Buzzfeed: Trump Wrote of Threat Posed by Iraq WMDs in 2000; There Is No Contemporaneous Evidence That Trump Opposed Iraq War Before 2004

Say what you want about Buzzfeed (and I'll join you), but a quote from one of Trump's own books is pretty solid.

So is the absolute lack of evidence of Trump's opposition to Iraq before 2004. We all "know" he opposed the Iraq War before it began because he keeps telling us so, now; but no one has actually been able to locate a quote of his, from the critical period of 2002-2004, when he actually said so at the time.

Here's what Trump wrote (or Trump's ghostwriter wrote) in 2000's The America We Deserve.

Consider Iraq. After each pounding from U.S . warplanes, Iraq has dusted itself off and gone right back to work developing a nuclear arsenal. Six years of tough talk and U.S. fireworks in Baghdad have done little to slow Iraq's crash program to become a nuclear power. The'’ve got missiles capable of flying nine hundred kilometers--more than enough to reach Tel Aviv. They've got enriched uranium. All they need is the material for nuclear fission to complete the job, and, according to the Rumsfeld report, we don’t even know for sure if they’ve laid their hands on that yet. That’s what our last aerial assault on Iraq in 1999 was about. Saddam Hussein wouldn’t let UN weapons inspectors examine certain sites where that material might be stored. The result when our bombing was over? We still don’t know what Iraq is up to or whether it has the material to build nuclear weapons. I'm no warmonger. But the fact is, if we decide a strike against Iraq is necessary, it is madness not to carry the mission to its conclusion. When we don't, we have the worst of all worlds: Iraq remains a threat, and now has more incentive than ever to attack us.

This was during the period when Clinton was conducting what was derided as "maintenance bombing" on Iraq, bombing a site here or there. Many people, including myself, found this unsatisfactory; we didn't want to just maintenance-bomb him forever. We saw him as a threat, and thought if he was a threat, he should be put out of power.

Apparently Trump agreed in 2000.

Now, one could say "Well, they lied to Trump, too."

Well you could say that. Until you realize that Trump was writing before Bush was president, so, I have to insist once again: It was not Bush that lied. It was conventional wisdom under Clinton that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Clinton said so himself in the run-up to the War in Iraq, and that's why his wife voted in favor of it.

We've been through all this. Every single person here has. Every single person here knows that the reason we all thought Saddam Hussein had WMDs is that we heard it from four different presidents, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and then Bush the Younger, and in fact we know he actually used them during Reagan's term (against Iran) and the Elder Bush's term (against his own people, or, rather, the Kurds, whom he ruled, but considered to be subhuman).

There was a 60 Minutes episode about the after-effects of a Hussein bombing of a Kurdish town with VX nerve agent. It was pretty horrifying to see young men, hopping around, palsied, scorched by permanent nerve damage, now turned into shambling, quivering spastics by Hussein's VX.

For life. For life. This was years after the actual attack. This wasn't something that was going away after a period of healing.

The idea that Bush schemed with neo-cons to lie is... Lord we used to be smarter than this. Are we really now adopting the 2003 MoveOn.org theory of the war?

Posted by: Ace at 04:27 PM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 First

Posted by: Arson Wells at February 15, 2016 04:29 PM (UnJ7w)

2 Third

Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 15, 2016 04:29 PM (ubByS)

3 *Counting*

Posted by: "Aliens" guy at February 15, 2016 04:29 PM (ubByS)

4 Please please please explain this one away Trump heads.

Posted by: Arson Wells at February 15, 2016 04:30 PM (UnJ7w)

5 What is Trump's user name at Democratic Underground?

Posted by: Benji Carver at February 15, 2016 04:31 PM (OD2ni)

6 Liar, liar, liar. Liar! LIAR!

Posted by: Trump in the form of Power Baboon at February 15, 2016 04:31 PM (UnJ7w)

7 As an HA transplant I am feeling at home. Ace is AP talking about Trump in every post.

Posted by: NotCoach at February 15, 2016 04:32 PM (rsudF)

8 GOPe '16, no exceptions

Posted by: ChocoCheese at February 15, 2016 04:33 PM (OvUux)

9 >>The idea that Bush schemed with neo-cons to lie is... Lord we used to be smarter than this. Are we really now adopting the 2003 MoveOn.org theory of the war?

Who is we, pale face?

