From "Trump: I Didn’t Realize Bolton Supported Iraq War Until After I Hired Him" by Jonathan Chait (New York Magazine). Chait is reading the WSJ interview in which Trump says:
He had a lot of policy disputes, he and I. And after the first month or so, you know, I asked him one question. I said, “So, do you think you did the right thing by going into Iraq?” He said, “Yes.” And that’s when I lost him. And that was early on. That’s when I lost him. But no, I disagreed with much of the stuff he said. He was one of many people. I liked listening to many people, and then doing whatever is the right thing to do.
You didn’t ask him about Iraq before you brought him into the White House? If he regretted that?
No, but it didn’t … I knew all about his policy on Iraq. But that didn’t matter, frankly. Because he made a terrible mistake. And so did everybody else involved in Iraq and the Middle East, frankly. I never thought it was the right thing to do. And I’ve been proven right. But when he told me he still thinks it was the right thing to do, and was unable to explain it to me, I said, “Explain that to me, because I don’t think you can.’ And he could not explain it to me. So I said, “Do you say that just to make yourself feel good? Or do you say that because you really believe it?” He said, “I really believe it.” I said, “Well, then you’ve lost me because it’s just wrong.”...
[W]hen I asked him the question, so John, you were one of the people that were really pushing hard to go into the Middle East, to go into Iraq. Would you do it again? He said, Yes. And that’s where I said this guy is crazy.... I was talking to him. I said, So was that a mistake? I said, and it’s okay to admit you made a mistake, although that’s a big one. That’s a beauty. And I said, Do you think it was a mistake? And he said, No, I think it was the right thing to do. And I said, You know, you can’t explain that. You just can’t explain it.Why didn't Trump ask Bolton before he was hired whether in retrospect he still thinks it was the right decision to go into Iraq? Chait's answer is that that Trump is impulsive and reckless: He just didn't "bother." A more charitable reading of Trump — and I'm not saying the President deserves charity, just trying to balance things a little — is that he'd formed the opinion that everyone knows now that the Iraq War was a mistake. Trump was and is very proud of his opposition to the Iraq War, his astute perception from the beginning that it was a mistake. But he lacked the astute perception to see that there were still some people who believed the war was a good idea and to notice he was hiring one of those people.
You know this morning when I saw this tweet of Trump's...
Bolton’s book, which is getting terrible reviews, is a compilation of lies and made up stories, all intended to make me look bad. Many of the ridiculous statements he attributes to me were never made, pure fiction. Just trying to get even for firing him like the sick puppy he is!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 18, 2020
... I was going to snark You knew he was a snake.... you know Trump and that song lyric he's recited many times about the woman who takes in and nurtures a snake that ultimately bites and kills her?
“Oh shut up, silly woman,” said the reptile with a grinBut I guess Trump didn't know Bolton was a snake.
“You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in
Posts
98 comments:
Yes, it was a massive mistake to hire Bolton. But Trump still wins about 40 states.
Yes, bad hire.
But we should have no regrets about the actual toppling of Saddam. About some other stuff over there . . . sure.
Don’t most R’s still think the Iraq war was a good idea?
Makes sense. He knew where Bolton was coming from. But he did not realize that Bolton did not see blowing up the Middle East as the wrong move, even after the fact. That's Bolton in a nutshell. He had many good ideas, but he was never open to the possibility that any of his ideas were wrong. And virtually everybody is wrong some times. Even Barack. Though, like Bolton, he'd never think so.
he wasn't a policy maker, as the arms control chief, he was against the clerisy that almost always misses their target,
We don't know if the Iraq war would have worked. The dems switched sides and told the resistance to keep blowing stuff up and we'll leave, in order to undermine Bush.
Trump is such a stable genius that he keeps learning well known facts every day.
Who hasn't made a bad decision about someone? Anyone? It shouldn't be the end of your career if you did make a bad decision.
Hey, I didn't know what he believed, I just knew he had a great 'stache and the left would freak out over him. Which they did.
Trump got a lot of bad advice early on from people like Priebus and the Establishment types. I have read that he likes to have a variety of opinions around him, which is a good thing. The trouble is that all these DC types think they should be running the country. It's not just Senators who look in the mirror and see a president.
One of the things I admire about Trump is his willingness to try so many different out-of-the-box things (or people. See his first Sec State as an example), and if they don't work, reject them, learn from them, and move on.
His "reasons" for hiring Bolton are no doubt myriad. To try to reduce them to one "reason" is foolhardy.
Trump hired Bolton as his National Security Advisor.
