"This guy lied — let me just tell you. This guy lied about Ben Carson when he took votes away from Ben Carson in Iowa. And he just continues. And today, we had robocalls saying, 'Donald Trump is not going to win in South Carolina,' where I'm leading by a lot. I'm not going to win. Vote for Ted Cruz. This is the same thing he did to Ben Carson. This guy will say anything. Nasty guy. Now I know why he doesn't have one endorsement from any of his colleagues."
Intense pressure from Donald Trump. You wouldn't think the frontrunner would choose this approach and that it would be everybody else who's getting desperate and knows he must make some noise. You might think Donald Trump is exploding with emotion and just can't keep it in, but I think this is a strategy, to seal his victory and block everyone else, through sheer nerve and intimidation. It's amazing to watch. Will voters accept it? He's offering to deploy this intense power for our benefit. And he's no war monger. Look at him bearing down on Jeb Bush. Trump is cranked up to a boil against war:
"George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East. You call it whatever you want. I will tell you. They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१६० टिप्पण्या:
Unhinged.
Unstable.
Unelectable.
That guy is a fuckin scumbag.
Trump was bad last night.
We're doomed.
Even if he doesn't win the nomination Trump is doing the Rs a great service. The Rs need to clear the deck after the debacle of the Bush presidency to regain credibility with the people who actually decide elections. Even now, however, a lot of Rs just don't get it. In the post debate Lindsay Graham went back to repeating the same old discredited lies without shame. People like Graham are killing the Republican Party's national election chances.
He loves to wave the bloody shirts. He has bloody shirts coming out of his... whatever
How can anyone see Trump as a serious candidate? He's a 14 year old school-yard bully who shouts louder than anyone else. And says nothing of substance.
I can't stand it. It's like being being tied to a chair and forced to watch Will Farrell movies ad nauseum.
Trump needs to listen to Bob Woodward about Iraqi WMDs -- and then stop calling other people liars, because he has no room to criticize there.
JCC said...
How can anyone see Trump as a serious candidate? He's a 14 year old school-yard bully who shouts louder than anyone else. And says nothing of substance.
I can't stand it. It's like being being tied to a chair and forced to watch Will Farrell movies ad nauseous.
No it is like listening to right wing talk radio. This is the style that has shaped the debate outside of politics for decades now and has finally moved into the mainstream. Trump's style is Mark Levin's wet dream of how he would perform in a debate.
It will be interesting to see how "Bush lied, people died" will work for Trump.
I'm afraid that if he's the man with his finger on the trigger, he'll be mostly dealing with blisters.
Trump said the robocall claimed he would not "run" in South Carolina, which is much crazier than saying he would not win. If true, what the hell is Cruz thinking?
Trump needs to listen to Bob Woodward about Iraqi WMDs
Woodward was wrong. At the very least Bush was willfully ignorant about the WMDs. Bush might not have technically told outright lies about WMDs in Iraq but his administration (especially Rumsfeld and Cheney) outright lied about the WMDs. (There was "no doubt" that Saddam had restarted his nuclear program, they knew "exactly" where the stockpiles of WMDs were--both statements and more were complete fabrications backed by no evidence.) and Colin Powell was duped into lying about WMDs in front of the UN.
“You might think Donald Trump is exploding with emotion and just can’t keep it in, but I think this is a strategy, to seal his victory and block everyone else, through sheer nerve and intimidation."
This.
A clown show - and the alternative is Hillary! or "the Bern."
Meanwhile Germany is threatening Britain with a trade war, Russia and Turkey are very near to an actual shooting war, China is threatening everyone else on their perimeter - inckuding Afghanistan - with war, and the Middle East and North Africa are already in flames.
Thanks a lot, Obama!
"BDNYC said...
Trump said the robocall claimed he would not "run" in South Carolina, which is much crazier than saying he would not win. If true, what the hell is Cruz thinking?"
It's not true.
It's a lie that's meant to create an apparent pattern in the mind of some voters. (Gee, people keep accusing Cruz of electoral shenanigans. He must be a shady character.)
Sadly, this kind of thing is effective.
Wow...Trump is actually saying something serious and true here! (Following up on his truth-telling earlier about the corruption of our political process and system, with "our" representatives in Washington being mostly captured by big-money donors, whom they serve rather than the American people).
This adds to my belief he does not expect or really intend to be President. Speaking the ugly truth is not a way to get into the White House.
The lie lie just it made it a little less likely that the GOP will in fact nominate Trump. In that sense, it was useful.
@ Freder Frederson
Interesting that you call most in the Bush administration liars but say that Powell was "duped." Poor, trusting, ignorant black man, no? Just trying to do his job and his no good bosses hung him out to dry.
Please.
Trump's strategy -- if indeed last night's scream fees was strategic -- failed last night. I have been an on again/off again supporter of the man throughout his campaign and last night put me into the off again category big time, maybe permanently. I like Trump opposed the Iraq war initially but unlike Trump I never claimed I knew the unknowable about why Bush did it or what he did or didn't know. Really disgusting.
I lived in Saudi Arabia during the Iran-Iraq war, when Saddam Hussein was well-known and reported to be gassing Iranians.
Saddam Hussein did not accept Jesus Christ as his personal Savior and relinquish or destroy his WMD. He used them on his own people in Halabja, and hid them to preserve his ability to do it again, just like he hid MiGs in the desert.
BDNYC said...
Interesting that you call most in the Bush administration liars but say that Powell was "duped." Poor, trusting, ignorant black man, no?
No. Based on post-Bush presidency comments of Powell's associates, Powell clearly believes he was lied to.
The Republican establishment showed again last night their extreme incompetence by stacking the hall with booing anti-Trump-ites. Think how dead silence at his antics would've played versus the obvious "Boo" sign on that we witnessed. All this did was give Trump supporters an excuse for his behavior and further evidence the game is rigged against the little guy.
What Trump has done, and now is doing, is --
(1) In the early days, he posed as a Republican with something of a nationalist and anti-establishment flavor, which some were fooled into believing was conservative. And when the Establishment tried and keep trying to push him out, the more that image was reinforced, and his popularity rose. Meanwhile, his sheer celebrity got him a lot of support from lower class Democrats.
(2) In the past few weeka and now, he is coming out as his true self -- the type of liberal Democrat that many of the ultra-rich are, complete with an Obama-esqe ego added to the fact that he is a blowhard. His tactics are leftist, including his complaints against his rivals and conservative ideas.
This is what a "President Trump" would be and his Court appointment(s) would all lean left. He is being his true liberal self and laughing at anyone who still continues to believe he is at all conservative. And because some people are so enamored of personality, rather than actually listening to the substance of what he says, many continue to support him. He's pissing on their legs, telling them that it is raining, and they are chirping right back, "Yep, it's raining all right."
Althouse, that is the same line I picked out last night as a marker of Trump's cracking up.
Trump didn't say that he disagreed with the invasion of Iraq; he didn't bombastically claim that he was right about that; Trump jumped the shark. He claimed that the Bush Administration (all of them, apparently, or maybe just President George W. Bush; who could know, with Trump?) lied about the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction.
As Aaron Goldstein blogged at The American Spectator's website (the Spectator has of late become home to a number of pro-Trump [ex-]conservatives) "This is Noam Chomsky territory." I don't even see Rachel Maddow, or Bernie Sanders, or Al Sharpton, or any of the denizens of the Far Left making such an unhinged claim.
I dunno; this is of a piece with Trump's talking about John McCain as a POW, or the farcical claim that Trump "saw thousands of people cheering" the fall of the Twin Towers from across the Hudson River in New Jersey.
I don't think Trump has the intelligence or the insight or the personal responsibility to feel shame over those comments.
Trump - and the rest of the field - must have missed.the news from last year when Rove admitted that they did find WMDs in '06, but didn't want to relitigate the argument in an election year.
Problem wasn't that "Bush lied." It's that he and his team were inept at fighting the guerrilla war in Iraq and the political war at home. In a lot of ways, they didn't even want to engage.
Jeb! can defend W all he wants, but there is no doubt that he would bring the same passive mentality back to the White House.
1) This will push Trump's high unfavorables even higher.
2) The media will be only too happy now to have Republicans defend Dubya's record, using up media time that they could be using instead to attack Obama and Hillary. This might be to Trump's strategic advantage, but not conservatives'.
Actually Iraq would have worked if the Dems didn't side with the terrorists. Just blow up a little more stuff and we'll get the US to pull out. They kept this up for years.
That kept the terrorists going when it looked grim for them.
The MSM has the same deal with the terrorists, just for different stakes, namely eyeballs to sell to advertisers.
It isn't ego with Trump.
On issues, if he's in fact talking about them, he's right about half the time.
He's right about political correctness, which is our problem number one. Without that fixed, nothing else can be solved.
That being thrown aside, arguments have to improve and may get to the heart of this or that matter.
M Jordan said...