Posted by: JackStraw at February 15, 2016 04:33 PM (/tuJf)

10 Uhh...Cruz's is a real nasty guy.

Posted by: Trump Super Fan wearing his best "Who Farted?" t-shirt at February 15, 2016 04:34 PM (UnJ7w)

11 "The idea that Bush schemed with neo-cons to lie is... Lord we used to be smarter than this. Are we really now adopting the 2003 MoveOn.org theory of the war?"

That's my excuse. Plus, I was drunk. Hic.

Posted by: Grandma Hillary at February 15, 2016 04:34 PM (OD2ni)

12 Trump about to be on that screwball M Savage show. Gonna talk about how he's going to sue Cruz. This ought be rich.

Posted by: JROD at February 15, 2016 04:34 PM (wnwJC)

13 In fact, I'm pretty sure a lot of pro-war people have found it psychologically easier to just say "I was lied to about WMD!" than face up to the fact that it was an error in judgement.

Posted by: Harun at February 15, 2016 04:34 PM (UBBWX)

14 I have had the argument with more than one lib about Clinton warning Bush that he'd have to take care of Saddam Hussein sooner rather than later.

Invariably, libs put their hands over their ears and go, "I can't heeeeaarrr you!!!" "Boooosh lied, people died!!!!eleventy!!!!" ad nauseum.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 15, 2016 04:35 PM (FsuaD)

15 See also, Trump's losing Iowa and then decrying "dirty tricks" and demand a do-over.

"But this time I'll invest in a ground game!"

I'm sure Bush and Rumsfeld would like a do-over, too, Donald.

Posted by: Harun at February 15, 2016 04:35 PM (UBBWX)

16 I saw Weapons of Mass Destruction open for The Hate Bombs at South by Southwest back in 2004!

Posted by: garrett at February 15, 2016 04:35 PM (X5+7H)

17
So then logically, Trump is currently posing as an anti "W" type, to squelch Jeb's bro moment and attract conspiracy types?
Okay, guess that would square the circle.
Seems crazy, so crazy, it just might work?
Alternatively, he's got Alzheimer's and doesn't remember what his position was at the time.
Alternatively, he's a politician without a scruple and will say whatever he thinks he needs to say to win.
If so, he's not much different than the rest, he's just more confident about what he can get away with.

Posted by: simplemind at February 15, 2016 04:35 PM (C6xeQ)

18 Ace never calls anymore. I feel so used.

Posted by: Marco Rubio's Garbage Can at February 15, 2016 04:35 PM (12kBq)

19 I for one, was never smarter than this.

Drunk? Well yeah.

High? Most certainly.

Smarter? um uh. What was the question again?

Posted by: Suppressed Flasher at February 15, 2016 04:35 PM (X+nFp)

20 "12 Trump about to be on that screwball M Savage show. Gonna talk about how he's going to sue Cruz. This ought be rich."

Caught those two by accident about a month ago. They should get a room.

Posted by: Benji Carver at February 15, 2016 04:36 PM (OD2ni)

21 "But, but -

"We gave Saddam his VX! In fact we put him in power and gave him most of his weapons!

Signed,

Every freaking lefty I knew ca. 2002-2003

PS: No, we didn't, though disgracefully we seem to have looked the other way; no, we didn't; and, Do the words Soviet client state mean anything to anyone anymore?

Posted by: JPS at February 15, 2016 04:36 PM (1kg1C)

22 So if Trump does sue over Cruz' eligibility and it's kicked straight to the Supreme Court, what happens with a tie?

Posted by: Brian in New Orleans at February 15, 2016 04:36 PM (UBzPO)

23 The idea that Bush schemed with neo-cons to lie is... Lord we used to be
smarter than this. Are we really now adopting the 2003 MoveOn.org
theory of the war?

Ugh. Please, no.

Why are we rehashing this?
I know Trump said it in the debate --- but was that really the biggest takeaway, that Trump seized the opportunity for a cheap shot? I skipped the debate because these have become the MSM's game of siccing GOP candidates on each other.

Posted by: Lizzy at February 15, 2016 04:37 PM (NOIQH)

24 This is the type of shit why we're so pissed at the Bush family. If Dubya had defended himself from the lies for the left, we wouldn't be having this crap nonsense now.

Posted by: phreshone at February 15, 2016 04:37 PM (12kBq)

25 It has to be painful for the Trumpsters to begin to realize what a posturing windbag he is. At least he got some ideas that were taboo to express out in the open.