Bolton, after his quixotic presidential dalliances, thought he could wheedle in as Trump's National Security Co-president.
Trump was thrilled when informed that Althouse submitted consecutive posts centered on him.
The word 'Trump' was a significant part of both headlines. "Good Branding," he remarked.
excerpt from Before We Were All Dead, M. Mezzrow - 2031
This quote from Bolton sums up why Trump can make that claim: “erratic,” “impulsive” and “stunningly uninformed” Mr. Trump could make “irrational” decisions and “saw conspiracies behind rocks.”
Mcmaster was for the iran deal, we know now he is firmly in chinas pocket through his board seat in zoom.
Sometimes when people ask “why?”, it isn’t because they don’t know. It’s because they want to see if you know. Or, more accurately, why you think you know. I see Trump do this a lot. His mistake is thinking other people have the capacity to learn from their errors. Many don’t. Particularly, the inflated functionaries of the Establishment.
You are asking a lot from a man who didn't think it beneath him to get into a tussle with the manager of a professional wrestler and pin him to the floor. On TV! You will say it was staged, as of course it was, but the fact that Trump agreed to an act that personified his character in real life shows something. He'll try anything once to see if it works. Bolton no doubt was recommended to him by a neo-con deep-stater. These war mongers can always be found hanging around the corridors of power in D.C., sometimes influential and sometimes not so much, in government or biding their time in think tanks. Trump gave Bolton a try and then put him on a shelf and ignored him until it was time to see him off.
.
In business, you can burn bridges - esp if you are top dog. In politics, burning bridges leads to something else.
I know many Trump supporters think his moves are all "I meant to do that" 3-level chess, but I doubt it. Trump is used to burning bridges without consequence. Doesn't work like that in politics. The other side is waiting with open arms and millions of dollars dangling.
I’m sure that a lot of people pushed Bolton at Trump for his purported expertise. I’m equally certain that Bolton assured Trump he’d be a team player, because if Bolton was a known quality, then by the time Bolton was hired it was very clear that Trump calls the shots and expects his subordinates to get in line and make it happen. In accepting the job Bolton was fooling himself.
"Don’t most R’s still think the Iraq war was a good idea?"
For what it's worth, as a young man I was staunchly against the Iraq war. And I've been consistent about that, and continue to be. Back then I think I would might have been considered a democrat? I don't know, I (like our host) tended to be more independent and usually voted a split ticket in the past.
One thing that I've noticed is that most of my more leftist friends are willing to say they were against the Iraq war, but are not only perfectly willing to vote for idiots like Kerry, Clinton & Biden who actually voted for it, but they are also on the same intellectual page as known moronic warhawks like Charlie Sykes, George Will, Max Boot, and yes, right now, even John Bolton. All of whom are currently democrats based on who they vote for.
To be antiwar today is, strangely(?), to be a Trump republican. Which is what I've become (and no more split ticket voting).
Bolton signed on to the original pnac statement in 97, but followups.
Trump doesn't go for yes men. Trump may have thought Bolton learned something about the errors in Iraq. Trump could have been cynical enough to use Bolton to play good cop, bad cop. Or a mixture of all. Was Iraq a mistake? It's execution may have been a mistake but toppling Saddam was not. Imagine what the situation would be now if he were alive and in power now.
Mcmaster worked on thr counterinsurgency strategy with petraeus in afghanistan
Chait imagines the President sitting in his office running Google searches.
Tell me which one of those men is more out of touch.
Like many of his hires, someone strongly recommended Bolton. I wonder whom. There are Bolton fans out there in the conservative world, but Bolton never saw a war or act of war he didn't like. Yes, it was an odd and terrible hire. Why have a National Security Advisor whose answer to every situation is attack and retaliate? You don't need to hear Bolton's opinion on anything, you can always write it yourself.
Once again the hypocrisy of the left is on display. The left has always hated Bolton and have seen him as a crazy dangerous hawk. Now they temporarily love him because he is trying to piss on Trump, whose lack of hawkish responses are more in line with their own position.
You are asking a lot from a man who didn't think it beneath him to get into a tussle with the manager of a professional wrestler and pin him to the floor. On TV! You will say it was staged, as of course it was, but the fact that Trump agreed to an act that personified his character in real life shows something. He'll try anything once to see if it works. Bolton no doubt was recommended to him by a neo-con deep-stater. These war mongers can always be found hanging around the corridors of power in D.C., sometimes influential and sometimes not so much, in government or biding their time in think tanks. Trump gave Bolton a try and then put him on a shelf and ignored him until it was time to see him off.
