By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a recent interview on Fox & Friends, former President Trump claimed to have solved seven wars, including conflicts between India and Pakistan, as well as the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda. He then misidentified a conflict between Azerbaijan and Albania as one he had resolved. While Trump did broker a peace deal between Azerbaijan and Armenia, ending decades of fighting, Albania has never been at war with Azerbaijan. These claims are viewed by observers as part of his efforts to secure a Nobel Peace Prize, as evidenced by his past statements on social media expressing disappointment over the lack of recognition.
Read the original article here
Trump, 79, Can’t Remember Which Country’s War He Solved: Well, isn’t this a pickle? We’re talking about a former President who, at 79, seems to have developed a bit of a selective memory, particularly when it comes to his self-proclaimed peacemaking accomplishments. The central issue here is his inability, or perhaps unwillingness, to recall a specific war he supposedly resolved. And the more you think about it, the more you realize the absurdity of the situation.
It’s like he’s playing a game of “Where’s Waldo?” with global conflicts, except Waldo is a war that’s been successfully ended and, well, there’s no Waldo. The collective sentiment seems to be a resounding “zero,” as in, he didn’t solve any. There’s a bit of a consensus that the only “wars” he might have ended were trade wars he himself initiated, making the whole thing even more farcical.
The comments suggest a pattern of fabricating accomplishments. The idea that he might have simply made up the numbers, claiming to have ended a dozen or so wars in a single week, is definitely out there. This leads to the larger point: When you’re constantly stretching the truth, it’s easy to lose track of where the facts end and the fiction begins. It’s almost like the lies become their own tangled web, too complex to navigate even for the liar themselves.
The discussion also veers into the realm of the Epstein files, which seems to be another point of contention. There’s a definite push to release these files, perhaps in the hope that they might shed some light on the complex interactions and alleged improprieties of high-profile individuals. The implication is that there’s something that someone is trying to cover up.
Interestingly, the general response seems to lean toward skepticism. The comments suggest a growing awareness of the way things are. There’s a growing sense that the things being said by certain people in power are far from the truth. Perhaps the most important part is that there is no proof of Trump ending any wars, and there is proof of Trump instigating trade wars.
The critique extends beyond just the inability to remember and includes concerns about his capacity to govern. His age is mentioned repeatedly, and there are subtle allusions to cognitive decline, strokes, and overall unfitness. The fact that he apparently can’t remember basic words like “ballot box” adds to the perception of diminished mental capacity.
Beyond individual words, the comments hint at a deeper concern. The focus on Trump’s lack of peacemaking success is contrasted with his propensity for aggressive actions. He’s accused of wanting to start wars, of ignoring ongoing conflicts, and even of starting trade wars. This paints a picture of a leader who’s more likely to exacerbate global tensions than to resolve them.
The overall tone of the comments is quite critical, bordering on cynical. It’s a mixture of frustration, disbelief, and, yes, a bit of dark humor. There’s a shared sense of the absurdity of the situation, the constant barrage of claims, and the obvious lack of substance behind them. The consensus seems to be that Trump is making things up, plain and simple.
So, as the dust settles, the question remains: which war did he solve? The answer, based on the comments, seems to be: none. And the deeper implication is that this isn’t just a simple case of forgetfulness; it’s a reflection of a pattern of dishonesty and a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a peacemaker.