Posted by: Hank at February 15, 2016 04:37 PM (bV27x)

26 I have both defended and attacked the positions of each candidate as warranted, but Trump has jumped the shark with me.

Everyone knows how I feel about Rubio, that's been clear for a while, but I swear I'd now walk barefoot through a trail of fire ants to vote for him before Trump.

He is a petty, narcissistic, think-skinned, contemptuous jackass of a tiny little man.

If he gets the nomination you will have to tie my ass to a team of mules to drag me to the precinct in November.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 15, 2016 04:38 PM (8PbKi)

27 Not to be too conspiratorial, but we know what some folks mean when they use the term "neocons," don't we? Kind of like the international bankers?

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at February 15, 2016 04:38 PM (5f5bM)

28 The Gold-Plated Dumpster Fire candidate is running out of oily rags.

Posted by: TexasJew at February 15, 2016 04:38 PM (eH7x7)

29 >>This was during the period when Clinton was conducting what was derided as "maintenance bombing" on Iraq

Everybody knows that Armies run on Baby Formula and Aspirin, Ace.

Posted by: garrett at February 15, 2016 04:38 PM (X5+7H)

30 Trump is parroting back popular belief. Doesn't matter that it isn't true. Popular belief is that Bush lied, people died.

Posted by: ThunderB at February 15, 2016 04:38 PM (zOTsN)

31 In regards to Iraq, its not as if Saddam wouldn't have tried to get WMD again, if he was allowed to.

Sanctions were going away.

Posted by: Harun at February 15, 2016 04:39 PM (UBBWX)

32 I did my time during the first gulf war.

As far as the lead up to the second-

I was not sold on it until Powell went to the UN and gave his presentation about those damned "aluminum tubes".

That was what pushed me over. Aluminum tubes.

Posted by: Suppressed Flasher at February 15, 2016 04:39 PM (X+nFp)

33 So if Trump does sue over Cruz' eligibility and it's kicked straight to the Supreme Court, what happens with a tie?
Posted by: Brian in New Orleans

You do the hokey-pokey.

Posted by: dogfish at February 15, 2016 04:39 PM (0O2Lr)

34
Why are we rehashing this?
I know Trump said it in the debate --- but was that really the biggest takeaway, that Trump seized the opportunity for a cheap shot? I skipped the debate because these have become the MSM's game of siccing GOP candidates on each other.
Exhibit A -- no one is watching the debates anyone except for people who are working on the freaking campaigns. Its all going to be about tv ads at this point. Which is why Trump is getting hinky. Its money spending time.

Posted by: simplemind at February 15, 2016 04:39 PM (C6xeQ)

35 very nice points. Yeah, so W lied, huh? He just came up with this one day.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 15, 2016 04:39 PM (w8QP4)

36 PS: No, we didn't, though disgracefully we seem to
have looked the other way; no, we didn't; and, Do the words Soviet
client state mean anything to anyone anymore?

Posted by: JPS at February 15, 2016 04:36 PM (1kg1C)

Yeah, the fact that the shells were 122mm and 152mm is a subtlety lost on the Left that claims we manufactured them.

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at February 15, 2016 04:39 PM (5f5bM)

37 I have a very clear memory of a political cartoon from Clinton's administration.

It was in Saddam's office and he was meeting with someone (UN investigators maybe?). Anyway he was hiding a nuke under a lampshade.

"See, nothing to see here!" it read.

This cartoon appeared in Time magazine for children

Posted by: Lauren at February 15, 2016 04:39 PM (3DIzJ)

38 trump has been poo-pooing the Iraq war for a while so I assumed that he actually said something in 2001/2002.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 15, 2016 04:39 PM (w8QP4)

39 Bush bombed all the baby milk factories in Iraq. I saw it on TV.

Posted by: Donald Trump at February 15, 2016 04:40 PM (OD2ni)

40 Posted by: Lizzy at February 15, 2016 04:37 PM (NOIQH)

Because Orange Face is now openly running as a liberal progressive using Code Pink talking points.

He is a fake and a fraud. But I get it, he's gonna build the Great Wetback Wall of America.

Posted by: Arson Wells at February 15, 2016 04:40 PM (UnJ7w)

41 The Gold-Plated Dumpster Fire candidate is running out of oily rags.
Posted by: TexasJew

*golf clap*

Posted by: dogfish at February 15, 2016 04:40 PM (0O2Lr)

42 Please please please explain this one away Trump heads.
Posted by: Arson Wells at February 15, 2016 04:30 PM (UnJ7w)

There's nothing to explain. He's lying for political gain.

It pisses me off that he's playing to the left already, like he's already got the nomination sewed up.

Posted by: Ghost of kari - WAR at February 15, 2016 04:40 PM (ubByS)

43 >>>Not to be too conspiratorial, but we know what some folks mean when they use the term "neocons," don't we? Kind of like the international bankers?

yeah but I don't sense trump as anti-semitic.

But, I was going to say, really, there is no reason to jsut lie and lie about these things EXCEPT if you're an Israel Firster (as they say) who wants to trick gentiles into fighting Jewish wars.

That seems to be the only plausible explanation, if you accept the "deliberate lie" thesis.

That's why people pushing this obsess over All the Jews in the neocon movement.

But I don't sense that Trump is anti-semitic. At least I've never heard a whisper to that effect.

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 04:40 PM (dciA+)

44 As a private citizen with no access to government intelligence data, I also thought there would be WMD. Because I believed our president. And he let me down.

And yes, I am *very* angry at Bush or his team for misleading me about that fact.

They don't get a pass on that. That's part of the reason the GOPe has to go.

Posted by: Just Sayin' at February 15, 2016 04:41 PM (2kjDY)

45 "Hans blix had five months to find weapons. He found nothing. We've had five weeks. Come back to me in five months. If we haven't found any, we will have a credibility problem."

Chuckie Krauthammer.

Boys, we have a crediblity problem. "Make the neocons defend Iraq Again!"

Posted by: bjk at February 15, 2016 04:41 PM (py8bF)

46 but a quote from one of Trump's own books is pretty solid.

Oh that's delicious! I'll wash it down with a nice Sauternes and a gulp of Schadenfreude.

Posted by: Bandersnatch, Opus/Bill the Cat 2016 at February 15, 2016 04:41 PM (1xUj/)

47 31
In regards to Iraq, its not as if Saddam wouldn't have tried to get WMD again, if he was allowed to.

Sanctions were going away.

Posted by: Harun at February 15, 2016 04:39 PM (UBBWX)

Actually, Saddam was trying very hard to hide the fact that he didn't, even from his own generals. Well, unless you count massive stockpiles of chemical weapons, which were WMD last time I checked.

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at February 15, 2016 04:41 PM (5f5bM)

48 I was born a poor Hispanic child.

Posted by: Jeb! at February 15, 2016 04:42 PM (ieoTI)

49
"If he gets the nomination you will have to tie my ass to a team of mules to drag me to the precinct in November"

Then, in 2017, you will be pursued through the ruins of the US by a terminator robot in the form of Hillary!
(cue theme music)

Posted by: simplemind at February 15, 2016 04:42 PM (C6xeQ)

50 Trump sounds so much like a 2004-era Democrat on stage. Probably because, you know, he is one.

Posted by: cjw at February 15, 2016 04:42 PM (7SQMF)

51 Bush bombed all the baby milk factories in Iraq. I saw it on TV.

***
Really, this is the way to handle it. Hashtag it to death with the most insane bullshit claims. #IraqTruther

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 15, 2016 04:42 PM (8PbKi)

52 >>> trump has been poo-pooing the Iraq war for a while so I assumed that he actually said something in 2001/2002.

i've seen people objecting before, asking "Where are these statements?" Chuck Todd just asked him at a press conference where we could find these statements in opposition; Trump said the question was "cute" and then started saying he could point him to "all these stories" and yet none have yet been provided to the press.

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 04:42 PM (dciA+)

53 I skipped the debate because these have become the MSM's game of siccing ~~GOP candidates~~ conservative blog commenters on each other.

Posted by: Lizzy at February 15, 2016 04:37 PM (NOIQH)

Fixed?

Posted by: Golfman at February 15, 2016 04:42 PM (oxcYa)

54 "Trump is parroting back popular belief. Doesn't matter that it isn't true. Popular belief is that Bush lied, people died."

Yes, this is his usual tactic. Take a anything goes line of attack and push it.

Ben Carson is pathological -like a child molester! He's not a good doctor - look into it!

Cruz is Canadian!

Now, don't get me wrong, when trump has good ammo, this works great!