The Republican establishment showed again last night their extreme incompetence by stacking the hall with booing anti-Trump-ites. Think how dead silence at his antics would've played versus the obvious "Boo" sign on that we witnessed. All this did was give Trump supporters an excuse for his behavior and further evidence the game is rigged against the little guy.
Tell me how you know this.
Then tell me how you think tickets should be made available.
Of course (and this gets repetitive) the one person who made the worst and lest-supportable claim about the issue was Trump himself. Trump said that the New Hampshire audience was "all Bush donors." That was a lie. Out of 1,000 seats available, all the candidates got an (equal) allotment of tickets, St. Anselm's College got the biggest block, the RNC got a block for donors (about 75) that was smaller than the candidate block, and so yeah... Trump is full of shit.
The Bush presentation of proof to the UN (? something like that) was obviously faked, whatever else was true. Saddam wasn't helping things in the ME.
Bush's faith in the Iraqis was misplaced, but so was everybody's. Who knew such idiocy would run their society?
It's proof of the 7th century in the islamic world.
because rove said so?
lied us in to war too...
Last night Brett Baier asked Trump if he was conservative. He said "I'm a common sense conservative". The Republicans are re-litigating the decision to go into Iraq, and the Dems are hashing out the bombing of Cambodia. Don't think any of this budges anyboday's numbers.
Does this surprise Trump supporters?
Trump is the first Republican that correctly points out that Bish was president on 9/11.
Does anyone know why Trump hates Jeb! so much?
So you think Hillary will show commercials of Trump bashing GW? Who will that steer votes to?
"Trump - and the rest of the field - must have missed.the news from last year when Rove admitted that they did find WMDs in '06, but didn't want to relitigate the argument in an election year."
Oh, so because Karl fucking Rove "admitted" they found WMD, this makes it so?
It's no secret that old WMD were found buried here and there, but these were not the plentiful and glistening stocks of new WMD the Bush Administration claimed were being newly made as justification to invade Iraq. These were forgotten remnants of WMD that dated back to the Desert Storm era, hidden dregs that had been missed when Hussein destroyed his WMD. The UN Inspectors in the 90s said they had accounted for most of Hussein's weapons, but there were a remaining small percentage they could not locate. These remnants were dangerous to individuals in immediate proximity to them, but they were aged and had lost most of their potency, and were useless as weapons of war.
And, to be truthful, chemical and nerve gas weapons are not really weapons of mass destruction, if by that we mean weapons that can kill and destroy in vast numbers; the only weapons that really fit that description are the ones Hussein never had: nuclear weapons.
Of course, in the run up to the fabricated O.I.L.--Operation Iraqi Liberation, before they realized the acronym revealed too much and they changed it to O.I.F.--Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Bush Administration reluctantly allowed a new UN inspection team to go in. This team found no weapons anywhere they looked; after four months on the job, they reported they needed another several months to adequately verify the presence or absence of prohibited weapons in Iraq, but they were told to evacuate the country immediately as the invasion--the supposed "last resort"--was about to commence, as already scheduled months previously.
Just as some Republicans are giddy with Bernie's success, so do some of the liberals here express their support for Mr. Trump's view in Iraq.
Trump doesn't want to beat the GOPe, he wants to obliterate it. And his ally Cruz is picking off any stragglers.
The war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake.” “George Bush made a mistake. The war was a mistake.” “They lied. They said there were WMD and there were no WMD.”
And, to be truthful, chemical and nerve gas weapons are not really weapons of mass destruction,
Right. Even if Iraq had WMD that isn't a justification for invading and accupying. Most countries have WMD!
I don't even see Rachel Maddow, or Bernie Sanders, or Al Sharpton, or any of the denizens of the Far Left making such an unhinged claim.
The claim is not unhinged, and lots of people have made it. Just google "Bush lied about WMD" and you will see.
Trump's attempt to attract the sane people with this outburst. Not sure if it helps with the hardcore Rs.
"Oh, so because Karl fucking Rove "admitted" they found WMD, this makes it so? "
George Tenet: It's a slam dunk, Mr. President
"Trump's style is Mark Levin's wet dream of how he would perform in a debate."
I can't stand Mark Levin and stopped listening to the local station that took Hugh Hewitt off live and replaced him with Levin.
I still have reservations about Trump and last night brought them all again. I don't know if his actions were a plan. Maybe he just got angry at JEB.
It will be interesting to see how this affects the election next week.
Bush did not lie about WMD but the issue was a last minute addition to sooth Tony Blair who was pushing that as Britain's reason to support the invasion.
Wolfowitz explained the real rationale behind invasion to the press when he said "Iraq lost on a sea of oil" and so sanctions were never going to work. This began the left wing hysteria about "No blood for oil !"
What happened was that Saddam was lying about the nuclear program to keep the Iranians from knowing how weak his army was. He even lied to his generals, many of whom believed that the nuclear program had been restarted.
The CIA misled Bush but they had almost no assets in Iraq. "Curveball" was given far too much credulous attention because there was nothing else.
We will see what effect last night has on Trump's campaign. Also the loss of Scalia may focus some minds.
"Just google "Bush lied about WMD" and you will see."
Yes, the idiot left is all over Google. I guess this where most of you get your "facts."
"Iraq floats on a sea of oil"
Autocorrect is an ass.
"And all the money we spent, and all the men and women we lost. And I think a lot of Republicans — the establishment doesn’t like to hear this — millions and millions of Americans probably agree with Trump.”
""George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East. You call it whatever you want. I will tell you. They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.""
Fuck you Trump. If you are the nominee I'm voting for Sanders.
So which was it. Did George Bush make a mistake. Or did he like. Does he not even realize that he is arguing two contrary positions at the same time in one section .A mistake is not a lie and a lie is not a mistake.
There WERE WMD's. If we didnt find stockpiles well they could have been degraded. OR moved. OR Sadaam himself lied. Or Sadaam was lied to.
Bush was bequeathed Iraq from Clinton. What did Clinton think about Iraq? Well he passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which said we needed a regime change. On the premise that he had WMD"s and refused to cooperate. After passing that we then BOMBED Iraq o the premise that we wouldn't destroy all their capabilities but merely degrade them. Was he lying then?
Actually some were saying he was wagging the dog to divert the press's attention from Monica Lewinsky.
But after that, all the inspectors were removed. And then there was NO FURTHER inspections until Bush. So where in the record is this a-ha moment where we all know they never had WMD's.
Fuck Trump and all the Trumpettes foisting this IDIOT on us. If I wanted a Code Pink candidate I'd vote for a democrat.
Trump shows classic narcissist behavior.
This is my final, last-ditch, all-out, saving-the-best-for-last argument against the Trump supporters at the Althouse blog:
garage mahal agrees with you.
garage mahal said...
Trump is the first Republican that correctly points out that Bish[sic] was president on 9/11.
I rest my case.
Blogger Michael K said...
"Iraq floats on a sea of oil"
2/14/16, 9:23 AM
If you look at current prices, Iraq's buoyancy is in question.
This attack on the Bush administration is only possible because for the past two or three elections the Republicans have been running away from him instead of supporting him. That is the only way I can even attempt to stomach this awful betrayal by Trump.
What should have been seen was a rousing intelligent defense, which is easily provided. But, I guess this was easier. And now this is where the Republican Party has been led. It's really quite sad.
And Obama has made things far worse and I wonder that Trump does not see fit to make that point. It will be interesting to see if his version of the runaway strategy will get the moderate or left votes that others have pandered to unsuccessfully.
He should have taken Cruz' coat.
Trump has taken the "its Bushes fault" away from Hillary. He has totally removed Bush from the lexicon. We move on from here.
Remember the meme from a week ago wherein Marco Rubio was a talking-point robot? I am watching a post-debate interview of Donald Trump by John Dickerson on CBS.
Dickerson asks Trump about the claim that 'Bush lied,' and Trump winds himself up into a rant about... donors in the audience and the fact that Trump is self-funding his campaign.
Rubio, very interestingly, is the very next interview, and the Senator is coming off as direct, intelligent and responsive. And directly hard on Trump's lies.
Yes, there is a soundbyte-bot in the race. It's Trump. I'd love to watch this program in the same room with Governor Christie to get his reaction, now.
It will be interesting to see if his version of the runaway strategy will get the moderate or left votes that others have pandered to unsuccessfully.
Playing for conservative Dems. That coupled with strong words on trade. He will definitely get some. That's why Hillary is such an awful choice this cycle. She's horrible on trade, voted for Iraq, and is disliked by white working class.
Trump's strategy is deliberate- he is positioning himself for the general election already. He may still lose the fight for the nomination, but he sees the middle of the political spectrum has been abandoned by the Democrats running for president and he is moving decisively into that territory.
I think the chances of him winning the nomination are increasing by the day. I know his comments about Bush and Iraq are anathema to some on the right, but I largely think he hit the nail on the head, as uncomfortable as that truth might be.
In any case, fortune favors the bold, and Trump is nothing if not bold. He won my vote last night.
Hey Robert cook, read my whole comment which is about three sentences long.
Real point is that Rove, Bush, etc fought the war and the politics ineptly. Whatever rationale the war might have had was completely lost by the Bushes.
Roves admission was very much and admission against interest. Seems pretty credible to me.
And then there was NO FURTHER inspections until Bush. So where in the record is this a-ha moment where we all know they never had WMD's.
And when the inspectors went in and found nothing, Bush ignored their reports and the results of their inspections. By the time of the invasion, it was obvious to anyone with a brain that what the Bush administration was saying about WMDs was contrary to what the inspectors were finding. Yet the administration continued to claim that they knew exactly where the stockpiles were (a lie, they didn't know where the stockpiles were because there weren't any) and that there was no doubt that Saddam had restarted his nuclear program (he hadn't, the seals were still on the yellowcake vaults). Oh yeah, and then there was the "mobile biological weapons lab" that turned out to be a weather balloon truck.
Trump has issued an "ash heap of history" alert. Try to stay relevant.
Psota,
No, Rove's "admission" is still a late-in-the-day covert attempt to refute those who say they lied about WMD. By implying the old dregs found were what they had supposedly been looking for all along, what they had based their war on, Rove lied.
"What did Clinton think about Iraq? Well he passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which said we needed a regime change. On the premise that he had WMD"s and refused to cooperate. After passing that we then BOMBED Iraq on the premise that we wouldn't destroy all their capabilities but merely degrade them. Was he lying then?"
Yes.
Yancey Ward:
Who lied, godammit? Do you know who "lied" about WMD in Iraq? When? What did they really know, when did they know it, and when did they lie about it? How did they lie?
Or do those facts not matter?
Maybe they don't, to the Trump crowd. I don't think it even matters to the Trump crowd, that they sound like the far left.
Chuck @ 8:41,
I don't disagree with you, but Trump supporters don't care about that. They will convince themselves that Trump only said the "We should have never been in Iraq"- something with which the convenience of hindsight makes easy for everyone to agree- as well as "There were no weapons of mass destruction," which is similarly non-controversial. And they will ignore his assertion that "They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. And they knew there were none."
It doesn't matter that this is- as you say- even closer to the Left than Sanders or even 2008 candidate Obama. Trump supporters will ignore it. Because that's what Trump supporters do whenever they're confronted with anything inconvenient about their candidate. You'll see it from his supporters on this very blog, because they won't try and defend it- they'll just pretend it never happened. It's still early, but I predict the only defenders of Trump's statement will come not from his usual supporters (for example, Grackle or traditionalguy), but rather from the usual Leftish commenters (whom we've already seen).
If the left truly believes that the Bush Administration - top officials that is - conspired to falsify pre-war intelligence then there is no way they can claim that Powell, who attended all of these meetings, was not involved. No you can't.
These attempts to clear Powell of this smear is obviously based on Powell's usefulness to the left. He's a critic of conservatives and has been defending Obama.
Powell was there at the creation of the war. To say he wouldn't know about it or be aware is absurd.
And now we see the "Bush family are malevolent" fanatics come out of the closet.
What's next? George Bush the elder killed JFK? For those not familiar, the JFK assassination conspiracy crackpots - the biggest collection of dimwits, nitwits and halfwits ever to walk on two legs - believe Bush was in Dallas that day and was working for the CIA in their murder of Kennedy.
freder wrote:
And when the inspectors went in and found nothing, Bush ignored their reports and the results of their inspections. By the time of the invasion, it was obvious to anyone with a brain that what the Bush administration was saying about WMDs was contrary to what the inspectors were finding.
Iraq had a long history of playing this game. Look at the inspections under Clinton. It was more of the same. We couldn't talk to scientists at various points. Further, we had a LONG lead up to war, giving Sadaam plenty of time to destroy or move stockpiles. Even Hans Blix said "EVEN NOW" Iraq still hadn't accounted for the stockpiles we KNEW he had previously, let alone new stockpiles. See, we had a listing of things that Iraq had and never provided evidence that they destroyed. do YOU have evidence that they were in fact destroyed? Why couldn't Iraq produce them? Iraq was semi cooperative with allowing access to sites. but was only moderately cooperative in answering the questions surrounding its weapons programs. (for example those weapons we knew they had previously). Because we had already played this game before, Bush RIGHTLY ended the inspections. Because it was more of the same old same old.
Duelfler said the containment process was in free fall and Sadaam could restart various programs in months because he maintained the capability, even assuming Iraq had no existing stockpiles. What do you think the outcome should have been had we not found any further stockpiles? (even though we did). lift the sanctions?
Or keep the sanctions in place, even though you don't think Iraq had WMD"s at that point.
Does any person seriously think he didn't have intent to have WMD's or wouldn't' reconstitute any programs as soon as sanctions were lifted?
You discount the entirety of the clinton admins dealings with Sadaam and the futility of inspections and pretend like the sanctioning/containment/inspection process in Iraq started the day Bush took office.
'And when the inspectors went in and found nothing, Bush ignored their reports and the results of their inspections...'
I guess Hillary and a lot of other Democrats ignored those reports too?
Will be interesting to see the coalitions formed now that Trump has defined the boundaries. Forcing his detractors to support and defend Bush II and the WMD hunt, seems to be a smart move to me. They wanted an excuse to not vote for Trump anyway, now they got it.
I thought he came across as an unprepared, childish bully with thin skin and 9/11 Truther beliefs (which meshes nicely with his Birther cred). He is absolutely unfit for the presidency but apparently this is a feature and not a bug for some.
I doubt this will change his supporters' opinion of him--we should hear more about how he moved the "Ovrerton window" and he's got the right enemies or something.
I'm curious though--any Trump fans here who think less of him after any of this?
Last night was the end of the current Republican Party. It's over.
If Trump is the nominee then the head of the party is a man who believes that the previous head - and former president - is a war criminal, committed treason, and should have been impeached for those acts.
That can't be.
If Trump is not the nominee then his supporters will simply abandon the party as Trump does his own thing. Whoever gets the nomination simply cannot accept the endorsement of Trump even if, somehow, Trump gives it.
They used to say the Ross Perot was a "human hand grenade with a bad haircut." Trump is a "human nuclear bomb with a bad haircut."
Trump is a truther. A left wing conspiracy theorist. And a liar. And a racist. And a blowhard. And STUPID. His arguments are stupid. And people pushing him are retarded.
Literal retards.
Steve M. Galbraith,
No, why start there? Isn't there some evil thing that we can accuse Prescott Bush of doing? What about Samuel P. Bush? How about we say that he secretly exposed FDR to polio?
Robert Cook wrote:
"What did Clinton think about Iraq? Well he passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which said we needed a regime change. On the premise that he had WMD"s and refused to cooperate. After passing that we then BOMBED Iraq on the premise that we wouldn't destroy all their capabilities but merely degrade them. Was he lying then?"
Yes.
Well, his wife is running for president. She might actually win. Why are dems not saying her husband is a war criminal who wagged the dog and bombed Iraq based on a lie? And passed vicious sanctions that were akin to a genocide based on a lie.
And why were libs so mad that Bush stole the election from Gore, who was complicit in Clintons rape of Iraq. who here has clean hands in your view? Was the UN lying when it passed its resolutions? Do yo think Sadaam had clean hands?
I'm not a Trump supporter and never have been.
But he's got the tightest OODA-Loop in American politics by far, and he understands the importance of the strategic and tactical offensive on an instinctual level.
I don't plan on voting for him but the other candidates and all of the GOP can learn something:
You don't have to go through life being a pussy.
Goodness. If the Trump moment was deliberate, and I think it was not, I think it is really going to hurt him. The leftist W-haters posting here get a chance to relive yesteryear, but they fail to understand how unlikely it is that great numbers of southern Republican primary voters are going to want to align themselves with the left on the point of war.
No, why start there? Isn't there some evil thing that we can accuse Prescott Bush of doing? What about Samuel P. Bush? How about we say that he secretly exposed FDR to polio?
Yeah, well they believe Prescott Bush created Hitler. He had some sort of business with German military industrialists prior to the war.
A lot of this come from the Lyndon Larouche nutjobs. I'll guess we have a Larouchie here spouting his/her gibberish.
Yancey Ward: I know his comments about Bush and Iraq are anathema to some on the right, but I largely think he hit the nail on the head, as uncomfortable as that truth might be.
They're anathema to neo-cons, certainly, and neocons were certainly very successful for a time in convincing people that neo-connery was "conservative foreign policy". To what degree they still are, I don't know. There has been disillusionment and falling away among a subset of Republican voters on this score, certainly, but I don't have a handle on how large that group is. The number who think a candidate like Rubio is fabulous on foreign policy would probably be a rough proxy.
Look, most people here are"anybody but Hillary" and will vote for Trump in order to keep H out.
Now, Trump is getting the Bush/Repubub haters saying, "Ya know, the guy is not so bad after all"
See how the anti-war commenters on this site are defending Trump today?
Trump may be smarter than we think, Crazy like a Fox.
I have long been of the opinion that he wants out of the race, but will not quit outright.
He wants to somehow be forced out, with someone to point to as the villain who
pulled strings or lied to turn people against him.
Interesting, not crazy-
"See how the anti-war commenters on this site are defending Trump today?"
Ah, but why are they defending him today? Do you believe it's because the likes of ARM, garage mahal, and Freder legitimately think Trump is not so bad and would consider voting for him? Or do you think it's because they are for anything that weakens the GOP in the hopes that their preferred candidate wins in the fall?
The first suggests, indeed, that perhaps some Leftists have warmed to Trump. The second, well, that's one of the most tried-and-true tactics in political history.
wish Palin was there too...
The Iraq invasion was a catastrophic error in judgment and common sense, as was the form of effort taken in Afghanistan. That there are large elements of the Republican Party that still don't get this is disconcerting to me. And the prosecutors of those actions don't get to lay the blame on Obama's utterly inept conduct after he took office- the original decisions should have taken account of just such a possibility before jumping in.
Yes, Chuck, I think they lied, even if it was just a lie they told to themselves as justification. They probably believed themselves.
I guess the easiest way to find out is just to ask them.
AReasonableMan, garage mahal, Freder Frederson, Robert Cook-
Assuming it's a two-party race and Trump wins the Republican nomination, are any of you considering voting for the Republican nominee over Sanders? What about Trump over Hillary? What percentage would you assess that likelihood of being?
Be honest with yourselves, if not with me.
Chuck: This is my final, last-ditch, all-out, saving-the-best-for-last argument against the Trump supporters at the Althouse blog:
garage mahal agrees with you.
It would hardly be the first time there's been a point of agreement between me and the resident lefty loons. Not surprising that garage, a simple-minded re-bleater of disconnected lefty talking points, would hit on one of those now and again.
Doesn't bother me, but apparently you define your every conviction by its opposition to what Team B thinks, not whether you believe it's grounded in the truth.
Maybe this is just one of those things that distinguish a patriot from an apparatchik.
@Bobby:
I'm planning on voting for Jill Stein.
The GOP could have pushed the W years behind them but then younger brother Jeb had to run.
Trump said W made a huge mistake invading Iraq and that they lied about WMD. Trump has left open who the "they" is. Presumably it was W's advisers like Rumsfeld and some others.
The GOP nationally hasn't attracted good presidential candidates since Reagan. The Bushes, like the Clintons, need to go away. Trump is the only candidate in both parties saying the Bushes and the Clintons have been bad for our country. And Obama. He is correct. The last 25 years have been rough for the US. I doubt Trump is the answer to this. But he's right about the Bushes and Clintons. Those families are entitled assholes.
"See how the anti-war commenters on this site are defending Trump today?"
And they're defending/excusing Powell too.
Powell is useful for them since he's critical of conservatives and has defended Obama. So they'll say he was manipulated or fooled or misled NOT that he was one of the manipulators or misleaders.
It's absurd to argue that the Bush White House falsified pre-war intelligence and lied about Saddam's WMD program AND say Powell didn't know anything about such a conspiracy. He was there at all of the key meetings.
The dishonesty is breathtaking.
"I thought he came across as an unprepared, childish bully with thin skin...."
This has been Trump's manner for years. Are you just now noticing?
"I guess Hillary and a lot of other Democrats ignored those reports too?"
Of course. Everyone in Congress who voted to allow Bush to do whatever he wanted in prosecuting his "war on terror" is complicit in war crimes.
Do you believe it's because the likes of ARM, garage mahal, and Freder legitimately think Trump is not so bad and would consider voting for him?
Trump was right on this point. That doesn't mean I am defending him. And I would not vote for him under any circumstance (except maybe if I lived in an open primary state and I really wanted to stick it to the Republicans). I am almost sorry that the Republicans have so destroyed their party that it appears you will have to choose between Trump and Cruz (although of the two, I think Trump would be less dangerous--but only because I really hate Cruz). But then again, you brought it on yourselves.
As I puttered about during the debate last night, one of the few bits I missed was Trump challenging Ted Cruz about Planned Parenthood. Trump called Cruz a liar in claiming that Trump had ever expressed support for Planned Parenthood.
This is about as clear-cut as it gets. Cruz has every right to point to Trump statements about Planned Parenthood:
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/02/fact-check-trump-supports-planned-parenthood
Trump can run from that, but he can't hide for long.
And add this, to the pile of evidence against Trump on his "Planned Parenthood" record:
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/14/ted-cruz-donald-trump-supports-taxpayer-funding-of-planned-parenthood-trump-hes-a-liar/
Colin Powell has been a DC hack for 30 years. You don't get to be head of the joint chiefs by being an independent thinker. He's a weathervane, which is why he's had such a successful military and post military career. He's got as much to answer for on Iraq as anyone in the W administration.
So, can we talk about Lybia, Syria, Afghanistan and the rest of Obama's foreign policy?
Anybody want to chat about Ukraine?
Or Iranian nukes?
Call me when Trump finds the time -- like all the Leftists posting above -- to discuss Obama's foreign policy failures.
Colin Powell has been a DC hack for 30 years. You don't get to be head of the joint chiefs by being an independent thinker. He's a weathervane, which is why he's had such a successful military and post military career. He's got as much to answer for on Iraq as anyone in the W administration.
I agree with you. He allowed himself to be manipulated into lying for the administration. Unlike all the others, it did later bother his conscience. I doubt the others even have a conscience or morals.
Except Robert Cook... He will call everybody a war criminal. So he is consistent, if boring and repetitive.
Trump is hammering back against the Big Lies of Cruz and friends that are now outright calling Trump a gun grabber, a pro abortionist, a Liberal, and pro Big Government. They know it's a Big Lie but figure the religious right will believe the Paranoid Crap mind control just long enough to win an election in a dumb state.
Trump would be giving up to allow Big Liar Ted to have a free shot.
CBS debate transcript
Cruz: ...But let me say this - you notice Donald didn't disagree with the substance that he supports taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood. And Donald has this weird pattern, when you point to his own record he screams, "liar, liar, liar." You want to go...
TRUMP: Where did I support it? Where did I...
CRUZ: You want to go...
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Again, where did I support it?
CRUZ: If you want to watch the video, go to our website at Tedcruz.org.
TRUMP: Hey Ted, where I support it?
CRUZ: You can see it out of Donald's own mouth.
TRUMP: Where did I support?
CRUZ: You supported it when we were battling over defunding Planned Parenthood. You went on...
TRUMP: That's a lot of lies.
CRUZ: You said, "Planned Parenthood does wonderful things and we should not defund it."
TRUMP: It does do wonderful things but not as it relates to abortion.
Ah, yes, I neglected option (c) -- they agree with Trump's specific statement, but they are not in supporting him. In any case, Interesting, not crazy, I think the point is that we shouldn't assume that "Trump is getting the Bush/Repubub haters saying, "Ya know, the guy is not so bad after all"." I doubt that very few of what you're seeing as his "defenders" have actually warmed one iota to the prospect of a Trump candidacy.
Cook,
I'm planning on voting for Gary Johnson (assuming he wins the LP nomination, of course). Do you want to have a friendly side bet on whose candidate does better this fall? We can go by percentage of the national popular vote, but in the (highly unlikely) scenario where either candidate carries a state and wins an electoral vote, then they win the bet.
Bobby said...
Assuming it's a two-party race and Trump wins the Republican nomination, are any of you considering voting for the Republican nominee over Sanders? What about Trump over Hillary? What percentage would you assess that likelihood of being?
No possibility that I would vote for Sanders. At the start of this process I would have said the same about Hillary. Now she is starting to the look like the adult in the room. I couldn't stand her husband, so it is a low probability. In some ways, she remains the worst on foreign policy, even Cruz seems more chastened by the Iraq debacle than Hillary, although Rubio and Bush are generally more clueless, but I would never vote for either of them.
I can imagine voting for Trump over Hillary. I don't take the character issues with Trump seriously, he knows how to play a role to get attention and he is doing a good job at that. I think he will be fiscally conservative in the sense that he will focus on domestic fiscal issues and try to put them in better order. This is what he understands, balance sheets. From his presidency we could get a corporate tax deal, a proper discussion on the apparently limitless appetite for cheap labor and some rationalization of entitlements, in particular a means test. He will also be tough on Wall Street. Trump sees Wall St as making money doing nothing 'real', while he had to bust his butt building shit, dealing with the nitty gritty of the real world. In this sense, Trumps perspective matches that of a large swathe of working Americans. He will be very conservative militarily, much like Reagan, talk big and avoid expensive conflicts.
Donald Trump's Anti-Iraq War Position Wasn't As Prophetic As He Thinks
Trump may have privately opposed the war prior to the March 2003 invasion, but no public evidence of his opposition could be found through a Lexis-Nexis search of news articles and transcripts.
A Trump spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment about whether he was on the record opposing the war before it began.
Yet the media mogul has touted the Reuters story for months as evidence of his prescient Iraq position, doing so even before he officially entered the presidential race.
"Tell me how you know this ... Trump said that the New Hampshire audience was "all Bush donors." That was a lie. Out of 1,000 seats available, all the candidates got an (equal) allotment of tickets, St. Anselm's College got the biggest block, the RNC got a block for donors (about 75) that was smaller than the candidate block, and so yeah... Trump is full of shit."
I took Trump's word on it with a huge train of salt. What I do know is the audience was decidedly anti-Trump ... alright from the introductions. And I find it curious that the man leading by 22 points in two S. Carolina polls has this kind of audience support. Very curious.
Trump is what the country needs today, because a pusillanimous leader is the worse pick. He will do nothing. A strong leader will at least do something. And even if it is not perfect, he gets something done.
After he saves our butt in the coming world chaos crafted by Obama and friends, then we can fire him for being an impetuous and bold speaker.
The impetuous and bold man called Peter (also called The Rock by Jesus) was like Trump. He was the man used by the Spirit of God on Pentecost to found the Church. But nobody ever liked him much.
Trump's definitely still the favorite. He did hurt Cruz. I suppose if Trump's negatives are high enough then some mediocre survivor (Rubio?) will take his place. R folks should take seriously Trump's option to run 3rd party if they beat him using the ~7% unpledged delegates ("if they treat me fairly").
I'm not impressed by the numerical superiority of internet comments attacking Trump. These brigades are bound to happen whenever the smallest opportunity arises. And if I hated Trump and wanted him to lose, I'd push in exactly that way at every one. Maybe something that sticks will come along eventually. That's why Trump's only 50:50 to win even though he polls 2x the nearest competitor.
If the R party realigns, good. We don't need decades of trench warfare; we need to flank.
Trump will lose in the general election, he's upside down in his favorability ratings even though he has a 99.9% name recognition.
He is an Obama like narcissist, has no understanding of economics, only marketing. He inherited $40 million and turned into $4 billion. same as if had just invested in an index fund over the same time.
Trump has absolutely no understanding of the bureaucracy and will fail at taming it and holding unelected officials responsible.
Trump has been all over the table on things he supported in the past, he's a Republican when he's not. He was for amnesty before he wasn't and came out with, abortion before he wasn't, etc., etc., .... FYI Cruz has always been consistent and came out for the border wall publically more than two years before Trump.
I'll vote for Trump if he is the nominee, God forbid. If Trump is elected I'll support him, but I will miss his press conferences, I can stand his crowing, cackling and that smirk.
I wonder if Trump isn't giving cover to millions of erstwhile war supporters to "revise" their positions. I'd sure like to revise mine! I put waaay too much trust in Andrew Sullivan. I started skeptical and should have stayed that way, and put a Not in Our Name sign in the window.
I recall that shift happening in the years after Vietnam. Old guys you swore had supported it started saying matter-of-factly that we had no business being there in the first place. Or it was critiques of the rules of engagement blah blah.
And WWI was caused by the Munitions Makers and all. Everyone wants a do-over.
http://www.wired.com/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/
Short take: WMDs were found in Iraq after the war. Not on a large enough scale to justify the invasion, but they were there.
It was also known that Saddam shipped much of his WMDs to Syria before the war. Satellite pictures showed long convoys moving between Baghdad and Syria.
Also, let's go into the Wayback machine, to the LA Times of Oct. 10, 1997 (if you're playing at home, Google the title: "Saddam's Secret Weapon Is Worse Than Imagined." Avigdor Haselkorn, a strategic analyst, reveals how a single missile fired at Israel from Iraq in 1991 scared the crap out of Colin Powell and the first Bush:
"In the early morning hours of Feb. 25, a strangely armed Iraqi missile landed in southern Israel. It was an Hijarah, an Iraqi variant of the Soviet Scud B, topped with a concrete and metal warhead. Israeli military intelligence suspected that it might have been a primitive biological warhead.
"The incident left U.S. decision makers, especially Gen. Colin Powell, in a quandary. Although there was no agreement among intelligence analysts as to the meaning of the 'stone age' Scud, the possibility that it was a warning shot on Saddam Hussein's part could not be dismissed. President Bush knew that if an unconventional warhead fell inside an Israeli city, the retaliation would be swift, possibly even with nuclear weapons.
"If the missile carried a biological warfare payload of, for example, anthrax agent, it could have caused heavy casualties. It was unclear whether the Iraqis had the warhead technology to spray the spores in the air as an invisible aerosol, which could be inhaled. But, U.S. defense intelligence warned, 'effective dissemination of the agent was not even necessary if a [biological weapon] warhead were to be used as a terror weapon against civilian populations.'"
I know all this sounds like ancient history, so let me bullet-point it for you:
1. Saddam let it be known that he had missiles and WMDs and was willing to fire them at Israel.
2. We didn't know how many missiles he had and how big his WMD stocks were.
3. He continually resisted any attempt by the U.N. to inspect or reduce his stockpiles.
4. Playing games with the world body benefited him in the Middle East by making him look bigger and more powerful.
Now, we live in a world where North Korea and Iraq are encouraged to build missiles and nukes, and our ability to stop them does not exist.
It's easy to forget history, so let me lay this down: Saddam's WMDs did exist, they were a threat. How much of one we're still arguing, but do not think that anyone made this up out of whole cloth. Anyone who does is ignorant of history or deliberately lying.
Donald Trump on Marco Rubio: “He’s a very impressive young man. He came from nothing. And look what he made of himself! He’s got to be one of the most important people in Miami. And I like Miami. That’s a very nice beach down there. Very nice people. I’m a big fan of Miami. And Marco Rubio is bigger than Don Shula. He’s bigger than Don Johnson. That’s two Dons! And he’s bigger than both of them. And he’s Spanish! Not bigger than me, of course. And he’s still poor. But he’s young, you know? I think he’ll make some money. I know I gave him a hard time during the campaign, but that’s all part of the game. He would definitely have a place in my administration. I’d make him a Secretary. And that’s not an insult in Washington D.C. You want to be a Secretary. I think I’ll make him my Secretary of Immigration. Or something. We’ll figure it out. I think he’s one of the top Republicans, Marco Rubio. Keep an eye on that kid.”
Donald Trump on Justin Bieber: “I love him. He’s the best. I’m a big fan of the Bieb. I have not actually heard his music. But my daughters love him. Everybody loves him. He’s amazing. What a talent. Huge crowds. Just mobs and mobs of screaming girls. It’s Biebmania. I’m a Biebmaniac. If I was a woman I would have his baby. We would get married and have Bieber-Trumps. Or Trump-Biebers. Actually I’m pretty sure it would be Trump-Biebers. Even if I was a woman, I’d still dominate him. He’s a little on the wussy side. But what a talent! Already a millionaire, and he’s like 12 or something. Just wait till he gets out of puberty. He’s amazing. I love Justin Bieber. Even if he is from Canada. Actually, we might want to check his green card, now that I think about it. Got to be fair to the Mexicans. You know I’m fair.”
Donald Trump on Julius Caesar (44 B.C., Monday, 3:24 p.m.): “Caesar! Caesar! Caesar! He’s the best. He’s amazing. He’s #1. Nobody is bigger than Caesar. Not even me. Caesar is huge. My one criticism, and this is a tiny nitpick, that’s a really bad toupee. I have way better hair. But, hey, nobody is perfect. Not even Caesar. He’s great. I’d let him sleep with my wife. I’d let him sleep with my daughter. I’d let him sleep with my wife and my daughter, at the same time. I’m a huge fan. You rock, Caesar. You rock.”
Donald Trump on Julius Caesar (44 B.C. Tuesday, 6:29 p.m.): “I think he was starting to lose it. Got a little crazy there at the end. I mean, he put his horse in the Senate. Or wait, was that Nero? I swear these Caesars start to run together. He definitely was insulting the wrong people. Whatever he did, it was bad. That much is clear. You can’t go around disrespecting Senators. They might stab you. See? I warned him. I said, “Caesar, listen to Trump.” But he wouldn’t listen. So they killed him. I knew it was going to happen. I mean, I didn’t say anything. You got to play the game. But I definitely knew something was up. Let’s face it, sometimes you just have to stab a guy.”
Donald Trump on Julius Caesar (44 B.C. Friday, 10:22 a.m.): “These are awful, awful people. They killed Caesar! Are you kidding me? He was our best and our brightest. How could you kill our leader? I think we ought to torture them and decapitate them and cut their arms off so they can’t eat. Wait. Do that last one first. Otherwise it’s not going to work. Anyway, I think Caesar is a god. When you kill Caesar, you kill god. You can’t kill god. It’s wrong. It’s so wrong. I think we need to start stabbing some of these Senators. These are very bad people. They killed Caesar!”
Donald Trump on Homeless People: “They stink! They smell so bad. Oh my God, take a shower. Take a bath. Use a hose. Why can’t you find a hose? Look, this is the United States of America. There are hoses everywhere. Every couple of days you should hose down. Wash yourself. You know the problem with the homeless? They don’t think about the rest of us. I yell at them, I hit them with the hose, I pour buckets of water down on them. They don’t listen. They are not good listeners. You know in India, they would be untouchable. Exactly! Why the hell do we have to touch them? They stink and they look horrible. These are not beautiful people. I’m sorry but it’s the truth.”
Donald Trump on Jeb Bush: “Oh, he’s great. He’s wonderful. I love the Bushes. They are very nice people. Very rich, very pretty, very smart. All the Bushes are great. I like their daughters. I would marry a Bush if I could. Maybe one day I could take two or three Bushes as wives. Just throwing that out there as a possibility. Now I know I gave him a hard time during the campaign. Low energy! I killed him with the low energy. He never recovered. But I like him. I always liked him. You know why I attacked him so hard? Because Jeb Bush has millions and millions and millions of dollars. He is my biggest rival on the money side. Except for Hillary and Bernie, they’re both rich as hell. I mean, they’re not billionaires like I am. But I don’t want to spend a billion, you know what I mean? Anyway, I kept hitting him and hitting him and hitting him. I tweeted him to death. You know you’re in the 21st century when you tweet somebody to death. If we were in the B.C. era, I’d have to stab him. But now he gets his feelings hurt a little, and that’s it. This is a very nice time to be alive. Anyway, he definitely would have a place in the Trump Administration. We could talk about it. I’m thinking maybe Ambassador to Iceland or something like that.
Donald Trump on Iran: “Awful, awful place. It smells horrible, and it is very hot. And they’re all poor. I swear, there is nobody in the country who has any money. Nobody! I think Communists have more money than Iranians. Iranians in Iran, anyway. I know some Iranians in L.A. who are millionaires. But in Iran? They got nothing. No money, no oil, no beautiful people. It’s a hellhole. I hate Iran, and I’ve never been there. But I know what I’m talking about. Do not go to Iran. Not even on a dare. Or Sally Field will play you in the movie.”
Donald Trump on Saudi Arabia: “It’s amazing. It’s so cool. You can actually buy people there. And not just ugly people. You can buy some beautiful Europeans. They got French, Italian, Greek, Brazilian, Thai. They got a whole menu of girls. I’m not kidding. And I’m not saying you should do this. Slavery is a crime in a lot of places. And if you do buy a beautiful European, you definitely should not try to smuggle her into the USA. You’d get into so much trouble. Buy them and set them free. That’s a good investment. They will be very grateful. I can’t tell you how nice it is in Saudi Arabia. They are richer than I am, that’s how nice it is. And, if some Arabian tries to steal my money? I get to cut his hands off. That’s awesome. We should do that here. Thieves suck. Thieves, bank robbers, cat burglars, bandits, pirates. Cut their hands off. That ends that problem. I’m a big fan of Saudi Arabia. You will never hear me say shit about Saudi Arabia. It’s a wonderful place. Except for the damn caterwauling five times a day. What the hell?”
Donald Trump on Scott Adams: “Who the hell is that? I don’t know who that is. I don’t know who Dilbert is. What are you talking about? Why are you asking me about a cartoon? This is ridiculous. This is absurd. I am Donald Trump. I do not read cartoons, okay? This question is idiotic.”
Donald Trump on Garry Trudeau: “What are you asking me about a nobody that I’ve never heard of? Doonesbury, who is that? Oh my God, you did it again. Look, these guys are drawing squiggles for a living, okay? I guess it’s a little impressive that they can make a living drawing squiggles in a newspaper. But if I’m going to talk about some cartoonist who can’t draw, let’s talk about Picasso, okay? He can’t draw for shit. But I got 17 Picassos, and they are worth millions and millions of dollars. If we’re talking squiggles, hey, I got 22 Mondrians and 19 Kandinskys. Who is like a Commie but he’s very valuable. Actually that number is wrong. I just have 6. Do not say that I have 19 Kandinskys. I don’t know if you know this, but the IRS is a pain in the ass. But the point I’m trying to make is that there are some very valuable squiggles, like on a canvas? And then there is the cheap shit in the newspaper. Do not ask me about cheap shit in the newspaper.”
Donald Trump on People. “That’s an amazing magazine. I think it’s the best magazine on the market. It’s filled with celebrities. Time Magazine is good, too, don’t get me wrong. But People is amazing. It’s wall-to-wall celebrity news. I love People. I have a subscription. And when I’m in People, and I’m always in People, I buy 10,000 copies and send them to strangers. I would marry People if I could. It’s that good. I keep asking them, when are you going to have an all-Trump issue? I call them up and flirt with all the people who work at People. And they love it. We have so much fun. And the funny thing is, they are a bunch of nobodies. Who the hell works at People? Nobody knows. But they do good work.”
Donald Trump on Bill Maher: “Oh, he’s great. He’s wonderful. Very talented comic. He has his own show. Very, very funny and smart man. I think he’s underrated. I’m a big fan of Bill Maher. You know what he says about me? He calls me a star-fucker. And it’s true! I only fuck stars. I do not fuck little people. Well, maybe once or twice. But I always shower right after."
Donald Trump on Global Warming: “It’s a big problem. It’s a huge problem. You don’t want those icebergs melting. I’ve seen the movie. But we will solve it. I promise. On day one I will have top people working on it. Hillary, Bernie, Al, Barry. What we’ll do, we’ll take my jet and fly out to Davos. That’s a real party. And the people there are so smart and nice and beautiful. And we will get to work and solve global warming. I promise. Do not worry about the icebergs or the penguins or the floods or the polar bears. It’s all going to be fine. Trust me.”
Donald Trump on Atheism: “They suck. They’re the worst. So stupid and ugly. I hate the atheists. I think maybe we should kill them. Cut their heads off, you know? I could do that. Christians vs. the Atheists, that’s not a contest. Atheists would be decapitated. No doubt about it. See? I’m a man of faith! I got no doubt about it. The atheists would be decapitated. They are totally outnumbered. I don’t even think they realize it, that’s how dumb they are. Bunch of stupid atheists. You want me to decapitate them? We could, like, do a show in a stadium. With music. And charge tickets. Listen to me, I know how to make money, okay? I’m smart. I’m a billionaire. There’s a market for this stuff, believe me. Just let me know, I’m on it. We’ll kill all the atheists. Except for the rich and famous ones, of course. You can’t kill the rich and famous. That’s ridiculous. That’s insane. The rich and famous are different from you and me. Well, they’re not different from me. But they’re different from you and you and you. We’re only killing the poor and stupid atheists who don’t know how to make any money. Like Communists? We’ll totally kill them. Except for Putin, he knows what’s going on.”
Every time The Donald opens his mouth he focuses all attention on what he said and everyone else has to suck on whatever oxygen is left in the room. It makes no difference what he says because something else will be floating in the news before anyone has a chance to debate or fact check. I'm sure that if you ask anyone who has had the pleasure (sic) of negotiatiing with him that he does the same thing. The rest of the GOP candidates are pure amateurs at this tactic and have no hope unless they can equal him (and he wrote the book.)
Mr. Trump can read the room and his tactics have born fruit - all this a result of a deliberate and masterful set of tactics that he has been using for years. Why should he stop now? Just look at the remarks in this thread. They are either defensive or vituperative but mostly they focus on Trump and leave no room for any of the others. Any publicity is good publicity in this case and if he is the nominee (the GOP doesn't seem to have the old fashioned way of rigging the nominee anymore the way the Democrats do) then you can bet that Trump will have morphed enough to be a good national party candidate.
Whether he would be a good President is another issue entirely.
Bill Peschel,
To add to your list - no one can deny that Sadaam didn't have it in his interest to have WMDs or at least have the impression that he had WMD's. His handler asked him, if he didnt have WMD's why would he go through the pretense, and he said to project strength.
if you are pretending you have WMD"s people who are trying to contain you might get the impression that you, in fact, have WMD's.
But here's the thing. He DID have WMD"s. During the march up to the war he had plenty of time to move stockpiles, and as you say, we have satellite footage of whole warhouses looted and stuff put into trucks and driven into Syria. Now, is it definitively proven that its WMDs? No,but we cant prove it isn't either. Sadaam had every motivation to not have stockpiles visible when inspectors came. Because he thought he could do the same rope a dope he did in all inspections. But even if he destroyed stockpiles becuase he assumed the US woudl do another round of inspections, so long as he maintained his programs, he could be back up and running as soon as the inspectors "found nothing" the duelfler report already described this and said containment was in free fall.
But was sadaam even telling the truth about his subterfuge? We have scientists saying they lied to HIM about the capability they could provide. Namely, he wanted weapons, they didn't want to be murdered so they told him what he wanted to hear.
That then woudl be an example of him thinking he has weapons, but being lied to. It still explains why he would act the way he did though. Because he thinks he has weapons.
Any of those scenarios suggest that Sadaam had WMD"s or needed to show the world that he had WMD's. There is literally no evidence that Freder or Garage can come up with that would change the fact that so long as Sadaam was in power we'd need to either take him out, or continue containing him. (and containment was in free fall). if we had a inspections that found nothing who would believe that Sadaam was in fact not still trying to get weapons?
would Freder say containment should then end? Because there is no evidence of WMD stockpiles? Then the follow would be him restarting any programs that he had curtailed while inspections were ongoing, becuase its in his interest to have weapons or show the world that he does.
Even Clinton came to the conclusion that SO LONG AS SADAAM was in power, this would not change. And that's why cognress passed the Iraq Liberation Act. It was then US foreign policy to push for regime change in 1998!
The only difference then was how to achieve said regime change. There was no second guessing of the rationale to have regime change. Its the same rationale.
Donald Trump on Vladimir Putin: “I think I already talked about this guy. Were you not paying attention? You must have been in the stupid class. Putin is great. Big talent. I can definitely work with that guy. You’ll see.”
Donald Trump on Althouse. “She’s great. One of the top legal blogs on the internet. She might be the best law professor ever. Really powerful lady. I do not mess with Ann Althouse. Is it fancy Anne or plain Ann? I can never remember. But she’s a big name. Doing wonderful things on the internet. I think she ought to charge admission. Put up a pay wall or something. That’s my advice. Why would you give it out for free like that? You know she’s an atheist. Not very smart on the religion side. But we’ll make an exception for her. Not to worry, Outhouse. Is it Outhouse? Althouse? How do you say it? She’s always talking about pussy. I love that part. But don’t give it away for free!”
Donald Trump on Bernie Sanders (2004): “He’s a joke. He’s embarrassing. He’s a socialist! From Vermont! You got to be kidding me. Get a haircut. Loser.”
Donald Trump on Bernie Sanders (2016): “He’s very, very impressive. The people love him. Huge crowds. There’s definitely something going on. Keep an eye on that guy. He’s big. He’s a very big talent on the campaign side. I know he’s on the left, but come on. You got to give him credit. He’s one of the top people in this campaign. Bunch of losers on my side. I’ll take him out. Don’t you worry about that! But I’ll find room for him in my Administration. I’ll make him Secretary of the Universities. No, wait. Secretary of Education. See, we already have a spot for him! No question about it. I can work across the aisle. I got a little something for everybody. I know how to do it. I’m big, he’s big. He’s wrong on a few things. But I’ll set him straight. He probably hasn’t read Wealth of Nations. But you know, that’s a very big book. Not as long as the Bible. But it’s still a hard read. I’ll get him the Cliff Notes to Wealth of Nations. Give him a little homework and he’ll be fine. If I was on the left I would be feeling the Bern. For sure. He’s very big on the left. Huge talent.
Donald Trump on West Virginia: “Horrible place. Don’t vote for me, West Virginia. I don’t want your pathetic little votes. You’re an embarrassing state. If it was up to me, I’d kick you out of the country.”
Donald Trump on Utah: “Are you kidding me? Ugh. I am not going to Utah. Man, this campaign is taking forever. We ought to vote right away. Hurry up and vote! And don’t think about it too much. Just do it.”
Donald Trump on Rush Limbaugh: “Oh, he’s big. He’s huge. He’s a ferocious talent. I call him up, I go, ditto. We love to do that. Ditto! I don’t actually listen to him. He’s kind of a gasbag. But he’s right all the time. Ditto!”
Anglelyne wrote:
It would hardly be the first time there's been a point of agreement between me and the resident lefty loons. Not surprising that garage, a simple-minded re-bleater of disconnected lefty talking points, would hit on one of those now and again.
Doesn't bother me, but apparently you define your every conviction by its opposition to what Team B thinks, not whether you believe it's grounded in the truth.
NO, I would generally disagree with Team B because they are uttering lefty lunancy. Trumps argument that Bush lied us into war is simply not grounded in truth. And I was having the same arguments with OTHER lefties (beucase trump is not a conservative) when THEY were uttering the same lunacy.
if YOU then came out and said the same thing, I'd argue with YOU about it. So, its not who says it, but what is being said.
I have no interset in backing a leader of the republican party who engages in so thorough a blood libel, that most code pinkers wouldn't state outright, and think that he is a great choice to lead the party. Add it to the ever growing list of reasons I would NEVER vote for Trump. They are also the same reasons I would never vote for Hillary or Sanders, because they are the same lefty arguments. I'm sorry you are now in bed with the guy making them.
If you think that his arguments dont' matter, I wonder why you would think ANY republicans arguments matter? If he started arguing Bernie Sanders exact platform, would Trumpbots then say "Yay, socialism?" because its almost at that point.
So Trump went from making fun of Rosie to becoming Rosie. The toll of a long campaign.
(cont) also, hes not a war criminal. Obama had 7 years to make the case, or even point out the evidence where it showed Bush and CHeney did in fact lie about WMD's. Strangely though, no charges were ever brought. DOesn't stop you from insinuating that the charges are accurate.
Hence the reason you are either a lefty, or a donald Trump supporter. Really there is no difference.
Comment Whiz wrote:
jr565, you don't joke about it after sending someone else's children to die and get wounded in a war your lied us into. End of story.
he didnt make jokes about the kids dying. He made jokes about them not finding WMD's. Which actually makes him look bad.
he didnt lie us into it.
Are you a trump supporter or a code pink supporter? See how it doesn't really matter.
Every word you uttered with the exception of my name, is a lefty talking point. and bullshit.
jr565: NO, I would generally disagree...
Nobody cares what point you managed to miss this time, sperg-bot.
You are obtuse and repetitive to a degree that suggests a visit to a neurologist is in order.
It seems clear to me that the scar of a smoldering heap in Lower Manhattan has not healed for Donald Trump.
I do not believe Bush lied. I do believe he felt he had enough circumstantial evidence to justify a war.
We were on a war footing, with no war to fight; Afghanistan was too quick, and did not satisfy the blood debt that was owed after 9/11. Somebody was going to pay it, and Saddam volunteered by thwarting sanctions, refusing inspectors, and shooting at our planes patrolling the no-fly zone.
The rest is history.
Anglelyne wrote:
Nobody cares what point you managed to miss this time, sperg-bot.
and you are voting for Trump. So I think, I win.
garage mahal said...
Trump is the first Republican that correctly points out that Bush was president on 9/11."
FDR was president on December 7th. Indeed he was president for nine years on December 7th, Bush was only president nine months on 9/11 and thanks to the Democrats stalling for confirmation most of his Administration on 9/11 were Clinton holdovers. Also unlike FDR whose incompetence allowed the Japanese to sneak attack Pearl Harbor 9/11 hijackers were already in the US before Bush became president thanks to the incompetence of Clinton. Facts matter. Incidentally Bush never said WMDs were the only reason to invade Iraq, he said they were one of the reasons. Bush's when it comes to the WMD mistake is that he believed Clinton's CIA people, the British, the Russians and others including Saddam Hussein who pretended he was working on WMDs. Of course the Democrats sandbagging the war and thus encouraging the enemy to hold on also helped in snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory. In the meantime we have Obama who not only snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory in both Iraq and Afghanistan but took a stable situation in Libya and effed that up and worsen things in Syria and allowed China to start making problems in Asia. Everything Obama has touched has turned to shit. If Obama was only half as "bad" as Bush he would be four times more successful than he currently is. Incidentally the economy is tanking again (as if there ever was a recovery on Obama's watch) so he is and has been a total failure.
browndog wrote:
We were on a war footing, with no war to fight; Afghanistan was too quick, and did not satisfy the blood debt that was owed after 9/11. Somebody was going to pay it, and Saddam volunteered by thwarting sanctions, refusing inspectors, and shooting at our planes patrolling the no-fly zone.
The rest is history.
But you are ignoring the fact that all of that was done PRIOR to Bush taking office. Everthing was in place for the UN to pass 15 resolutions, we sanctioned Iraq, we bombed Iraq, we had no fly zones set up. We had a regime change policy in place. All before Bush ever set foot in the WH. I dont get why youd' think then that there wasn't an argument that Iraq needed to be dealt with and posed a threat.
The Iraq that Bush attacked was the same Iraq that clinton had passed a law over calling for a regime change. And the same Iraq who's containment failed. The same Iraq that dems was arguing had links to Al Qaeda and where OBL would boogie to if we attacked OBL too hard in Afghanistan
http://thehill.com/5564-remember--please-remember--boogie-to-baghdad
These were linkages set up BY CLINTON. Those don't go away simply because Bush becomes president.
From the link:
"If you’ve forgotten, here’s the short version of the story behind “Boogie to Baghdad,” taken from the Sept. 11 report:
IN 1996, after bin Laden moved from Sudan to Afghanistan, he wasn’t sure if he would be able to get along with his new Taliban hosts. So he made inquiries about moving to Iraq.
Saddam wasn’t interested. At the time, he was trying to have better relations with his neighbors — and bin Laden’s enemy — the Saudis.
But a bit later, Saddam apparently changed his mind. According to the report:
“IN MARCH 1998, after bin Laden’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden.”
Still nothing happened. But later:
“Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and bin Laden or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the [intelligence] reporting, Iraqi officials offered bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Laden declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative.”
It was in that context that Clarke believed that if the United States made bin Laden’s situation too hot in Afghanistan, then, in Clarke’s non-famous words, “old wily Osama will likely boogie to Baghdad.”
Now, that doesn’t at all suggest that Iraq had a role in Sept. 11, but it certainly does suggest a relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda."
1996-1999.All taking place before Bush was in office, and reflected in intelligence reports at the time.
if you look at the link it mentions that Cheney doesn't suggest there is evidence that shows Iraq was directly tied to Sadaam. But he does say there was evidence of potential cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda. based on intel gathered under clinton. It's the same intel.
I dont get why youd' think then that there wasn't an argument that Iraq needed to be dealt with and posed a threat.
I simply posed what I felt was Bush's motivation to invade Iraq. I felt the same then as I do now.
I am in no way agreeing or disagreeing.
I am deleting Comment Whiz and responses to Comment Whiz. This commenter is free to email and discuss the problem but should not continue to post.
and the idea that they didnt' find WMD's is actually wrong:
http://www.wired.com/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/
We found plenty of stuff buried there. But you have to remember that there was a LONG leadup to the war. Iraq had plenty of time to move stuff, destroy stuff or bury stuff. Our troops who were not inspectors kept stumbling on stockpiles of stuff that iraq had amassed over time and never revealed. Some of that stuff may have been buried since the previous inspections. No way to know since Iraq was consistently not providing info and hiding stuff back then too. THey had so much stuff they may not have realized it was still even buried.
But if you threaten war, and inspection and then argue about it for months, those you may inspect or go to war with may decide to dump stuff, move stuff or bury stuff. Why would you be surprised if inspectors didnt find it. We gave Iraq ample time to dispose of it.
Did Iraq direct inspectors to these stock piles? Of course not. Because Iraq didnt' want us to find them.
Professor Althouse,
Such disdain for expression of opinion from someone within the academy? You let foul comments insulting other commenters stand but you had issue with my remarks?
Worry not. This will be my final comment and I won't be coming to your blog anymore.
Auf Wiedersehen.
browndog wrote:
I simply posed what I felt was Bush's motivation to invade Iraq. I felt the same then as I do now.
I am in no way agreeing or disagreeing.
but you seem to be insinuating that we were just pissed. ANd needed to vent some steam. ANd here was Iraq just minding its business and we decided to attack them out of the blue based purely on our blood rage.
I'm saying that there were already reasons in place for us to even consider attacking Iraq. It wasn't just a random ME country we chose to attack.
Suppose the next president decides to ultimately attack Iran. (Not saying this is likely, only offering the hypothetical). Why would the president do so? Well, we are containing Iran, yes? Is that containment working? Or did the deal give them even more leeway to build nukes. any choice to go to war with them is based, at least in part, on our assumption about them tryign to get a nuke, which is why we are containing them. If containment is failing, then there is a greater likelihood that we woudl escaalte to war, because there is enough threat to warrant a containment, and that containment failed.
I may not agree with the decision to go to war, but I woudlnt say there was NO rationale behind it.
and the idea that they didnt' find WMD's is actually wrong:
True. Just not in the scale or capacity that was sold to the public.
The WMD threat Saddam posed to the free world to justify a full on invasion simply did not exist at that time.
In my view....
but you seem to be insinuating that we were just pissed. ANd needed to vent some steam. ANd here was Iraq just minding its business and we decided to attack them out of the blue based purely on our blood rage.
That is your (mis)characterization, not mine.
Mac McConnell said...
He inherited $40 million and turned into $4 billion. same as if had just invested in an index fund over the same time.
Actually he turned it into about $9-10 billion. Or about twice what he might have gotten from a hedge fund, using your analysis.
Not too shabby.
The $9-10 billion (I forget the exact amount)net worth comes from his 90 or so page financial filing, made under penalty of perjury, with the Federal Election Commission.
It has been available for download for 6-7 months now. As far as I know, nobody has disputed it.
So where do you come up with $4 billion?
John Henry
Thank you Bill Peschel.
VMac McConnell said...
He inherited $40 million and turned into $4 billion. same as if had just invested in an index fund over the same time.
Is that what you did, Mac?
He could have invested with Bernie Maddoff and been worth a hundred billion on paper if Bernie's clients had not been caught up in the crash
Methinks he doth protest too much! Accusing others of your crime of lying!
"Full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden, and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation"
More Shakespeare referring to the GOP debate.
Answer to "Did Bush lie his way to war with Iraq?".
Browndog:
"The WMD threat Saddam posed to the free world to justify a full on invasion simply did not exist at that time."
Answer to "Did Iraq failing its compliance test justify the regime change?".
Answer to "Why did Bush leave the ‘containment’ (status quo)?".
The enforcement procedure for the Gulf War ceasefire wasn't designed nor did Saddam's "denial and deception operations" (Iraq Survey Group) allow for a reliable measurement of Saddam's armament. Instead, the "governing standard of Iraqi compliance" (UNSCR 1441) was designed to measure Iraq's disarmament. The burden of proof was on Iraq. Iraq's guilt of armament was established at the outset of the ceasefire. There was no burden for the ceasefire enforcers to prove Iraq was armed - Iraq's guilt was presumed until cured by the mandated disarmament. If Iraq failed to prove it was disarmed as mandated, then Saddam continued to be armed and dangerous.
As such, the casus belli was established by neither the pre-war intelligence nor the post-war investigation. By procedure, the casus belli was established by the UNMOVIC finding of "about 100 unresolved disarmament issues" in the UNSCR 1441 inspections for Saddam's "final opportunity to comply" (UNSCR 1441) that confirmed Iraq had not disarmed as mandated.
Trump is right about Bush's lies.
The article linked to has links within it to articles from the time detailing the lies regarding Hussein's alleged WMD. It's hardly as if this is belated news. I well remember at the time wondering WTF Bush was on about in pushing for a war against Iraq. I remember at the time wondering where was the hard evidence to support the claims, rather than mere allegations and insinuations and fear-mongering references to "smoking guns in the shape of mushroom clouds."
It was apparent at the time they were lying and that those who believed them were credulous idiots. This is why those in Congress who voted in favor of ceding their war-making power to Bush to pursue his illegal invasion of Iraq are all complicit in war-crimes. In continuing the (expanding) wars once he took office, Obama and his enablers also became war criminals.
Someone above made a reference to my calling everyone war criminals "consistent, if boring and repetitive." Perhaps it is, but as so many refuse to acknowledge the plain truth, repetitive reminders are in order.
"There was no burden for the ceasefire enforcers to prove Iraq was armed - Iraq's guilt was presumed until cured by the mandated disarmament. If Iraq failed to prove it was disarmed as mandated, then Saddam continued to be armed and dangerous.
"As such, the casus belli was established by neither the pre-war intelligence nor the post-war investigation. By procedure, the casus belli was established by the UNMOVIC finding of "about 100 unresolved disarmament issues" in the UNSCR 1441 inspections for Saddam's "final opportunity to comply" (UNSCR 1441) that confirmed Iraq had not disarmed as mandated."
If you're going to argue for initiating a war of aggression against another country, the burden of proof sure as shit lies with the party pushing for war. That's like justifying the execution of a person accused of murder on the mere presumption of guilt. Moreover, as there was no immediate self-defense justification for invading Iraq, a vote of approval for war was required by the UN Security Council. Otherwise, under the treaty obligations imposed on all signatories of the UN Charter--of which we are one--any such invasion is illegal...as was our invasion of Iraq and as has been our expansion of military forces and/or military strikes/drone-bombing into any and every corner of the mideast we decide we want to lay waste to.
This ignores the fact that the UN Inspectors accounted for most of Hussein's weapons, and we were told by defector Hussein Kamel, (Saddam's son-in-law) that he had personally overseen the destruction of Iraq's prohibited weapons. (Kamel was later lured back to Iraq by Saddam with promises of forgiveness, and he was promptly executed.)
And, in pulling the second regime of UN Inspectors prematurely in order to commence the illegal (and long-pre-scheduled) invasion, we prevented Hussein from satisfying his obligation to prove no weapons remained extant. Again, that's like executing the aforementioned alleged murderer early purposely to prevent his defense lawyers from arriving at the death-house in time to provide the proof necessary to nullify the death sentence (along with the presumption--not finding, of guilt).
"It was also known that Saddam shipped much of his WMDs to Syria before the war. Satellite pictures showed long convoys moving between Baghdad and Syria."
No, he didn't.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा