White House reviews military plans against Iran - New York Times

[lannarebirth]

4 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Nearly everyone underestimate the cyber capabilities of Iran. They are not to be messed with.

 

Another scholar stated, “Iran represents a qualitatively different cyber actor, they’re not stealing our intellectual property en masse like China, or using cyberspace as a black market as the Russians do…what Iran does use cyber for, including elevating its retaliatory capabilities abroad, makes it a serious threat.” James Mattis ominously described the Iranian cyber program this way: “if we’d talked three, four, five years ago, I’d have said it’s not a big threat. Today I will just tell you I would liken it to children juggling light bulbs filled with nitroglycerine. One time they’re going to do something serious and force foreign leaders to take it into account.”

 

According to a report from the Government Accountability Office, nearly all the critical infrastructure industries lack adequate cyber security metrics. The Defense Science Board Task Force on Cyber Deterrence issued a report this year stating “regional powers (e.g., Iran and North Korea) have a growing potential to use indigenous or purchased cyber tools to conduct catastrophic attacks on U.S. critical infrastructure. The U.S. Government must work with the private sector to intensify efforts to defend and boost the cyber resilience of U.S. critical infrastructure to avoid allowing extensive vulnerability to these nations. 

 

 

https://www.secjuice.com/iran-cyber-capabilities-implications-for-us/

 

In other words our economic "growth" stems from eternal conflict.

[bristolboy]

36 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Sec of State Pompeo having rapidly changing travels with not explanation given. 

 

Plans to send 120,000 troops to the Middle East if Iran attacks US forces (any attack on US forces could be blamed on Iranian proxies) or accelerate work on nuclear weapons (who's to say what qualifies as an acceleration?).  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/world/middleeast/us-military-plans-iran.html 

 

Reports of sabotage on four tankers in the gulf with the administration pointing fingers at Iran without providing evidence (how many know about the Gulf of Tonkin incident?).  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

 

Things are getting scary.

As you may recall, the UAE invented an incident to justify breaking off diplomatic relations with Qatar. Doesn't seem far-fetched to reckon that this is another.

[Morch]

10 hours ago, heybruce said:

Iran, like Iraq, has a somewhat modern urban population, and a very conservative rural/desert population.  Like Iraq, the US could largely control the cities but not the country.  Unlike Iraq, Iran has the ideological Republican Guards, not the more secular military of Hussein.  Ideologues are known for fighting without end or compromise.  Iran also has more than twice the population of Iraq.  That would make it many times worse than Iraq.  It would also mean casualties in the hundreds of thousands at a minimum, and quite possibly over a million.

 

Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya should have taught the US, and the world, that winning the war is the easy part.  Winning the peace and bringing stability to a country that has only known iron-fisted rule is the challenge, one that the US has not proven itself capable of mastering. 

 

We will not have a quick victory in which we are treated as liberators and can go home, with everyone living happily ever after.  We will have another country in anarchy and another source of instability in an area already known for instability.  That should be obvious by now, unfortunately it doesn't seem obvious to a great many Americans, including those in leadership positions.

 

In short, after we "win" the war in Iran, we will have another drain on US lives and resources for decades to come, a more unstable Middle East, and more terrorists convinced that the US is at war with all Muslims.  I hope Trump won't get us into this, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did.

 

I don't know that the instances of civilian unrest and protests against the regime were limited to cities. Certainly more media coverage there, but hardships and policy failures are experienced country-wise. So whether this translates to ardent, unconditional support is an open question.

 

As for the IRGC being "ideological" - not particularly, unless one is into believing labels. Would have been somewhat more applicable in the earlier years of the revolution, but even then "zealous" maybe a better term. Today, it's so heavily involved in the country's economy and politics, and doesn't necessarily carry a good image with the populace. Some elements, maybe those featuring more prominently on the Western media, might be more into it or more capable of causing mayhem, but overall it's not quite as dedicated or elite as advertised.

 

Iran having a larger population than Iraq is a good point. More so with regard to control, perhaps. Not sure it's directly relevant to casualties, or for that matter that the casualty figures suggested are well founded.

 

To be clear, I'm not arguing that the history of USA interventions in the region or the policies behind them were a success. As said, I agree with most of your points and analysis. Was just wondering with regard to the assumption that this would be significantly worse than the previous Iraq scenarios. And I'm still not convinced that the above amounts to a clear indication supporting the claim.

 

[Morch]

10 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Except of course you really haven't won the war if you haven't won the peace. As Iraq demonstrated. That's the problem with asymmetric warfare.

And Morch's claim that the demographic breakdown of Iran could be comparable to that of Iraq in terms of fault lines is just untrue. The 17 million Azeris are well treated in Iran. 

 

Morch's actual claim was different, though:

 

Quote

In terms of possible demographic/religious fault lines, perhaps not worse that Iraq - 90% or so Shia, about 65% Persians (with notable Azeri and Kurd minorities).

 

Not so much about "could be comparable to that of Iraq in terms of fault lines" - but rather that it isn't worse than Iraq's situation, which was the what my comment was about. The point was more to do with Iran being less susceptible to division and fragmentation relative to Iraq - which ought to make things a tad less complex for a hypothetical occupying force.

 

As for the "Azeris are well treated in Iran" bit - nice try. Not that there was anything about that in my post either way.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Obviously you are right. It wont be possible to boycott the USA.

But looking at their behavior, especially but not restricted to Trump, they really deserve it.

 

Maybe the good thing about Trump is that the Europeans wake up and realize that the USA is not a reliable partner. It is still a partner in many ways. But Europe can't and should not rely on them in the future.

 

Well, "they really deserve it" is an opinion. I don't know that it either represents anything or that it includes much forethought with regard to consequences. But that's the nature of ranting and venting.

 

As for Europeans waking up, and the USA "not being a reliable partner" - the first bit is a continuation of the fantasy. Europeans have trouble agreeing and cooperating on less substantive issues than that. And it's not like they've got many alluring alternatives anyway. As for the latter part - I believe that European countries and governments are quite capable of differentiating between Trump term in office, and traditional USA policy.

[OneMoreFarang]

4 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

A person doesn't need to be informed of what they can see with their own eyes.

So you see with your own eyes all Europe and all Europeans. Great job!

[Morch]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Sec of State Pompeo having rapidly changing travels with not explanation given. 

 

Plans to send 120,000 troops to the Middle East if Iran attacks US forces (any attack on US forces could be blamed on Iranian proxies) or accelerate work on nuclear weapons (who's to say what qualifies as an acceleration?).  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/world/middleeast/us-military-plans-iran.html 

 

Reports of sabotage on four tankers in the gulf with the administration pointing fingers at Iran without providing evidence (how many know about the Gulf of Tonkin incident?).  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

 

Things are getting scary.

 

Unless mistaken the 120,000 troop report was denied. Certainly, deploying that many troops will neither happen overnight, nor will it go unnoticed. So, if and when, there will be ample coverage of such. I think we've seen similar commentary in relation to the previous escalation with North Korea. For a full blown invasion, that seems a bit on the low side, though - figures were way higher for both Iraq instances.

 

As for the sabotage - yeah, could surly be something carried out by regional allies with an interest, or even the USA itself. Then again, it could also be Iran (directly, or more likely by proxy). Hard to tell in this part of the world. What is of note is that none of the incidents caused huge destruction or casualties. I think this reflects that most involved parties are not actually into an all out war, with all the uncertainties and damages it involves.

[heybruce]

31 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I don't know that the instances of civilian unrest and protests against the regime were limited to cities. Certainly more media coverage there, but hardships and policy failures are experienced country-wise. So whether this translates to ardent, unconditional support is an open question.

 

As for the IRGC being "ideological" - not particularly, unless one is into believing labels. Would have been somewhat more applicable in the earlier years of the revolution, but even then "zealous" maybe a better term. Today, it's so heavily involved in the country's economy and politics, and doesn't necessarily carry a good image with the populace. Some elements, maybe those featuring more prominently on the Western media, might be more into it or more capable of causing mayhem, but overall it's not quite as dedicated or elite as advertised.

 

Iran having a larger population than Iraq is a good point. More so with regard to control, perhaps. Not sure it's directly relevant to casualties, or for that matter that the casualty figures suggested are well founded.

 

To be clear, I'm not arguing that the history of USA interventions in the region or the policies behind them were a success. As said, I agree with most of your points and analysis. Was just wondering with regard to the assumption that this would be significantly worse than the previous Iraq scenarios. And I'm still not convinced that the above amounts to a clear indication supporting the claim.

 

Casualty estimates from the Iraq war range from 150,000 to over half a million  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War .  My estimate of hundreds of thousands to over a million for a war with Iran come from doubling those numbers, and adding a little more since Iran has more than twice the population of Iraq.

 

I don't know why you think a unified Iran would be easier to pacify than Iraq.  Iran's government is popular with a larger portion of the population than Saddam Hussein's government was.  All it takes is an alienated minority with military training and access to weapons to create chaos.  The Revolutionary Guards, resentful of their loss of wealth and status, would almost certainly perform this role, and find many sympathetic Iranians to help them.

 

Subduing an entrenched guerrilla campaign would require an occupying force much larger than the guerrilla force and keeping the occupiers in place indefinitely, while taking care not to alienate the population at large.  It's difficult to pull this off, very expensive in lives and money, and requires tremendous patience on the part of the occupiers.  That doesn't describe the US's attitude towards war.

 

So if we invade Iran we will be stuck their indefinitely, have a large portion of our military bogged down trying to hold the country, sacrifice a lot of blood and treasure, greatly offend the Muslim world and provide an inspiration for terrorists.  I don't see any upside to this.

[lannarebirth]

9 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

So you see with your own eyes all Europe and all Europeans. Great job!

Thank You, but you give me too much credit. I would never presume to think I see all Europeans. Fortunately all of Europe has governments whose beliefs are much easier to track.

[Morch]

 

@spidermike007

 

There wasn't anything said about underestimating. The comments made were about scaremongering and blowing the threat represented by Iran out of proportion. If the likes of Iran are "not to be messed with", what's the point of being a military superpower?

 

Yeah, Iran can potentially do some damage in the manner described. The key word being potential. I don't know that treating potential as actual forms the right basis for decision making. I'd also be surprised if the alluded potential could be fully utilized while being on the receiving end of a major offensive.

 

There are much better arguments as to why the USA shouldn't get involved in yet another military conflict.

[OneMoreFarang]

38 minutes ago, Morch said:

I believe that European countries and governments are quite capable of differentiating between Trump term in office, and traditional USA policy.

Do you remember when George W Bush was president. Many Europeans didn't understand why Americans would vote for that guy. And they definitely couldn't understand that people voted for him again. And they thought: It can't get worse.

And then the American people voted for Trump - at least 62 million voted for him.

Are all Americans like Trump? Obviously not. But it seems a big part of the country supports him and this is something Europeans don't understand.

Will the future bring a better POTUS? Maybe. But lots of us now know it can get worse.

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Casualty estimates from the Iraq war range from 150,000 to over half a million  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War .  My estimate of hundreds of thousands to over a million for a war with Iran come from doubling those numbers, and adding a little more since Iran has more than twice the population of Iraq.

 

I don't know why you think a unified Iran would be easier to pacify than Iraq.  Iran's government is popular with a larger portion of the population than Saddam Hussein's government was.  All it takes is an alienated minority with military training and access to weapons to create chaos.  The Revolutionary Guards, resentful of their loss of wealth and status, would almost certainly perform this role, and find many sympathetic Iranians to help them.

 

Subduing an entrenched guerrilla campaign would require an occupying force much larger than the guerrilla force and keeping the occupiers in place indefinitely, while taking care not to alienate the population at large.  It's difficult to pull this off, very expensive in lives and money, and requires tremendous patience on the part of the occupiers.  That doesn't describe the US's attitude towards war.

 

So if we invade Iran we will be stuck their indefinitely, have a large portion of our military bogged down trying to hold the country, sacrifice a lot of blood and treasure, greatly offend the Muslim world and provide an inspiration for terrorists.  I don't see any upside to this.

 

Projecting casualty figures based on other, previous conflicts and and total population figures doesn't seem well founded, especially not the rationale for doubling casualty figures. Thought it was based on more concrete reports/assessments.

 

I think that in some ways controlling a more cohesive population is easier, perhaps more so when trying to reestablish order and a functioning political system. In Iraq's case, such efforts had to contend with existing divisions and conflicts, thus further complicating things. Granted, that considering the possibility of organized resistance, things might be worse. Although, again, perhaps not as confusing as communal strife issues on top of that.

 

With regard to the IRGC - I think that treating the IRGC, as a whole, like a super-motivated or dedicated organization is incorrect. The same goes for the level of popular support and public image it enjoys. The IRGC involvement with and hold on the economy are issues related to resentment against the regime. A more likely scenario, IMO, is some of them switching alliances to preserve gains/status, while others face payback time. This would be, perhaps, more in line with how such things pan out in reality.

 

And it's not like all of the IRGC personnel are adept and experienced at carrying out actual insurgency stuff (like most similar organizations). On that score, I think the more immediate danger lies with regional proxies being activated. That's were infrastructure for such operations already exists.

 

Again, not arguing for a war, or the merits of USA foreign policy in this regard. Just questioning assertions this would be much worse than Iraq. Even a "mere" repeat of Iraq will be bad enough, though.

[lannarebirth]

4 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Do you remember when George W Bush was president. Many Europeans didn't understand why Americans would vote for that guy. And they definitely couldn't understand that people voted for him again. And they thought: It can't get worse.

And then the American people voted for Trump - at least 62 million voted for him.

Are all Americans like Trump? Obviously not. But it seems a big part of the country supports him and this is something Europeans don't understand.

Will the future bring a better POTUS? Maybe. But lots of us now know it can get worse.

 

The reason is easily explained by a political saying we have in the US. "When the election is between a Republican and a Republican, vote for the Republican." Meaning that the Democrat party has moved so far to the right that they are indistinguishable from a Republican, so when you vote for the current type of Democrat "centrist", you tend to elect someone who will bring to government the worst attributes of both parties.

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Do you remember when George W Bush was president. Many Europeans didn't understand why Americans would vote for that guy. And they definitely couldn't understand that people voted for him again. And they thought: It can't get worse.

And then the American people voted for Trump - at least 62 million voted for him.

Are all Americans like Trump? Obviously not. But it seems a big part of the country supports him and this is something Europeans don't understand.

Will the future bring a better POTUS? Maybe. But lots of us now know it can get worse.

 

I don't think Bush's term in office raised doubts regarding alliances and partnerships in the manner Trump's term in office does. Also, with regard to both Bush and Trump, I think Europeans are aware that elections rarely indicate an all out support of the people to whichever elected leaders. And in the current instance, awareness of Trump not being all that popular even in the USA is no secret. Europeans will also be aware that voting doesn't always imply full support for elected leaders.

 

And yes, it can always get worse. I don't think it will, though, at least not immediately post-Trump. Some sort of return to normalcy is more probable.

[spidermike007]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

@spidermike007

 

There wasn't anything said about underestimating. The comments made were about scaremongering and blowing the threat represented by Iran out of proportion. If the likes of Iran are "not to be messed with", what's the point of being a military superpower?

 

Yeah, Iran can potentially do some damage in the manner described. The key word being potential. I don't know that treating potential as actual forms the right basis for decision making. I'd also be surprised if the alluded potential could be fully utilized while being on the receiving end of a major offensive.

 

There are much better arguments as to why the USA shouldn't get involved in yet another military conflict.

I agree there. There are virtually no justifiable reasons why the US should get involved in another armed conflict. How is Afghanistan working out? Last I heard nearly 70% of the country is under Taliban control. And this is after nearly 15 years of involvement and how many trillions of dollars spent? For what?

 

Plus around 4,000 American soldiers and contractors killed, over 20,000 wounded and how many from other nations? How many Afghan civilians killed? Conservative estimates put it at over 30,000. For what? What has been gained?

 

It is increasingly clear, that they do not want the democracy we are shoving down their throats. Nitwits like Bolton and Pompeo cannot even conceive of that idea. 

[lannarebirth]

19 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

I agree there. There are virtually no justifiable reasons why the US should get involved in another armed conflict. How is Afghanistan working out? Last I heard nearly 70% of the country is under Taliban control. And this is after nearly 15 years of involvement and how many trillions of dollars spent? For what?

 

Plus around 4,000 American soldiers and contractors killed, over 20,000 wounded and how many from other nations? How many Afghan civilians killed? Conservative estimates put it at over 30,000. For what? What has been gained?

 

It is increasingly clear, that they do not want the democracy we are shoving down their throats. Nitwits like Bolton and Pompeo cannot even conceive of that idea. 

The goal of Middle East conflicts is not democratization, it is disruption that prevents any single power gaining control over the region.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Projecting casualty figures based on other, previous conflicts and and total population figures doesn't seem well founded, especially not the rationale for doubling casualty figures. Thought it was based on more concrete reports/assessments.

 

I think that in some ways controlling a more cohesive population is easier, perhaps more so when trying to reestablish order and a functioning political system. In Iraq's case, such efforts had to contend with existing divisions and conflicts, thus further complicating things. Granted, that considering the possibility of organized resistance, things might be worse. Although, again, perhaps not as confusing as communal strife issues on top of that.

 

With regard to the IRGC - I think that treating the IRGC, as a whole, like a super-motivated or dedicated organization is incorrect. The same goes for the level of popular support and public image it enjoys. The IRGC involvement with and hold on the economy are issues related to resentment against the regime. A more likely scenario, IMO, is some of them switching alliances to preserve gains/status, while others face payback time. This would be, perhaps, more in line with how such things pan out in reality.

 

And it's not like all of the IRGC personnel are adept and experienced at carrying out actual insurgency stuff (like most similar organizations). On that score, I think the more immediate danger lies with regional proxies being activated. That's were infrastructure for such operations already exists.

 

Again, not arguing for a war, or the merits of USA foreign policy in this regard. Just questioning assertions this would be much worse than Iraq. Even a "mere" repeat of Iraq will be bad enough, though.

I think it is reasonable to use past experience to make an educated guess about future courses of action.

 

The US has invaded or assisted in toppling three autocratic regimes this century in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.  All three countries differed in many ways, the only significant shared characteristic was that they had been ruled for decades by a cruel autocracy and the US had no viable replacement government when the autocracies were toppled.  In all three cases there was anarchy, bloody power grabs, lawlessness, terrorists grabbing footholds, and massive casualties.

 

Noting the differences between Iraq and Iran is not convincing; if we topple another autocracy without having a viable government to replace it there will be chaos and bloodshed. 

 

Our going in assumption whenever we consider invading a country in which the government has the support of a significant portion of the population is that there will be a prolonged, determined, bloody insurgency attempting to kick out the invaders.  We should know that by now.  We should also know that wars are a lot easier to start than to finish, as Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are currently demonstrating. 

 

I am confident that there are people in the Pentagon attempting to explain all this to Trump.  However so long as the chicken-hawk Bolton has Trump's ear, we are at risk of another bloody fiasco.

[FritsSikkink]

Iran is a threat to the US troops in Iraq.

They shouldn't be there in the first place.

 

USA very concerned about Iran and Venezuela, don't give a shit about middle Africa, why I wonder.

Actually, the might get interested in Nigeria after the oil wells of these countries are run by US companies.

Edited May 15, 2019 by FritsSikkink

[candide]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Projecting casualty figures based on other, previous conflicts and and total population figures doesn't seem well founded, especially not the rationale for doubling casualty figures. Thought it was based on more concrete reports/assessments.

 

I think that in some ways controlling a more cohesive population is easier, perhaps more so when trying to reestablish order and a functioning political system. In Iraq's case, such efforts had to contend with existing divisions and conflicts, thus further complicating things. Granted, that considering the possibility of organized resistance, things might be worse. Although, again, perhaps not as confusing as communal strife issues on top of that.

 

With regard to the IRGC - I think that treating the IRGC, as a whole, like a super-motivated or dedicated organization is incorrect. The same goes for the level of popular support and public image it enjoys. The IRGC involvement with and hold on the economy are issues related to resentment against the regime. A more likely scenario, IMO, is some of them switching alliances to preserve gains/status, while others face payback time. This would be, perhaps, more in line with how such things pan out in reality.

 

And it's not like all of the IRGC personnel are adept and experienced at carrying out actual insurgency stuff (like most similar organizations). On that score, I think the more immediate danger lies with regional proxies being activated. That's were infrastructure for such operations already exists.

 

Again, not arguing for a war, or the merits of USA foreign policy in this regard. Just questioning assertions this would be much worse than Iraq. Even a "mere" repeat of Iraq will be bad enough, though.

I am surprised the religion factor has not been taken into account in your analysis. The cohesiveness of the population is that 90% of them are Shia. Unlike in Irak, the Shia religious authorities will be against the Americans. So instead of having the religious authorities of 64% of the population at least complacent with the USA because they were happy to get rid of Sadam, it will be the religious authorities of 90% of the population against the USA.

People may be very unsatisfied with the political domination of the ayatollahs, it is still their religion. Even if a lot of people may be happy to get rid of the domination of religious authorites, out of 90% of population, there surely will be enough of them to be ready to fight.

 

And don't forget that, unlike the Sunni religion, the Shia have a hierarchical religious organisation. Being against the Ayatollahs in Iran is a bit like being against the pope in Italy.

 

So I tend to think that the cohesiveness of the population is an aggravating factor for the USA in case of military occupation, not the contrary.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, candide said:

I am surprised the religion factor has not been taken into account in your analysis. The cohesiveness of the population is that 90% of them are Shia. Unlike in Irak, the Shia religious authorities will be against the Americans. So instead of having the religious authorities of 64% of the population at least complacent with the USA because they were happy to get rid of Sadam, it will be the religious authorities of 90% of the population against the USA.

People may be very unsatisfied with the political domination of the ayatollahs, it is still their religion. Even if a lot of people may be happy to get rid of the domination of religious authorites, out of 90% of population, there surely will be enough of them to be ready to fight.

 

And don't forget that, unlike the Sunni religion, the Shia have a hierarchical religious organisation. Being against the Ayatollahs in Iran is a bit like being against the pope in Italy.

 

So I tend to think that the cohesiveness of the population is an aggravating factor for the USA in case of military occupation, not the contrary.

 

Assessing or quantifying religious influence and its consequences is not easy to do, and perhaps even more so, to properly discuss (especially on open forums such as this). IMO, there's a tendency by some posters to treat Muslims as having some sort of hive mentality and attitude with regard to Islam. In my experience, yes - overall levels of people practicing their faith, taking it more seriously or more literally might be a correct proposition. But when it comes down to it, not everyone practices everything or with the same conviction. 

 

Shia is somewhat more structured, yes. But - Shia also incorporates a more tolerant approach toward religious and theological debate, plus Iranians (as a whole, and again, my impression) are more at home expressing their disagreement and views on things. As for saying that "being against the Ayatollahs in Iran is a bit like being against the Pope in Italy" - not really. There's a fine tradition of following of heeding this or that Ayatollah, and as these can disagree, by extension followers may have differing views. This, in part, is also evident in Iran's political life. The Supreme Leader does command more respect, but as noted in a previous post, not quite on par with the original holder of office. 

 

My point was that relative to Iraq, a comparable scenario in Iran would be less complex, and not as  multi-faceted. In some ways more difficult, in some ways not.

[metisdead]

Some off topic posts and the off topic replies have been removed. 

[Guest Jerry787]

if trumph foolish goes at war with iran will be the end of the globe

[Morch]

8 hours ago, Jerry787 said:

if trumph foolish goes at war with iran will be the end of the globe

 

The sky is falling.

[Tug]

Could you imagine being a serious patriot planning this when Donald hears Hannity or rush windbag or Ann colture say something and everything changes just boggles the mind the incompetence 

[Morch]

47 minutes ago, Tug said:

Could you imagine being a serious patriot planning this when Donald hears Hannity or rush windbag or Ann colture say something and everything changes just boggles the mind the incompetence 

 

This Ann Coulter?

 

"Throw a rock and you'll hit someone with more common sense than the people Trump has surrounded himself with."

https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/1096311217847644160?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

 

"No, the goal of a national emergency is for Trump to scam the stupidest people in his base for 2 more years."

https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/1096317175277576192?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

 

"The goal is to get Trump's stupidest voters to say "HE'S FIGHTING!" No he's not. If he signs this bill, it's over."

https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/1096317509039321089?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

 

"The only national emergency is that our president is an idiot,"

https://theweek.com/speedreads/824063/ann-coulter-says-only-national-emergency-that-president-idiot

[Tug]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

This Ann Coulter?

 

"Throw a rock and you'll hit someone with more common sense than the people Trump has surrounded himself with."

https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/1096311217847644160?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

 

"No, the goal of a national emergency is for Trump to scam the stupidest people in his base for 2 more years."

https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/1096317175277576192?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

 

"The goal is to get Trump's stupidest voters to say "HE'S FIGHTING!" No he's not. If he signs this bill, it's over."

https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/1096317509039321089?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

 

"The only national emergency is that our president is an idiot,"

https://theweek.com/speedreads/824063/ann-coulter-says-only-national-emergency-that-president-idiot

That’s the one I rember her saying he caved on something and he flipped I think it led up to his government shut down or it might have been the time when he had a chance on immigration and he flipped on the daka kids I’m pretty sure that’s the one

 

[Morch]

9 hours ago, Tug said:

That’s the one I rember her saying he caved on something and he flipped I think it led up to his government shut down or it might have been the time when he had a chance on immigration and he flipped on the daka kids I’m pretty sure that’s the one

 

 

This reads almost like a Trump comment....