Bush is low energy.

Clinton is a crook.

The problem is it doesn't always work, and can backfire.

Bush, your brother lied! for example, or the Carson stuff.

Posted by: Harun at February 15, 2016 04:42 PM (UBBWX)

55 Lord we used to be smarter than this.

The age of the internet.

What we expected:

"Information wants to be free."

What we got:

"Fire cannot melt steel. The sun has no affect on the climate. Donald Trump is a rock-ribbed conservative."

Posted by: krakatoa at February 15, 2016 04:43 PM (RCS9o)

56 Well you could say that. Until you realize that Trump was writing before Bush was president, so, I have to insist once again: It was not Bush that lied. It was conventional wisdom under Clinton that Saddam Hussein had WMDs.

It wasn't just "conventional wisdom"; it was known fact. Then the other hussein threw the UN turds out and claimed that he had gotten rid of the WMD arsenal all on his own ... without any paperwork, which everyone with a brain doubted.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 15, 2016 04:43 PM (zc3Db)

57 "Yeah, the fact that the shells were 122mm and 152mm is a subtlety lost on the Left that claims we manufactured them.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at February 15, 2016 04:39 PM (5f5bM)"

_______________________________________________

And do you know why that is? Because no one took my presidential bid seriously, damn it!

Posted by: Lincoln Chafee at February 15, 2016 04:43 PM (rsudF)

58 But I don't sense that Trump is anti-semitic. At least I've never heard a whisper to that effect.

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 04:40 PM (dciA+)

But quite a few of the Trumpsters/former Paulistas/former Perot voters are. Look about 2 posts below your last one and get a flavor.

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at February 15, 2016 04:43 PM (5f5bM)

59 If Trump keeps it up he's going to drag Cindy Sheehan out of the retirement she's been on since a Dimowit became prezzy. She'll be hitting the Jeb campaign events hard.

Posted by: Hank at February 15, 2016 04:43 PM (bV27x)

60 Trump has become an embarrassment to this whole process. I initially supported him vigorously while he was shouting inconvenient truths and I loved that all of the smart guy pundits had egg all over their faces with each pronouncement that Trump was finished. But I'm done, and frankly I've been done with him since he started up with the Cruz Canadian stuff.

Posted by: Matty at February 15, 2016 04:43 PM (SgYQy)

61 Here we go again.

Trumps audience is bigger than Bush loyalists and sycophants still looking to defend their family honor.

Bush SR was a disaster, Bush the lesser was a disaster, Jeb Bush would be a disaster, thanks to Donald Trump he will never be President.

I do not care that Trump is gilding the lilly, or making shit up.

George W Bush did not care enough to contemporaneously correct the record.

George W Bush did not care enough to speak out as the SCOAMF undid everything we did in Iraq.

I have nothing but contempt for George W Bush and the Bush family for their actions in office, their setting the stages for Clinton and Obama and generally being a disaster to our Repbublic.

In fact a cannot even come up with a single enduring accomplishment by these two men other than ruin.

Posted by: Kreplach at February 15, 2016 04:44 PM (qM9Xi)

62 >>So if Trump does sue over Cruz' eligibility and it's kicked straight to the Supreme Court, what happens with a tie?

I believe that in such a case the last reviewing court's ruling is affirmed by default.

Posted by: Jeffrey Pelt at February 15, 2016 04:44 PM (veJi0)

63 There's also the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, making regime change in Iraq official U.S. policy. Passed by Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support, signed into law by President William Jefferson Clinton.

Posted by: Semi-Literate Thug at February 15, 2016 04:44 PM (/f6Nd)

64 It sure would be news to him about his orthodox jew daughter...

Posted by: ChocoCheese at February 15, 2016 04:44 PM (OvUux)

65 There are a whole lot of clips and quotes on Trump out there that do not show him in a good light.

Posted by: Skip at February 15, 2016 04:44 PM (BkhW6)

66 eh, maybe he was quiet in 2001/2002, the 18month long rushed run up to an unjust and illegal war that was rushed to begin by 2003 because he didn't want to get associated with crazy lefties that said shit like that.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 15, 2016 04:44 PM (w8QP4)

67 "Fire cannot melt steel. The sun has no affect on the climate. Donald Trump is a rock-ribbed conservative."

Posted by: krakatoa at February 15, 2016 04:43 PM (RCS9o)
...heat stored at the bottom of the oceans.

