signing NAFTA -- a "free-trade" agreement born under Reagan-Bush and strongly supported by nearly every Republican. Note that Trump's VP, Mike Pence, never met a free trade agreement he couldn't support, including TPP.

2) Bill Clinton signing into law the bill that repealed Glass-Steagall banking regulations. The bill was known by its three Republican co-authors: Gramm-Leach-Bliley. (Just as the Iraq war was architected by Bush and his gang.)

So there are three solid examples of Democrats crossing over to support Republican initiatives and then getting stabbed in the back for it by Republicans.

Care to provide any examples of a Republican getting stabbed in the back by Democrats for supporting Democrats? I'm betting you can't. Oh, and it's not a matter of "compassion" -- it's a matter of honor and integrity, and the conservatives demonstrate little of both. That's why they've foisted Donald Trump on the nation.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

A fourth sort-of example would be the bipartisan bill put forward to deal with illegals - that congress wouldn't even debate. Then they call it Obama's plan, and criticize him to the end of all time for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Eight_(immigration)

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Can't bear the truth?

Always and anytime....

I just provided an example of a Democrat crossing over to support a Republican proposal and later getting shafted for it by Republicans. Here are two more examples from recent history:

http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-goldberg3-2009feb03-column.html

On the issue of taxes

So there are three solid examples of Democrats crossing over to support Republican initiatives and then getting stabbed in the back for it by Republicans.

Well, how about this....

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/215957-democratic-hypocrisy

Care to provide any examples of a Republican getting stabbed in the back by Democrats for supporting Democrats? I'm betting you can't. Oh, and it's not a matter of "compassion" -- it's a matter of honor and integrity, and the conservatives demonstrate little of both. That's why they've foisted Donald Trump on the nation.

There you go.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/20/democrats_quest_for_balance_in_2009_98377.html

http://conservativefiringline.com/hypocrisy-list-26-gun-owning-democrats-participated-anti-gun-sit/ on the issue of guns.

Bottom line, both parties do this, you're not winning any brownie points, I just get irked when Dems act like their poo doesn't stink when totally far from it. Dems are the last people and Hillary or even Obama to strut around as if this admin. has the highest integrity ever to grace the WH, that's just beyond laughable!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I have made it clear that I'm not casting a vote for a candidate whom I am convinced is unqualified for job.

Correction of above post.

You "made it clear" that " A great many Republicans" will either vote for HRC or sit it out. You "made it clear" that you "consider keeping this con man out of the White House" a matter of importance.

You have not "made it clear" that you will vote for HRC. You left that to an inference.

So, c'mon, Ossan, say it. Say:

"I will vote for HRC because she should be president."

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The question was:

I just provided an example of a Democrat crossing over to support a Republican proposal and later getting shafted for it by Republicans.

Yet, none of the 'examples' you showed were examples of this. They were just various people's opinions on so-called liberal hypocrisy. Not liberals stabbing Republicans in the back after working with them on something bipartisan.

Bottom line, both parties do this

Well you keep saying that, yet you haven't been able to provide a single example of it.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Yabbits, Stranger

Why argue against a FOX News talking point?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

I don't think anyone on JT has gone on record and said they will vote for Trump. I'm voting for Clinton, obviously. I know a few others have said the same.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

All the little right wingers will. If they don't say so, its because they lack the courage of their convictions.

No honor. No shame.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Why argue against a FOX News talking point?

If there is anything the Hillary smear campaign has shown through its success, it's that leaving these things unchallenged, in the hopes that the people are smart enough to see through them, doesn't work.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The "realClearPolitics" link has to have underscore characters that don't display on JT. The Title of the Article is "The Democrats' Hypocrisy by Debra Saunders, and can be searched that way.

Nevertheless, NONE of the links you posted provides a single example of a Republican being stabbed in the back by Democrats for supporting a Democratic position. Not one. Stabbing someone in the back later for supporting a Republican position today is something I have only seen from the conservative side.

Until you provide an example to the contrary, it will have to stand that way.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Stranger

I agree. I didn't say ignore. But the FOX news meme repeaters here are a swamp.

IOW you cannot argue with them in good faith.

Ridicule. Check. Lambast. Check, Scorn. Check.

But engage. Never.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

I hold out hope that bipartisanship can be restored.

I'm a hopeless optimist.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

All the little right wingers will. If they don't say so, its because they lack the courage of their convictions.

Many of us would rather drink rat poison

No honor. No shame.

You mean, voting for Hillary, got that right!

Nevertheless, NONE of the links you posted provides a single example of a Republican being stabbed in the back by Democrats for supporting a Democratic position.

LMAO, I thought you would say that. Nice try. LOL

Not one. Stabbing someone in the back later for supporting a Republican position today is something I have only seen from the conservative side.

Then you need to look harder, dude.

Until you provide an example to the contrary, it will have to stand that way.

That's your opinion and I disagree, completely.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Why argue against a FOX News talking point?

Black Sabbath: Visually, it's very easy to spot the clown in a crowd. In the realm of words, it takes a few posts for others to clearly see them. I think we're now at Exhibit M, at least.

I hold out hope that bipartisanship can be restored.

I do too, but the current crop of conservatives have set out to destroy any form of moderation and compromise in their midst.

I solidly support Hillary. There's no comparison as to who will make the better leader. The orange-tinted buffoon is better suited to leading a professional wrestling troupe. Or a circus.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I do too, but the current crop of conservatives have set out to destroy any form of moderation and compromise in their midst.

