Bizarre, Media, Military

“Something He Made Up”: Military Denies Trump’s Claim About Al-Baghdadi Death

The New York Times and various media outlets are reporting universal denials of the military that there was any evidence to support President Donald Trump’s repeated assertions that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, died “whimpering and crying and screaming all the way” to his death. The embarrassing denials comes after a videotape contradicted Trump’s claim that “almost all” of farmers who attended his signing of an executive order were crying. The videotape shows no one crying. The statement on al-Baghdadi is particularly curious because al-Baghdadi ran down an alley and blew himself up with a suicide vest. Military sources say that there is no evidence of the whimpering and crying described by Trump.

The New York Times relied on multiple sources who were involved in the operation and reviewed the after-action reports. These officials have said the Trump made up the account. When pressed on the accuracy of Trump’s comments, Stephanie Grisham, the White House press secretary, refused to support them and instead attacked the media for “trying to pick apart the details of the death” of the leader of the Islamic State.

The media has a responsibility to confront a president with any statements that appear untrue and, traditionally, the White House Press Secretary has felt an obligation to justify or correct such statements.

132 thoughts on ““Something He Made Up”: Military Denies Trump’s Claim About Al-Baghdadi Death”

  1. “The New York Times and various media outlets are reporting universal denials of the military that there was any evidence to support President Donald Trump’s repeated assertions that …”

    An example of false and fake reporting. The headline claimed the military said as if it was from the military direct and first hand. The use of the work means the Secretary of Defense or his appointed representative the only ones authorized to speak for ‘the military.’

    But the first paragraph turns the headline into a false or fake lie by changing the quote to the New York Times so it wasn’t the military but the opinion of an unacceptable source. However

    Checking with the New York Times no such article appeared on any dates not even the standard apology for printing a false story or having it appear in an op-ed or even a paid advertisement.

    the question arises why the author of the article didn’t give the source and the date right up front. Not even a catcha all -last Sundays’s edition or the international edition or some such.

    Growing weary of trying to sleuth out that information I concluded the whole thing was as usual bogus. unless someone can come up with the requisite information Or maybe it was the DNCs writers of fairy tails and other such non existent non attributable non human sources

    Thus we arrive at the one and only possible conclusion with a choice. Was it fake or was it phony? Who knows? The summation is a machine was the only person involved.

    Actually there was one other explanation with two choices. It was false but was it intentional or just the result of a public school education and the resulting social promotion?

    Given those choices I chose ‘Ad Machina’ as the proper response. But only their plumber knows for sure.

  2. FIrst: Anon1 is clearly the east end of a horse going west. Secondly: Nobody seems to understand that Trump’s comments about Baghdadi were not meant for the American public — they were meant for Baghdadi’s followers. It was very important to let them know that he did not die bravely as a true martyr. It’s interesting that the military people who are denying the claim were not there. It’s also interesting that the NY Times did not question the claim that in uBL’s last moment he was hiding behind a woman.

  3. This reminds me of the brouhaha over Trump forwarding the meme that was created with him putting the medal of “pawner” on Conan the dog, because he thought it was cute. People actually rushed to fact check it.

    I don’t care what noises Al-Baghdadi made. I would be surprised if someone silently blew themselves up without a grimace. We know he ran away. We know he committed suicide, taking out 2 children with him.

    If anyone on Earth deserves mockery and humiliation in memorium, it’s Al-Baghdadi. He’s keeping the 9/11 hijackers company in hell right now.

    https://www.theonion.com/hijackers-surprised-to-find-selves-in-hell-1819566162

    1. I cannot believe how much air time people are giving to arguing over whether kidnapper, rapist, terrorist, and child killer Al Baghdadi made any sounds after he ran away to blow himself and two children up.

      ISIS may view this as Americans defending the honor and courage of their “martyred” terrorist leader, or claiming we shouldn’t take out their leaders for fear that ISIS will retaliate. How many Democrats will they show in the recruitment video, illustrating how respected and feared ISIS is in America?

    2. The issue isn’t Bagdadi, it’s Trump’s compulsive lying. He can’t even do an announcement of another great achievement of our military and intelligence services – one he can rightfully be proud of for approving – without f..king it up with BS which makes everything else he said then suspect.

      How many times us Karen going to make excuses for Trump’s lying?

      1. This guy Anon has a bipolar mind. If something isn’t absolutely accurate it’s a lie. If a person says he weighs 179 pounds and the scale shows he weighs 179.7 pounds Anon will start screaming like a lunatic because the person didn’t add the .7 or at least round it up to 180 pounds. He then refers to that person as a congenital liar. One can’t deal with a person of that nature for that person is a true liar but worse, that person has a sick mind.

        I will add that lying by omission is a lie. Half truths create lies, and that is something Anon is famous for.

        Anon’s postings are loaded with the above lies to such an extent that it is perverse. Add to that his numerous errors of fact and one has a source that is twisted and can never be believed.

      2. The issue isn’t Bagdadi, it’s Trump’s compulsive lying.

        We know what the issue is and it is neither Baghdadi nor Trump’s alleged lying. The issue is Trump won the 2016 election and will win the 2020 election. To claim it is anything else is a bald-faced lie.

      3. You know what, Anon? You said that a child killing rapist terrorist would commit suicide to escape from being married to me. What a disgusting thing to say, and it’s set in stone in the internet forever. You think you have any integrity to judge anyone? What are you like with your female employees, or the women you meet in the street? Oh, wait. The only employee you’ve mentioned is so impoverished that he qualified for Obamacare subsidies. Not a great boss.

        You have no ethics or morals to judge anyone. This shows when you keep defending the honor of Al Baghdadi. Trump makes missteps. In this, I hope he keeps mocking Al Baghdadi. The guy killed 2 kids along with himself, after murdering who knows how many others. ISIS calls that a martyr. If our country advertises that he died like a coward, perhaps that will take the shine off of some of that glamour.

        The guy ran away from justice. He blew up 2 little kids. Of course that’s cowardice. I don’t know, nor do I care, what sounds he made while he killed himself – if it was sniveling, crying, grunting, or oinking. But the media appears to care a great deal what exact sounds, and at what volume and intensity, Al Baghdadi made before he committed the murder/suicide of 2 kids. Are we to believe he did so silently? Didn’t even scream Allahu akbar or Takbir? Or maybe he whispered the phrase with a tremble? Did he shout upon seeing armed men? Did he invite them to tea? Let’s agonize over whether we should portray Al Akhbar as brave or stoic. Are you kidding? This was after he engaged in the slave trade of women for ISIS, a moneymaker for them. After he raped any number of women.

        He died a coward’s death. Don’t let the fools who defend the honor of Al Baghdadi deter you, President Trump. Shout it to the rooftops that spineless excuses for men who enslave women and kill kids are ignominious cowards.

    1. “What makes Boudin especially toxic is his family tree. Boudin is the militant offspring of spoiled-rich radicals Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, members of the violent Weather Underground terrorist group, which bombed government buildings and corporate headquarters, aided convicted felons in jailbreaks and participated in a 1981 Brink’s armored car holdup in Nyack, New York, with the Black Liberation Army. That crime took the lives of three innocent Americans—police officers Edward O’Grady and Waverly Brown and private security guard Peter Paige.

      Kathy Boudin was an 11-year fugitive from justice after an accidental homemade bomb explosion at her New York City townhouse resulted in three other deaths. At the time of her arrest in Nyack, Boudin gave police one of many false identities she had used to evade the law. She was paroled in 2003 after convincing parole board members that she acted nobly out of “white guilt” to protest racism against blacks. (Reality check: Officer Waverly Brown was a black, working-class military veteran.) Gilbert remains in prison. Their story was glorified and romanticized by Robert Redford in the 2013 movie, “The Company You Keep.”

      After Kathy Boudin dropped off toddler Chesa at a babysitter’s house so she could help perpetrate the bloody $1.6 million Brink’s heist, this privileged elitist was adopted by another pair of America-hating domestic agitators, unrepentant Weathermen colleagues Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Ayers celebrated bombing the Pentagon in his radical memoir, “Fugitive Days,” taught at the University of Illinois in Chicago, and mentored Barack Obama. Dohrn declared war on “AmeriKKKa,” helped stage the “Days of Rage” in Chicago, when Weathermen blew up a memorial statue to police officers and rioted violently, leaving 75 policemen wounded and one permanently injured in a wheelchair, and then spent years as a fugitive from justice before settling into a comfy post as former director of the Legal Clinic’s Children and Family Justice Center at Northwestern University.

      Steeped in Marxist ideology and self-pity, Boudin moaned to The New York Times that he was “sad that my parents have to suffer what they have to suffer on a daily basis” because they were “dedicated to fighting U.S. imperialism around the world.” No compassion for the families of the officers his parents helped murder”

      ANTI AMERICAN SCUM, LIKEWISE, THE PEOPLE WHO FUND HIM AND AID AND ABET HIM

    1. She’s a peach. I especially like this line:

      Institutional discrimination is often so embedded you don’t see it.

      In other words, it is so deeply ingrained in these institutions that it’s often mistaken for having no discrimination at all. Those sneaky bastar*s.

      1. The emperor’s new clothes. That institutional discrimination must be woven so fine that only the most learned can see it, and instruct the peasantry on its existence.

  7. unfortunately for the left they a. used an unacceptable source and b. failed to produce any evidence. As usual. Ergo Sum the programmers of the Collective of the Left stand REJECTED.

    Fortunately for the true citizens of the country they have nt problem recognizing the sick symptoms of progressive regressivism.

    1. The obvious purpose of Trumps statements was to denigrate Al-Baghdadi in the eyes of potential followers. Of course, being Trump every statement becomes suspect by the legions of anti-Trumpers.

  8. Al-Baghdadi killed 2 children under 12 in a murder-suicide. In true terrorist form, he tool innocent life to cause as much grief as possible when he avoided facing justice. He didn’t care about his people. The blast tore apart little kids.

    And, what, we’re worried about his memory being disrespected because Trump mercilessly mocked him? We’re scared that ISIS will retaliate? Shall we just let ISIS carry on creating the global caliphate because we don’t want to piss them off?

    He was found through his dirty underwear. He was such a coward that he blew himself up because he was too scared to face justice.

    Al-Baghdadi was a gutless wonder. A spineless sniveling excuse of a man. A child-murderer. Violent anti-semite Hitler wanna-be. A rapist who coordinated the kidnapping and sex slavery of female captives of ISIS. Genocidal maniac.

    Whom could I loathe more than a kidnapper, rapist, slaver, and child killer? All ladylike behavior goes right out the window with the howls about how Al-Baghdadi’s memory was mistreated. Screw Al-Baghdadi. They should have had a dog urinate on his remains, soaked it in pig feces, and then chummed for sharks before tossing him overboard, in pieces. They should have videotaped the entire process, playing it on a loop in ISIS strongholds, in the spirit of olden times when they used to plant heads on a spike at the castle gates as a warning against evil doers. We should have sent a clear message that if you engage in terrorism against the United States, rape and enslave women, and murder little kids, we will destroy you utterly and completely. We will remove all the “glory” of martyrdom until such a death is viewed with the revulsion it deserves. I cannot believe I’m talking like this. I am so utterly horrified and furious that there are those criticizing that Trump’s comments about that demon spawn Al-Baghdadi sniveling and dying like a dog were unfair. I have to use the strongest possible language lest there be any doubt about the matter. Grow a spine, people.

    I normally urge a more thoughtful and measured response from President Trump. In this case, mock away, POTUS. Get creative. Destroy his memory. Cause his followers embarrassment and humiliation. Given more scope and resources, Al-Baghdadi would have gleefully been the next Hitler. ISIS killed a little Muslim boy for insulting the prophet while he was playing outside…murdered him in full view of his screaming parents. The movement is pure, unadulterated evil and must be destroyed so it may never rise again to terrorize anyone.

    https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Baghdadi-rapist-led-genocidal-caliphate-died-in-tunnel-606053

    1. Karen: “If I was his wife, I would poison his tea.” Baghdadi: “If I was your husband, I would drink it.”

      1. So, you’re either comparing Baghdadi to Winston Churchill, or claiming I’m such a bad wife that if I was married to a rapist child killer terrorist, he’d commit suicide to escape me.

        You are a loathsome creature who does nothing but insult everyone.

  9. Mr. K:

    Something hilariously ironic about the purveyors of lies criticizing someone they accuse of lying. It’s the Press’ raison d’etre after all, isn’t it. Pot and kettle introductions are a bore and maybe that’s why the Press viewership and readership is in the tank.

    The fourth estate reminds me of guys on the team who endlessly harped on the coach, bad-mouthed the team and then genuinely wondered why they never played and weren’t voted captain. A profound lack of self-awareness is about as audacious — and sad — as it gets.

  10. Well, there often is a strategic advantage in destroying the credibility of a charismatic enemy in the hope that tainting his memory will stifle any inspiration for someone to take his place and continue the fight for his cause.

    Nobody benefits by having a reconstituted ISIS foreign terrorist organization resurrecting itself, purposed to avenge a “great leader” who died in a glorious act of martyrdom. Nobody is inspired by cowards, and if al-Baghdadi is to die as a coward to save more lives of innocent people in Syria it’s an insult to him that I suspect most Syrian civilians can live with.

    1. So, Darren, Trump lying about al-Baghdadi dying like a coward is supposed to destroy the credibility of al-Baghdadi, but not Trump’s credibility? There were ISIS and other non-US people there when it went down, as well as the US military, and they all agree that the liar here is Trump. Al-Baghdadi blew himself up along with some children, but there is no video or audio of the event because it happened in a dead-end cave. Trump made up the claim that al-Baghdadi died like a coward, and this lie will backfire badly, and not only fail to destroy ISIS, it will make it stronger because it gives them more reason to hate the U.S..

      You say “(n)obody is inspired by cowards”, and you are correct. Trump IS a coward–lied about bone spurs to avoid military service. I would add, nobody is inspired by a chronic, habitual liar, either.

      1. Trump is easily the bravest rich man to enter the POTUS since FDR. He’s doing great things leading Team America. Endless detractors are not. Like you.

      2. “nobody is inspired by a …. liar”

        oh, history is chock full of charismatic leaders who fibbed a little. or a lot!

      3. I didn’t know that nursing and law schools taught military psychology, thank you for your expertise.

        1. Darren:

          Made her a political scientist, pollster, ethicist and, if my recollection of Jethro Bodine, is accurate a fry cook and brain surgeon.

        3. Darren: why do you think ISIS hates the United States so much? Why would you think that “military psychology” concepts apply to terrorist groups? I submit that the influence of Muslim ideology is more relevant than “military psychology”. Whom do you think ISIS and their followers are more likely to believe–Trump or the people who were there when al-Baghdadi was being pursued before he blew himself up? Falsely branding al-Baghdadi as a coward won’t destroy ISIS–it will make it stronger because it will inspire his followers to prove their mettle. On a personal note, since you want to be personal, I do have minors in psychology and sociology, plus teacher education for my masters.

          1. Falsely branding al-Baghdadi as a coward won’t destroy ISIS–it will make it stronger because it will inspire his followers to prove their mettle.

            Perhaps he should have bragged that he sent in his varsity squad to take out a JV head coach and his assistant.

            1. Killing ISIS leaders one by one certainly will, and destroying their street cred with mockery will put a dent in recruitment.

              But if you want to honor the dead rapists of ISIS, it’s a free country.

            1. I claim no expertise on military strategy, but I am aware that al-Baghdadi claims to be a descendant of the prophet Muhammad. ISIS followers are inspired by their religious beliefs, not by military psychology. Claiming that a descendant of their deity died a coward’s death adds insult to injury, but especially when the insult is a lie.

              1. Natacha – Mohammed is not a deity, he is the last of the Prophets, according to Islam. Really, your ignorance is showing.

                1. They worship him, don’t they? The point of all of this is that ISIS isn’t driven by military psychology–it is driven by their religious beliefs. Lying about Muhammad’s descendant to portray him as a coward or sissy, whether he is considered their deity, prophet or whatever is not going to deter them–if anything, it will strengthen their resolve.

                  1. It is not the ones already drawn to ISIS that count rather the ones that can be drawn.

              2. for a group which has a religious idiom based almost entirely on the most simplistic, literal, and yet maximally adversarial notions of jihaad, military psychology is precisely what’s required in effectively dealing with them.

                1. “Claiming that a descendant of their deity died a coward’s death adds insult to injury, but especially when the insult is a lie.”
                  ************************
                  Japanese kamikaze pilots had the same religious zeal about fealty to their ancestors. All they accomplished was getting Hiroshima and Nagasaki up to 8,000 degrees Celsius in about two tenths of a second. That’s military psychology.

          4. this lady wants an education that her value system is not equipped to handle

            and of course, the older irregular warfare curriculum is all outdated now because of the advance of technology…….the new factor in this arena is international social media to induce copycat acts to extend the brand

            trump understands social media. like no politician before him. i speculate his verbal strategy is a legitimate and indeed an effective one. `the idea is that the brand is tarnished. and it’s likely to have been done effectively because trumps social media reach is ten thousand times farther than the adversary

            now the Democrat chatterers want to show up and nitpick. whose side are you on?

            1. Noting yet another BS story from the president may seem like nit-picking, but that used to be a memrab;e and damnable event in our public affairs. Nobody can keep up this guys BS, and nobody much cares anymore.

              1. technology changes things. like the printing press & movable type changed religion. social media is changing politics.

                that’s just the way it is. and a lot of other things. we are in the midst of a lot of sea changes, like a ship being hit with one freak wave after another. the social media changes things in a way that I think was only comparable to the development of printing press movable type, which allowed dissemination of varying viewpoints on religion in ways that were hitherto unimaginable.

                so now there is a wild dispersion of ideas compared to the way things were 50 years ago. the internet was the first phase of that but social media networking was the fulfillment of the trend, just as movable type was the key secondary invention that made the long pre-existing printing press suddenly a huge factor in happenings.

                1. https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/philosophy-of-technology/0/steps/26315

                  Heidegger’s text ‘The Question Concerning Technology’ (1954, English Translation 1977), which has been very influential in philosophy of technology.

                  “But this much remains correct: modern technology too is a means to an end. That is why the instrumental conception of technology conditions every attempt to bring man into the right relation to technology. Everything depends on our manipulating technology in the proper manner as a means. We will, as we say, “get” technology “spiritually in hand.” We will master it. The will to mastery becomes all the more urgent the more technology threatens to slip from human control.”

                  technology threatens human existence in many ways right now. how it’s affecting elections is important but just a trifle compared to existential threats, here’s maybe the top three
                  ‘
                  – hypersonic ballistic missile technology and nuclear weapons miniaturization

                  – dangers posed by genetic engineering and nanotechnology and the potential either for unpredictable results like runaway slime, or, synthetic reproduction of pathological agents like smallpox, by terrorists

                  – effects on society by robotics and the coming artificial general intelligence

                  Trump is a canny user of the social media technology. But I don’t call him a great thinker. A doer yes but no great thinker. And some thinking about technology is in order. In some ways his agenda addresses these things at least somewhat, probably more by instinct than design. Other than him, the only candidates that are showing any sense about these major threats are

                  a) tulsi by explicitly advancing the notion of deconflicting with Russia which mitigates the nuclear threat, and potentially could help the US with terrorism by taking a less active role in the middle east

                  and

                  b) yang, who addresses social impact of robotics and coming AGI

                  it is not too soon to begin to assess the impact of coming technological waves crashing over the bow even faster than they’ve come the past few decades.

          5. “why do you think ISIS hates the United States so much”

            You don’t have to wonder. Go to the source. The goal of ISIS is to create a global Islamic caliphate, as directed by Qu’ran. Period. The end. They are completely open about this. Everything they do, and the rest of their ideology, aligns with this goal. It’s not just any Islamic caliphate they seek, but one that follows the Qu’ran to the letter. Most Muslims ignore quite a bit of the Qu’ran. They is why ISIS also kills so many Muslims. They view them as lax and therefore offensive. Since sex slavery was described as a right in the book, it’s practiced by ISIS as well. The US keeps opposing the global caliphate of ISIS, hence it considers us an enemy. This is not a nuanced position that requires deconstructing European colonialism.

            It should be noted that we also took out Al-Baghdadi’s successor, Abu Hassan al-Muhajir, the day after the former blew himself into little bitty pieces. If we keep cutting out the brains of ISIS, they’ll be left with disorganized, inexperienced terrorists working at cross purposes to each other.

            https://www.counterextremism.com/threat/isis

            “ISIS is an extremist group formed from al-Qaeda offshoots in Iraq and Syria. Since its formation in 2013, ISIS has worked to sustain a self-declared caliphate in eastern Syria and western Iraq. Ultimately, ISIS seeks to unite the world under a single caliphate, and to that end the group has begun to establish satellite operations in nine countries. Initially, ISIS gained support within Iraq as a Sunni insurgency group fighting what some Sunnis viewed as a partisan Shiite-led Iraqi government. The group has since garnered additional momentum as a result of the Syrian civil war, and has recruited up to 33,000 fighters from around the world. Thousands of foreign ISIS fighters are estimated to have been killed in battle, while some have returned—or are reportedly planning to return—to their home countries.*

            ISIS finds its origins in al-Qaeda forerunner al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), formed by sectarian extremist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. During the Iraq War and its aftermath, the group experienced a series of setbacks and restructurings, for a while going by the name the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI). In June 2014, the group—then led by Iraqi extremist Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—unilaterally declared a caliphate spanning eastern Syria and western Iraq, naming Baghdadi as its “caliph.” In his first speech as “caliph,” Baghdadi made clear that ISIS’s aspirations were not limited to any one region, saying that the group sought to establish governance over all Muslims. Consequently, the organization changed its name from the “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria” (or the “Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham”) to simply the “Islamic State.””

          6. Natacha:

            Let me get this straight. You’re a nurse, and a lawyer, and now you have two minors in psychology and sociology (a soft science, to be sure), and a masters in education. But you used zero of these degrees and went into not one, but two utterly divergent fields.

            And yet, you do not write as someone with any type of scientific background. A sociology major, perhaps. That’s a hair away from a gender studies degree, now. But a psych major should have spent at least some time in the neuroscience section of the school library. Nor do you speak like someone with experience in the law.

            https://addiction.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Pathological_Lying_Symptoms

            “Pathologically lying is a common symptom in a number of mental health issues, such as borderline personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder.

            Individuals who want to have center stage wherever they are may have to make up stories to capture people’s interest.

            pathological liars will often tell unbelievable stories, and the lies they contain may seem absolutely pointless.

            If you find yourself with your jaw falling open every time someone tells you a story, it’s probably because it’s not true. If this happens regularly, the person may be a pathological liar.

            If you notice someone is constantly telling stories that make his or her life look better or more exciting than it actually is, this may be a sign that the person is a pathological liar.

            On the other hand, as stated in Psychiatric Times, pathological liars may also always paint themselves in the light of victimhood in order to gain attention. Someone who is always suffering from a different illness or constantly a victim either has bad luck or is a pathological liar.

            low self-esteem ranks high among the probable causes of behavioral issues. People with low self-esteem are more likely to demonstrate pathological lying symptoms because they are trying to make themselves feel better about how they look, their accomplishments, and what they have in life. While low self-esteem doesn’t always indicate a pathological liar, if it’s coupled with regular truth-stretching, it could be a signal that this person needs help.“

            1. Karen: I ask, once again, what is your educational background? What qualifies you to opine anything about me? How would you know how an attorney or other educated person would write? More to the point: where do you get off calling me a pathological liar? What have I lied about? My education? Prove I am not telling the truth. You are a perfect example of a Trump devotee: accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a liar. No facts necessary. Your devotion to Trump proves you don’t know what a pathological liar is. You also don’t understand how majors and minors work in higher education. I never said I had a major in psychology. I really don’t care about your opinions on sociology or psychology. Again, what are your credentials? Do you do anything other than listen to Fox News and get on the internet looking for pieces that support your preconceived ideas?

              Law touches every aspect of human endeavor–birth, death, family relations, health, safety, security, education, the environment, transportation, politics, religion, the military, etc.. There are people who specialize in heath care law. I use my health care background to defend physicians, pharmacists and nurses before licensure boards and for personal injury and product liability cases. There is nothing divergent about a health care background and law.

              1. Natacha’s complaining that Karen never got that JD or that BSN out of the Cracker-Jack box.

                1. “living rent free in your head.” -OLLY

                  An overused expression. You and Karen S both like it. Try coming up with something original.

                  1. Try coming up with something original.

                    Hanging onto resentment is letting someone you despise live rent-free in your head. Ann Landers

                    There’s the full, original quote, properly attributed. It’s as accurate assessment of Natacha’s contributions on this blog as anything. Anything else I can do for you?

                    1. Like I said, it’s an overused expression and I already knew the source.

                      Work on some original material.

                    2. Work on some original material.

                      I’ll tell you what; in all fairness to Natacha, I’ll come up with something different when she does.

              3. Karen S says that she has an undergraduate degree in one of the sciences — biology, perhaps. If this is wrong, please let us know, Karen S.

                What we see in many of Karen S’s comments is just a lot of “blah, blah, blah”…

              4. “Karen: I ask, once again, what is your educational background?” If you have memory loss, and cannot retain my repeated answer, which has never wavered over the years on this blog, unlike you, then you should see a doctor.

                “What qualifies you to opine anything about me?” The First Amendment, and good judgement.

                “How would you know how an attorney or other educated person would write?” I follow a legal blog, I know attorneys and have one in the family, and I, and other members of my family, are educated.

                “where do you get off calling me a pathological liar? What have I lied about?” Do you need an exhaustive list? You’ve lied about me repeatedly, for example. Take this as the most recent example: “Your devotion to Trump proves you don’t know what a pathological liar is.” One, I am not “devoted” to Trump. I defend or criticize him as the situation entails. I have criticized Trump on this blog, of which you are fully aware. Therefor, you are lying right now.

                “Do you do anything other than listen to Fox News”. Your obsession with Fox News is irrational. Get help. Your repeated statements that I do nothing other than watch it is also a lie. Thanks for another example.

                Your background is not believable, because it has significantly changed over time, and contradicted itself.

                “There are people who specialize in heath care law.” But that’s not what you said. You said previously that you were a nurse. You mentioned this not that long ago. There hasn’t been time for you to go back to school, pass the bar, and start practicing.

                1. You have never provided your educational background, Karen. But since you say you have, run it past me once again. The First Amendment allows free speech, but how does that constitute a license for you to falsely accuse me of lying about my education? You claim my background is not believable, but you have no facts and you lack the background to formulate an opinion on how an attorney would write or otherwise express themselves. BTW: judgment has no “e”, and your judgment is way off.

                  You are a starry-eyed Trump devotee, and he is a pathological liar. I expressed my opinion about your lack of insight into what constitutes a pathological liar, which is not a lie because it is my opinion. You get the technique of Kellyanne Pivoting, which is trying to turn the tables on anyone criticizing Trump by accusing them of the same thing from Fox News. I watch sporadically just for reference, and I see you repeating the slop they serve. It is the only channel that says the kinds of cutesy things you repeat, like saying people who criticize Trump have a form of mental illness Fox created and which their hosts call “Trump Derangement Syndrome”.

                  I have never contradicted myself nor changed the description of my educational background. Tell me when and where my description of my education has “significantly changed over time”. My background is, in temporal order of degrees awarded: BSN Nursing; MSN Pediatric Nursing; Doctor of Jurisprudence. I still hold a valid nursing license. I AM a nurse, although I do not work in nursing.

                  1. See how the nasty woman who fancies herself so well educated attacks another woman whom she pretends is below her?

                    Nasty Natcha, bullying another woman! This is the anti-Trump faction showing its ugly harridan face, and they all look like Hillary!

                    Well I will tell you what shuts up a mouthy woman with an acid tongue. A base one that’s what! Acid plus base equals saltwater, if you remember your chemistry.

                    And I got base words aplenty!

                    For example. last time one of my overly educated female relatives who btw works in the Swamp and is registered republican dared to insult the Great Donald J Trump in my presence, I told her flat out: SHUT UP ABOUT THAT. GO HOME TO THE SWAMP IF YOU DON’T LIKE BIG DON.

                    Oh and she clammed up alright. Toughest thing i’d said in decades and she deserved it. if she’s not stupid she will vote her interests and her interests are actually just what ORANGE MAN BAD has been doing all along.

                    The run up to 2020 will be a nonstop battle for every inch. Every day will be a heart check. You got it or you don’t.

                    1. If you consider asking for the credentials of someone who accuses another of lying about their education to be a “nasty woman” attack or condescension, then your thinking is warped, too. I didn’t bully Karen–I asked her where she gets off calling me a liar about my degrees, what are her qualifications and what facts she relies on. Because I dare to ask for something other than disagreement with my opinions as a basis for falsely accusing me of lying about my education, I am a “harridan” with an “acid tongue” who looks like Hillary Clinton? And you wonder why people don’t take Trumpsters seriously?

                  2. blah blah blah whenever i hear an arrogant woman start in on her academic credentials I just want to puke. It smells like wet old diapers. I got enough woman PHDs in my own family circles to repopulate a the local satellite campus and all I can say is WHO CARES.

                    Ironically it turns out that the most solid people were the ones who didn’t go to graduate school. Think about that. It’s pretty obvious, eventually, that the universities are infestations of the worst kinds of people. 100% fakes and phonies from the tenured stratum on up, at least outside STEM. and some of them too.

                  3. It’s apparent from your other posts. Couldn’t possibly be anything else. ad machina

      4. Natacha – shall we show respect in the “martyr’s death” of rapist, slaver, kidnapper, child killer Al-Baghdadi? Show him the utmost respect and honor his traditions and religion so that his followers will wipe a tear from their eye and feel good about their plans for suicide bombs?

        You guys are very curious in whom you respect.

        1. No, the US shouldn’t show respect because al-Baghdadi isn’t entitled to respect. Neither is Trump — he lied to avoid military service by faking bone spurs but then poses with military leaders and Pence, trying to look tough and in charge. Lying about the details of al-Baghdadi’s death was a dumb move.

            1. Natasha is correct. No one should pay respect to Bahdadi or Trump. That doesn’t mean they are being equated. Respect is minimal and default. Bagdadi got what he deserved, which was death, Trump deserves to do 5-10. out in 3.

              1. 🙂 Well despite the Lefts best efforts, he won’t be out in 3. I appreciate the support for him to do 10, but let’s just go with the constitution and have him out in 8.

          2. So…you object to mocking Al-Baghdadi’s inglorious end, but deny that you wish to show him respect?

            Get your story straight.

      5. There were ISIS and other non-US people there when it went down, as well as the US military, and they all agree that the liar here is Trump.

        LOL! Sure, every member of ISIS and other non-US people were surveyed after President Trump’s comment and they all agreed… Trump bad, Baghdadi good. You’ve got to be a special kind of stupid to believe the majority of the American people give a rats a** how the President characterizes Baghdadi. Well, that is as long as he’s not bowing to him, providing weapons of war to his followers, enabling financing of their terrorist operations, or memorializing him in a Rose Garden ceremony. The American people take red lines seriously; some politicians, not so much.

        1. Olly: it’s not the reaction of the American people that was being discussed–it’s the effect of Trump making up lies about al-Baghdadi being a coward and the effect on ISIS. Oh, and this would never have happened without the help of a tipster. Due to Trump’s repudiation of promised support, don’t depend on such assistance in the future.

          1. I don;t agree with Natacha that we know the effect of Trump’s lie on ISIS followers, god or bad, nor should we care much, unless we think this kind of lying by the President is a valid foreign policy tool.

            More importantly, the President’s lie cements further his untrustworthiness to those for whom that matters on the world stage as well as US citizens. His word is already useless to our adversaries and allies – no Karen, not Russia and NK – and his ability to be effective in talks of any kind done, finite.

            Who makes a deal with Joe Izuzu?

          2. it’s not the reaction of the American people that was being discussed

            Damn you are slow. Your post is your reaction that is being discussed. Are you suggesting you’re not one of the American people? Now that is entirely believable.

Comments are closed.