.
doc K said...
Trump got a lot of bad advice early on from people like Priebus and the Establishment types.
so, Trump wins BIG LEAGUE for the Republicans, even though he's unlearned in a Lot of things
So, the Republicans join with the democrats, to do EVERYTHING in their power to hinder Trump
SO, Trump FIRES lots of republicans
SO, those republicans now HATE President Trump
i've sortof been there.
My Parents paid for my college tuition
I drank and smoked my way out of college
My Parents REFUSED to pay for more tuition
I HATED them!!!!
however, i (unlike Republicans,) came to realize that my parents had been a big help, and later changed my ways and lived my life (sortof) right... Paying for my own tuition and completing college and going on to make enough money to retire at age 55
WILL the Republicans ever come to realize that President Trump has gotten them more than any other President in the last 50 years? i doubt it
Trump is a business man. He approaches politics from a business sense. There is an argument to be made that it's more effective and efficient.
A business hires and fires people all the time. Sometimes a business will hire someone that it truly only wants to hire for a specific project or specific phase of some business strategy. Bolton was likely one of those hires. Trump wanted to project a more hawkish stance and Bolton fulfilled that role. If that need goes away so does Bolton.
Flash forward to now where Bolton is trying to capitalize on his brief stint. Trump has to protect his brand. And this is the genius of Trump. He'll take the hit to his ego for "not knowing" in order to project the message that Bolton was for the Iraq war. This has an additional impact. It highlights that Trump was against the Iraq war. Trump traded something little, his lack of Googling skills, for something valuable, the man attacking me was responsible for a disastrous war and I was against it.
Conventional politicians would never allow their ego to give up the little thing. Trump does it all the time.
Did Trump know of Bolton's position? Of course he did. He didn't need to Google it. He'd been following the Iraq war, taking his own public stance on it at the time, and so certainly knew who the players in Bush administration were.
I believe the conversation happened as well. Trump was trying to put Bolton in his place. Bolton didn't take his new Boss's position, and his hawkish stance wasn't necessary to Trump anymore so Bolton was gone. If Bolton had supplanted his own ego at the time for the mission as outlined by the elected leader of the country at the time, he might have kept his job.
But we have an elite that seems to think the masses are asses, and that only unelected "smart" people should set policy.
Trump was putting together a staff from scratch with no personal experience in the job, few experienced Washington people around him, and active resistance from Obama holdovers. Plus he wanted to shake things up. Making some bad choices under those circumstances was not a crime. Not fixing them would have been.
I think Trump appointed Bolton because Trump had seen Bolton on Fox News a lot.
"What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?" (aka "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?")
I think of this quote because it fascinates me how, unlike every other President, Trump doesn't seem to have any character assassins to go out there and do the dirty work of cutting down someone's credibility and reputation. And he doesn't have gate keepers, not effective ones anyway. I could have told him to stay away from John Bolton and I don't know anything about anything, not really.
I can't believe Trump ran his businesses this way, I'm sure he didn't. Maybe that's the missing component here, people in "government service" are a whole different breed of worker and Trump has been slow to realize that.
Trump likes to be unpredictable and potentially dangerous.
Having a mean dog like Bolton tied up on the porch made it less likely anyone would come onto the lawn, even if Trump never intended to let him loose.
Eventually Bolton bit the hand that fed him.
Trump thinks he can "convert" anyone to his way of thinking.
Plus, he watches TV so much that he thought Bolton would be a popular hire.
is there difference between
- support going to war ;
- support war after it is over?
- not take results into consideration?
Two points
First, this is the second time in the last couple of weeks that you have referred to Trump having opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. "...his astute perception from the beginning that it was a mistake." What is the evidence for this? The only comment I am aware is that in 2002 Howard Stern asked Trump on his radio show whether Trump was in favor of invading Iraq and Trump said "Yeah, I guess so ..." Trump's tone of voice suggests doubt, and it is hardly a full-throated endorsement of the war, but it it certainly not "opposition" to the war. Trump was not shy. If he opposed the war, why not take a full page ad out in the NYT, as he did with the Central Park Five? That would have been opposition.
Second, Chait's article is silly. Chait suggests that Trump should have googled Bolton, and he would have found out Bolton's views. But google would have only linked to articles in the news papers, which Trump, of all people, would not have taken for the gospel truth. Why not ask during the interview? Same point. What person of experience takes an answer in an interview as the gospel truth? After hiring Bolton, Trump had a real opportunity to find out what Bolton really thought. In fact, that was his first real opportunity. Trump was obviously surprised that, given all the water under the bridge, Bolton could not, even in a private conversation with the President, admit to any doubts.