While blaming it on Obama, because he's the guy in charge.

The orange-tinted buffoon is better suited to leading a professional wrestling troupe. Or a circus.

Or a reality TV show.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Why are you posting more links that are not examples of what we are talking about. Entirely irrelevant.

Because you say so??? LOL

I do too, but the current crop of conservatives have set out to destroy any form of moderation and compromise in their midst.

Translation: We liberals are always right, regardless if the facts show otherwise because liberals are the epitome of everything that is holy and righteous and to say otherwise 1) you refuse to be part of the collective. 2) You are not allowed to have an opinion other than the myopic viewpoint of a far left partisan. 3) we will NOT under NO circumstance listen to anything a conservative has to say because it goes against liberals values, we believe in one-sided thinking-always.

Well, hate to be the bearer of bad news, I'm not part of the liberal collective, thank heavens.

I solidly support Hillary. There's no comparison as to who will make the better leader.

You do that and I'll support Trump, the last thing we need is another Democrat that is habitual liar in the White House.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Because you say so??? LOL

No, because there is nothing in the link(s) that supports your theory. It's a pretty simple concept.

Anyways you inability to support your claim that both sides do it has been proven to not be the case, based on your inability to provide even a single example that supports your claim.

Thanks!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

But there were, even if you libs don't think so, but seriously, I think once liberals can see through their hypocrisy, we all will be better off as a whole in this society. But nice try anyway.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Even the Associated Press bows to clinton. With corruption so directly in people's faces, why isn't there an outcry in turn? What happened to accountability? Disgusting!!

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/associated-press-deletes-controversial-tweet-213953259.html

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Even the Associated Press bows to clinton. With corruption so directly in people's faces, why isn't there an outcry in turn? What happened to accountability? Disgusting!!

98% of the MSM are liberals, go figure....

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Black Sabbath: All the little right wingers will. If they don't say so, its because they lack the courage of their convictions.

Maybe they want some plausible deniability? "I never said I was voting for him" if he does something really stupid.

Clinton had some choice words for him yesterday: "you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables, right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it." This is the second time she's called him and his supporters out like that with brutal honesty. Republicans need to be reminded constantly of how they let people like Breitbart and Alex Jones go mainstream.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Even the Associated Press bows to clinton. With corruption so directly in people's faces, why isn't there an outcry in turn? What happened to accountability?

This tempest in a teapot has the AP removing a tweet -- repeat: Removing a tweet. (Oh, the humanity!)

98% of the MSM are liberals,

98% can distinguish between a mountain and a molehill. The other 2% of wannabe "jounalists" can't tell sh*t from Shinola.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Talking is easier than doing. He has no plan whatsoever. The removing from power or killing Kim Jong-un is only solution for the peace. This fat boy is very dangerous and he was crazy. Tell Chinese Government and Russia Government, there will be no opposing against invading N. Korea and removing or killing Kin Jong-un from US, Japan, S. Korea and Western Government. Let China and Russia to do the job. Now fat boy is very scaring to go abroad even to China and Russia. Only inside job will be easier for someone to finish the fat boy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Like somebody said before; " What DIFFERENCE does it make "?!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Clinton had some choice words for him yesterday: "you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables, right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it."

But you can say the same about Hillary and that's she and the rest of the Democrats are also racist and refuse to see it, talk about living in denial, just look at Chicago, Democrats could care less about that or any other struggling Black community. As for the homophobic comment, you're seeing a lot more gays support him and until now, No other Republican has done as well with the gay community as Trump is. And that leaves us with the xenophobic and Islamophobic BS lie. Most Americans don't want the chaos of Europe when it comes to the problems associated with illegal immigration and Islam and Trump should be as firm as possible. Obama and Hillary could care less who comes into this country and on that issue alone, Democrats need to be very careful, that one COULD bite them later in the rear. Screaming and trying to make conservatives out to be hostile towards these groups is a total lame excuse as well as laughable.

This is the second time she's called him and his supporters out like that with brutal honesty. Republicans need to be reminded constantly of how they let people like Breitbart and Alex Jones go mainstream.

And now she apologized as well for opening her big mouth and insulting millions of voters. Personally, both need to stop with the name calling. Both have their flaws, but Trump should stop calling her necessary names and she as well.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Oh Clinton's just getting started. She's going to remind you daily that you are voting for a bigot. She needs to expose the traitors.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Oh Clinton's just getting started. She's going to remind you daily that you are voting for a bigot. She needs to expose the traitors.

LOL, hi kettle meet pot!!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

This is getting very silly. He has outlined virtually no policies at all, how does he even have support? This surely is the beginning of the end of democracy if worship of the cult of the leader is returning..

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Trump's only plan I have seen was to let John Kasich run the country if agreed to become the VP candidate. They offered Kasich both domestic and foreign policy. When the Kasey people asked what would Trump do if Kaswy did everything, the answer was make America great again.

He has no plans. The whole campaign is a con job and everyone knows it. The republicans as so used to being lied to by fox news and their own party they do not care that they are yet again being fooled. They never, never learn. Many of them still think there were WMD in Iraq.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Trump has no plans, plain and simple.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Withdraw all US troops from the Korean peninsula, that's what Mr. trump will act of he is the president of U.S. He is a smart guy indeed

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites