Trump’s Afghanistan History Lesson

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on reddit
Share on delicious
Share on digg
Share on stumbleupon
Share on whatsapp
Share on email
Share on print


Why Trump drives me crazy sometimes:  he is always certain, even, or especially, when he is bone ignorant.  To respond to the President:


  1.  No, the Soviets did not invade Afghanistan in 1979 due to Afghan terrorists roaming into the Soviet Union, but rather they invaded to prop up, and take over, a Marxist regime already ruling Afghanistan.
  2. No, the Soviet Afghan War did not lead to the fall of the Soviet Union by bankrupting it.  The Afghan War was unpopular in the Soviet Union, but it was a negligible part of a systemic failure economically of the Soviet state, and the Soviet realization that they could no longer afford to keep up with the US in the arms race.

His adversaries cause me to defend Trump and then Trump shoots his mouth off to convince me that in many ways some of his adversaries have a point.  With some mouth and twitter control Trump would be much more effective as a President.  Do I expect that to happen?  No, I do not.

More to explorer

God Bless Bishop Strickland

The Joy of Pillaging

Great lunch hour game.

Saint of the Day Quote: Saint Bertilla Boscardin

Here I am Lord, to do your will, whatever comes.


  1. Fortunately for Trump, he’s blessed in both the character and caliber of his enemies. Also, I think folks intuitively grasp that Trump understands staying involved in a land war in Asia is like repeatedly going against Sicilians when death is on the line.

  2. The “smart kids” inflicted on America eight years of Barack Hussein Obama.

    If any of the other 2016 GOP wannabe wimps had been nominated, Hillary would be wrecking America.

    Trump 2020!

  3. I think Cruz would have taken her as well. The only wimp she would have beaten for sure is Jeb. The rest of the field, I don’t know about.

  4. The twit who kamiazed to take out Cruz — K, can’t remember which is his name and which is a Russian mythological immortal, don’t care enough to go look it up– would’ve lost to Hillary, too.

    I’m sympathetic to the idea that Trump was so “obviously” going to lose that they didn’t cheat anywhere near big enough.


    While Trump is wrong, it sounds like something Russia might believe.

  5. Marco Polo —I mean Rubio. Maybe. The problem is, Hillary is such an unlikeable, baggage-ridden, skeletons-that-won’t-stay-closeted-bedeviled politician that it was bound to be a near-run thing with any from the Republican field. Particularly when you factor in what a terrible campaigner Shrillary was. The exception being Bush. The Bush-stink was only 8 years old compared to the 16 year old Clinton-stink.

  6. For those like Don, and myself I have to admit, subject to, shall we say, not infrequent bouts of heartburn when Trump decides to speak, or worse, tweet, his mind. The New Criterion’s Roger Kimball mounts a persuasive defense of his Presidential character here and here.

Comments are closed.