Further on Chait's google point, you can google Biden and Iraq War and find numerous articles, interviews, You Tubes of Biden's comments on the floor of the Senate, etc. all of which point in one direction -- that Biden was a fervent supporter of the Iraq War. Yet if a reporter asks Biden today whether he supported the Iraq War, it turns out that Biden was at the forefront of the resistance to the war. Just another example that you cannot trust google.
Two points
First, this is the second time in the last couple of weeks that you have referred to Trump having opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. "...his astute perception from the beginning that it was a mistake." What is the evidence for this? The only comment I am aware is that in 2002 Howard Stern asked Trump on his radio show whether Trump was in favor of invading Iraq and Trump said "Yeah, I guess so ..." Trump's tone of voice suggests doubt, and it is hardly a full-throated endorsement of the war, but it it certainly not "opposition" to the war. Trump was not shy. If he opposed the war, why not take a full page ad out in the NYT, as he did with the Central Park Five? That would have been opposition.
Second, Chait's article is silly. Chait suggests that Trump should have googled Bolton, and he would have found out Bolton's views. But google would have only linked to articles in the news papers, which Trump, of all people, would not have taken for the gospel truth. Why not ask during the interview? Same point. What person of experience takes an answer in an interview as the gospel truth? After hiring Bolton, Trump had a real opportunity to find out what Bolton really thought. In fact, that was his first real opportunity. Trump was obviously surprised that, given all the water under the bridge, Bolton could not, even in a private conversation with the President, admit to any doubts.
Further on Chait's google point, you can google Biden and Iraq War and find numerous articles, interviews, You Tubes of Biden's comments on the floor of the Senate, etc. all of which point in one direction -- that Biden was a fervent supporter of the Iraq War. Yet if a reporter asks Biden today whether he supported the Iraq War, it turns out that Biden was at the forefront of the resistance to the war. Just another example that you cannot trust google.
Trump has made a lot of bad hiring decisions, but at least he rectifies them.
Remember that he is not a DC party insider. This is what you get with a POTUS who is essentially a third party candidate.
We need more people like Trump to shake up a self-perpetuating political system. It is going to be messy, especially with the "Resistance" media.
A lot of Trump's first hires were 'highly recommended' by DC insiders. Makes me think that they were supposed to 'guide' Trump in the proper (at least, according to them) directions approved by the DC estasblishment.
When he realized what they were doing, he discarded them.
Bolton was another that just wasn't right for the job as TRUMP saw it. And in the end, Trump's the decider as to whether someone stays or goes.
There's also the possibility that Trump may have judged it to be very useful to have at least one advisor who was widely seen to be an unrepentant, unrelenting, uncompromising hawk. It doesn't mean he'd ever listen to him, only that Bolton could serve certain purposes when negotiating with other parties.
I think one of Trump's greater weaknesses is his willingness to believe people who are (ostensibly anyway) on his team and who are outwardly friendly and complementary to him. His default state of being seems to be trusting. I really believe that he honestly thought that there wouldn't be so many people around him who would betray him, lie to his face, and undermine him. He came from the business world, which certainly has treachery, but overall it tends to be more direct than the world of politics. There's less dissembling and misdirection in the business world than the political one.
I imagine that Trump trusted a lot of people around him who insisted that Bolten was the right guy for the job. He trusted them, so there was no need for him to personally look into Bolten.
No doubt there is someone, somewhere, who is planning on voting for Trump, but would change his mind and vote for Biden, or at least refrain from voting, if he just knew of this awful decision Trump made. But of course, that person doesn't read Johnathan Chait, and would quickly recognize him as a lying Left Fascist hack and discount his every word if he somehow encountered his scribblings.
This bubble thing has its points, I see why the Left constructed one. Makes life simpler.
Don’t most R’s still think the Iraq war was a good idea?
No, I don't think so -- and I'm one who came slowly to thinking it was a bad idea.
Bolton wants to help his #Resistance friends now. As if Bidens SJW staff will hire him to get them lunch...
No military excursion under a Republican President will ever be permitted to be a success again. The Press and the Democrats can and will always do whatever it takes to make it into a failure, regardless of the cost to our nation or how many lives that costs. For that reason alone, our military is almost useless beyond just active and psychological deterrence.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand." That's true, of course, and it certainly cannot win wars, especially when one half of it insists on losing at all costs.
Look at what the Democrats have been willing to do and accept just in 2020 alone in an effort at political power:
Use the highest level of federal law enforcement to spy on the political opposition.
Use the highest level of federal law enforcement to prosecute the political opposition.
Refuse to accept the results of a fair election.
Try to impeach a President for non-existent crimes.
Purposefully damage the economy to damage a President.
Encourage and promote widespread lawlessness, rioting, and ignore due process to damage the current administration.
Call for elimination of the police, who protect minorities more than anyone.
I don't know of any line they will not cross to win an election.
I'm not a Republican, and generally not real fond of them, but when people say both parties are the same, that's just obviously untrue. The Republicans have a real line and it's much closer to responsible fair play - maybe too close, but they still end up winning too.
The question is not if Democrats will do anything to win. They definitely will. The real question is will the American people fall for it. Sometimes they do, and sometimes it backfires, but the Dems will try it every time. This time they are pulling out all the stops, and despite all that damage it does, the most they will get is a temporary stay at the White House. Is it really worth it, my fellow American of the left?
Similar to Sessions situation. Why didn’t Sessions tell me he would recuse himself from the Russian probe? Did you ask? Why didn’t any of your advisors tell you that under written DOJ policy, Sessions was required to recuse himself?
Fervent Hawkery would be a good name for a band.
Where's Joe?
In defense of Hussein? A trial, perhaps?
That said, Iraq War 1.0 or 1.5 (its conclusion)?
Perhaps 2.0 a.k.a. the greater Middle East Wars, social justice, sodomy, abortion, rape-rape, and catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform?
Yes, bad hire and Trump should have done more due diligence.
But, keep in mind that the GOP establishment has draged its heels on working with him every step of teh way, and there is only so much one person, surrounded by people with at best conflicted loyalties, can do.
Which is part of why I voted for him in 2016--even if all his enemies were right about his bad points, how much damage could he do, acting alone and opposed at every step?
Whereas, with Clinton (and now, Biden) the potential damage is unlimited.
Even when Trump makes mistakes he is genius. His real genius is the Svengali power that no matter what he does you people will have his backside by all manner of Rube Goldberg-esque excuse making.
I actually thought Bolton was a good hire. I did not realize that Bolton wanted the US to be the Global Policeman.
Boltan just did not get the use of Economics, that Trump is leveraging, to restore American Power. And the fact that Trump wants to focus on what benefits the US, and get out of unfair deals. Trump, to my surprise, is being VERY careful about the use of the US Military overseas. And what Trump is doing overseas is getting positive results. I'm surprised how well Trump has done. It's interesting that all of Trump's core economic team is basically still there.
Reference:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/06/18/peter-navarro-shreds-john-bolton/#more-194716
AA once again trying to make sense of a fabulist. Elsewhere in the interview he riffs about discussing with Bolton whether to institute his flight ban from China to fight coronavirus, and Bolton being opposed. No reason for the opposition given. Of course Bolton had left the White House in 2019 before coronavirus.
The guy just says stuff. It has been well established that Trump's only recorded comment about Iraq, after the initial, fabulous success before things went south, was to Howard Stern and was mildly, conventionally supportive (itself a good sign to me). But later he claimed to be a loud, ignored prophet, and he sticks to that version.
Personally, I think the reason Trump hired Bolton is that he was a persistent critic of Obama, an actual prophet on Iraq. Trump is obsessed with his predecessor and his great press. The irony is that after exiting the Iran deal because Obama made it, resulting in worsening relations, Trump's most presidential moment was to pull back from the Iran brink Bolton was trying to push him over. I don't think Clinton would have taken us to the brink on iran or korea, but if she had somehow gotten to it i do think there was a greater danger of her going over. Trump's tendency to follow his instincts against hawks like Bolton will be maybe his one positive legacy.
Does Jonathan Chait have untreated rabies?
I wanted Bolton in there at first, and probably for the same reason Trump did. I wanted our enemies to believe we were hawkish, and ready to fight after years of backtracking and letting red lines be crossed. The problem comes when your hawk starts thinking he's the President and his opinions require action. Bolton's job was to look scary, not make policy. He didn't like that. Trump's job is to keep us out of war. Bolton was supposed to be Trump's pit bull on a leash, and that can be very effect deterrence, but you can't let your pit bull run loose. They don't do compromise or negotiating, but on a leash they can get others to consider that. Bolton wanted off the leash. He can run for President if he wants that.
yes see the screed that earned him the name, chaitred, bolton did sign on to the 97 statement, but he wasn't a major figure in the organization of the iraq intervention or aftermath,
His real genius is the Svengali power that no matter what he does you people will have his backside by all manner of Rube Goldberg-esque excuse making.
Whereas, the Democrats specialize in reverse Svengali stuff. Who would have thought a senile plagiarizer was a good candidate ? Hillary was so warm and Fuzzy. Obama was wish casting. Perot gave you Clinton. Palin should have been a warning. She was not a TV star, like Trump.
“Even when Trump makes mistakes he is genius. His real genius is the Svengali power that no matter what he does you people will have his backside by all manner of Rube Goldberg-esque excuse making.”
“The guy just says stuff. It has been well established that Trump's only recorded comment about Iraq, after the initial, fabulous success before things went south, was to Howard Stern and was mildly, conventionally supportive (itself a good sign to me). But later he claimed to be a loud, ignored prophet, and he sticks to that version.”
Oh boy, isn’t that the truth?
Trump is obsessed with his predecessor and his great press.
Nothing like getting things backwards to prove you are a Democrat.
Obama was obsessed that Trump would end his Iran deal. I never understood why Obama did that but I don't understand much about why Obama did stuff. I would such like to know who was running him since college.
Doc Mike: exactly, you people whoreship a TV Star
IgnatzEsq said...
One thing that I've noticed is that most of my more leftist friends are willing to say they were against the Iraq war, but are not only perfectly willing to vote for idiots like Kerry, Clinton & Biden who actually voted for it, but they are also on the same intellectual page as known moronic warhawks like Charlie Sykes, George Will, Max Boot, and yes, right now, even John Bolton. All of whom are currently democrats based on who they vote for.
6/19/20, 9:17 AM
It is true. Them dems want war. It was true back then, when most of them voted along with the R’s. But for some reason everyone pretends that they don’t.
The biggest error regarding invading Iraq, overthrowing Saddam and creating a democracy there was when the people who undertook the project judged themselves capable of pulling it off.
It’s one thing to have a subordinate with a different opinion, quite another to have one who is insubordinate.
BothSidesNow said...
Second, Chait's article is silly. Chait suggests that Trump should have googled Bolton, and he would have found out Bolton's views. But google would have only linked to articles in the news papers, which Trump, of all people, would not have taken for the gospel truth. Why not ask during the interview? Same point. What person of experience takes an answer in an interview as the gospel truth? After hiring Bolton, Trump had a real opportunity to find out what Bolton really thought. In fact, that was his first real opportunity. Trump was obviously surprised that, given all the water under the bridge, Bolton could not, even in a private conversation with the President, admit to any doubts.
6/19/20, 9:46 AM
So basically, we have to hire the employee so people could find out what’s in the employee(‘s heart and mind).
She didnt have the resources and was too civil, the resist we much of alaska tank and another tried to paint her as racist.
Trump hardly opposed the Iraq war. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-iraq-war/
He wasn't a war hawk, a la Bolton, but he wasn't an opponent.
And how can he claim that Bolton's material is classified, when he also says it's all lies? Because he cares nothing for the truth, just what makes him look good.
You would think that his crazy white mustache would immediately mark him as a fruitcake.
"Trump is obsessed with his predecessor and his great press."
The Press has a very important function, and when they refuse to do it, I wouldn't call that "great". It's certainly not great for the public in a democracy.
Although, I think the way they report on Trump is reprehensible, becuase it's dishonest, it's less dangerous than how that "great press" served us under Obama. No President should have a press they enjoy. If there ever was a President that should have a mostly positive press it should be one who is delivering economically, reducing the burdens of government, and preventing war, but results don't seem to enter into it. Influencing elections in a singular direction seems to be job one.
"The biggest error regarding invading Iraq, overthrowing Saddam and creating a democracy there was when the people who undertook the project judged themselves capable of pulling it off."
They did pull off all of that. It just didn't stay put, becuase the people there are like the rioters in our streets today. No principles, and only interested in what they can get for nothing. Neither deserves nor can sustain a democracy.
Howard said...Even when Trump makes mistakes he is genius. His real genius is the Svengali power that no matter what he does you people will have his backside by all manner of Rube Goldberg-esque excuse making
Howie,
It is abundantly clear that the leftist commenters on this sight make ridiculously weak arguments that reflect a lack of reasoning ability and a high tendency for projection. You guys are the sheep that invariably follow the DNC/MSM talking points.
the people there
How many Iraqis do you know, sir?
So am I reading correctly the following:
Article - "No, but it didn’t … I knew all about his policy on Iraq. But that didn’t matter, frankly. Because he made a terrible mistake. And so did everybody else involved in Iraq and the Middle East, frankly. I never thought it was the right thing to do. And I’ve been proven right. But when he told me he still thinks it was the right thing to do"
J Chait - "Trump said he didn't know about his Iraq position before hiring him"
Making shit up.
Can we PLEASE institute an actual Press rating system for intellectual honesty and accuracy? Folks like Taibbi and Greenwald would do well, Chait not so much.
Trump's job is to keep us out of war. Bolton was supposed to be Trump's pit bull on a leash.
Speak softly and carry a big stick. That said, the 16 trimesters of witch hunts, warlock trials, disease, adversity, and diverse conflicts of interest didn't help.
Trump sure does make it look easy. He doesn't even have to wiggle the line anymore, they come trotting right up to take the bait. Awesome.
Inga: "Oh boy, isn’t that the truth?"
Russia collusion/carter Page is a russian spy/the hoax dossier is "proven"/Kavanaugh is a rapist liar Inga would like to chat about "truth".
LOL
I am surprised Inga and Howard have time to post on Althouse given how many leftist are engaged in tracking down Jewish children attending school or going to playgroubds with their mothers.
Lefties hate that and are employing neighborhood Stasi snitches and phone hotlines to search those Jewish children out and then send armed police to roust them out of those schools and playgrounds.
One can only imagine the pride Inga and Howard feel at these "courageous" lefty actions.
The lefties will never forgive Trump for not starting all the wars the lefties claimed Trump would start.
Just as the dems never forgave Lincoln for freeing all those slaves of democrats.
As we’ve all learned from reality TV, you can’t fire bad people unless you hire bad people.
Well it's pretty obvious Trump made a huge mistake hiring a security risk who doesn't understand the repercussions of signing an NDA or why a memoir of his stint as National Security Advisor would require it to be vetted for confidential information before publishing. If this is the sort of "Top Men" helping to defend the country from Trump, God help us all.
Bill Harshaw said...
And how can he claim that Bolton's material is classified, when he also says it's all lies? Because he cares nothing for the truth, just what makes him look good.
So, you were there and know this? I am impressed Bill.
I would guess some is classified and some is lies but what do I know ?
Bob Boyd said...
The biggest error regarding invading Iraq, overthrowing Saddam and creating a democracy there was when the people who undertook the project judged themselves capable of pulling it off.
Remember the CIA had ZERO sources inside Iraq. I was supportive at first, partly because I thought they knew what they were doing, and partly because it was worthwhile to see if Arabs could rule themselves without tyrants. Tommy Franks was right and wisely retired. He wanted to smash them and get out. I think Rumsfeld did too. Let another general who wasn't crazy take over.
Howard said...
Doc Mike: exactly, you people whoreship a TV Star
Howard has forgotten what Reagan said when asked about being and actor before president. You lefties never learned the lesson of the 1960 debates. Kennedy was a TV star. First time that ever happened. The country has gone downhill since.
You seem incapable of learning the other point I made. Sarah Palin was the warning you lefties ignored. She needed to be good on TV, a pro. Trump's TV skills did not determine policy nor his support now. It just fends off your allies in the Media. Senile Joe is evidence you have learned nothing.
they had the rockstars, who were a bunch of ex baathist officers, they give up many of the tips like the hit on al doura farms, the general area where saddam was, iraq resembled chechnya for the russian a decade earlier, they capped dudayev released a mess of scorpions like the nasquabandi sufis who ran the tops of their security establishment, and who freely cooperated with al queda, but they weren't freedom fighters, they were the building blocs of islamic state,
Listened (public only given phone access) to the Bolton TRO argument until my phone connection cut off. Boy, I see why the Supreme Court did not try video. How incompetent both sides were with video technology. You'd think they would practice for such a high profile hearing.
They judge first very skeptical of government on its proposed remedy and then very skeptical of Bolton on his supposed compliance with his obligations. But that just made me more willing to buy the book to help defray his legal expenses after taking what turns out to have been a huge legal risk both to influence the election (and satisfy his enormous ego). (He could have quietly enjoyed his multi-million advance even if pre-publication review took until the next Democratic Administration.) Case may last a while as he racks up fees. But overall, I just kept thinking, more Barbra Streisand effect.
Worst fact for the government's case: it's complaining about stuff they didn't classify until politico Ellis undertook a new review (for which he does not appear to be qualified). Discovery should be interesting on USA good faith issue. The same thing that stunk to CJ Roberts in both the Census and DACA cases.
"Trump never realized how bad that was."
Shocking that Chalit would find a way to criticize and attack Trump after doing that in every single article since August 2015. Surprising indeed.
Bush lied about Iraq. Which isn't surprising since he pretty much lied about everything to get elected in 2000. He didn't just lie about 'weapons of mass destruction' aka obsolete nerve gas. He lied by omission. Never did he tell the american people - BEFORE THE WAR - that once we got rid of Sadamm, we were going to embark on a nation building program that would last for years, cost thousands of lives, and almost a Trillion dollars. If he had told the truth, the USA public would never supported it.
But then if he'd told us he was going to give us Roberts and Harriet Miers, or that cutting social security and Amnesty for illegals were his two big Domestic priorities, he never would've been re-elected.
As Bolten, I don't know how you can detect how dishonest and disloyal someone will be, without a track record. Bolten not only broke his NDA, he published a book with classified data in it. Further, he did what no NSA has ever done, attack the President and revel personal conversations with the POTUS while the President is still in office.
What he's done is so far out of the norm, its hard to see how Trump could've foreseen it. I doubt this will end well for Bolten. Who's going to hire him after this? The Left may appreciate his attacks on Trump but they still hate him. And he still couldn't get confirmed by the Senate for any job.
“Before We Were All Dead, M. Mezzrow - 2031”
I’d love to read it, except....
To this day, I have yet to meet a former Trump supporter. But to my amazement, a LLR friend who has been a rebid NeverTrumper sent me a note saying that his view of Trump has not changed in the least, but this time, he is going to vote for him in November.
Trump understands us deplorables.....and he's creating more of them
- Krumhorn
Bolton published critically about his time as Bush's UN Ambassador while Bush in office: "Surrender Not An Option." But Trump no doubt loved him because while his predecessor in office Bolton published "How Barack Obama Is Endangering Our National Sovereignty" (available on Amazon for a few bucks). I have no doubt more than one person warned Trump he was hiring a snake and would come to regret it (if the world did not blow up first).
But that just made me more willing to buy the book to help defray his legal expenses
Thank god for fools. Even if one is born every minute, they can be hard to line up to buy a book. I'll bet you have Hillary's book there on the shelf but I'll bet you haven't read it. There is such a thing as too much enthusiasm.
Don’t most R’s still think the Iraq war was a good idea
I think it was a good idea. There is an argument to be made that it resulted in the denuclearization of Libya.
After Sept 11 we couldn’t maintain the status quo with Iraq.
It was the peace that was bad. Blame that on the elites in the state dept. we basically did everything g we didn’t do with Japan after WWII.
Michael K: Hillary?! I have bought none of the 8 she has put her name to. Have you bought any of the gazillion Trump has put his name to? I did check one of Bolton's out of the library once, but only to read about his early life. He graduated from the same college 4 years before I started. And I was curious to see what the chicken hawk had to say about Vietnam.
Remember the CIA had ZERO sources inside Iraq. I was supportive at first, partly because I thought they knew what they were doing, and partly because it was worthwhile to see if Arabs could rule themselves without tyrants. Tommy Franks was right and wisely retired. He wanted to smash them and get out. I think Rumsfeld did too. Let another general who wasn't crazy take over.
OIF started out well. But Garner/Bremer was the hinge.
"OIF started out well. But Garner/Bremer was the hinge."
Bush's bag bois for corporate $ MiC $ transfers from US taxpayers to pals in KBR, HaL, RTX... etc.....ad nauseam?
"What do the Persian Gulf, the Caspian Sea and the Balkans have in common? U.S. domination in these areas serves the interests of corporate multimillionaires such as Dick Cheney. As George Bush's secretary of defense..."
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2000-08-10-0008100507-story.html
Trump's mindset is that people who show up regularly at Fox news are fully vetted rock ribbed conservatives that's on team trump, unlike never trumpers who are regulars at CNN or MSNBC
The reason bolton was hired was because he kept praising trumps foreign policy while he was at fox
PubliusFlavius said...
"OIF started out well. But Garner/Bremer was the hinge."
Bush's bag bois for corporate $ MiC $ transfers from US taxpayers to pals in KBR, HaL, RTX... etc.....ad nauseam?
I can't tell from that whether you understand, and if so, agree or disagree with, my point.
So Lamberth order accorded with his questions to the parties. Looks like by buying book I won't be lining Bolton's pockets. And will be pleasing POTUS who proclaims the decision a big victory. If Morrell could have said that at outset he could have saved everyone 2 hours.
Post a Comment