Posted by: Golfman at February 15, 2016 04:44 PM (oxcYa)

68
Boys, we have a crediblity problem. "Make the neocons defend Iraq Again!"

Well done.
Its a better explanation than Alzheimers, or crazy. And he does have a credibility problem. If everyone's credibility is damaged, then he's still got a shot.

Posted by: simplemind at February 15, 2016 04:45 PM (C6xeQ)

69 The idea that Bush schemed with neo-cons to lie is... Lord we used to be
smarter than this. Are we really now adopting the 2003 MoveOn.org
theory of the war?
=======
The only thing I can say is stolen from the morning post comments:

Bush refused to push back on this lie. Ever.

Can we blame Trump for trying to score votes on this now "Known Truth?"

Are we supposed to defend the GOPe from this lie now, after some 14 years of the GOPe refusing to defend themselves (and us) from it?

Posted by: RoyalOil at February 15, 2016 04:45 PM (fQ/0p)

70 I promised my self I'd keep an open mind about Trump--partly to PO my lefty F-I-L--but Saturday night was the end of that shit.

Posted by: spongeworthy at February 15, 2016 04:45 PM (xB4nF)

71 Is this the Off-Topic, Open Thread?

Posted by: bergerbilder at February 15, 2016 04:46 PM (IeXP9)

72 Assuming that we never overthrew Saddam... then what?

Do we keep the sanctions going? The euros were opposed, as were the Russians. The sanctions were blamed for tens of thousands of deaths every year, many of them women and children. Furthermore, the sanctions required us to station tens of thousands of US troops in the Middle East in places like Saudi Arabia, giving groups like Al-Qaeda ammunition in their recruitment efforts.

Do we end the sanctions? In that case... Saddam wins. He'll have demonstrated that he could outlast the US and the international community without ever fully complying with his agreements. And he would have restarted his WMD program the minute that he was free from sanctions. He had to, in order to maintain his power.

The Iraq war was the moral choice. It was the best of a lot of bad options.

Posted by: Colorado Alex at February 15, 2016 04:46 PM (fC9RO)

73 44
As a private citizen with no access to government intelligence data, I
also thought there would be WMD. Because I believed our president. And
he let me down.

And yes, I am *very* angry at Bush or his team for misleading me about that fact.

They don't get a pass on that. That's part of the reason the GOPe has to go.

Posted by: Just Sayin' at February 15, 2016 04:41 PM (2kjDY)

So, you're not angry with Billy Jeff Clinton for telling us Saddam had WMDs?

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 15, 2016 04:46 PM (FsuaD)

74 Ah, I miss the old days when Ron Paul used to babble about neo-cons and their various conspiracies.

Posted by: Fritz at February 15, 2016 04:46 PM (BngQR)

75 But I get it, he's gonna build the Great Wetback Wall of America.

Posted by: Arson Wells at February 15, 2016 04:40 PM (UnJ7w)

And the Mexicans are going to pay us to build it, don't forget!

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at February 15, 2016 04:46 PM (5f5bM)

76 I wonder if Trump just has a general anti-Bush vein, like Dan Blather does?

Cause ace is right, in 2000 trump appears to be taking the clinton line but went oppositesville because W took it.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 15, 2016 04:46 PM (w8QP4)

77 >>...heat stored at the bottom of the oceans.

You are thinking of the Social Security Lockbox.

Posted by: garrett at February 15, 2016 04:46 PM (X5+7H)

78 The disgrace of the Iraq war was not the absence of WMDs.
It was Paul Bremers provisional Coalition Order number Two that disbanded the Iraqi Military.
Instead of a quick surgical strike where we replace Saddam with a new strongman with a intact army that would sell us oil and give us exclusive contract$ and be a bulwark against Iran, a quagmire was creat d with 3000 American deaths.

That order was worse than the Benghazi stand down order and nobody was prosecuted.

Posted by: Avi at February 15, 2016 04:46 PM (fijdj)

79 >>Because Orange Face is now openly running as a liberal progressive using Code Pink talking points.

Agreed.

I'm just not sure what value flinging insults at people who support or hate Trump accomplishes.

He's not my choice, and his recent unhinged-ness has been very off-putting, but I'm still on the 'anyone but the Dem candidate' train.

The insults flying in the Trump comment threads are equally off-putting.

Posted by: Lizzy at February 15, 2016 04:46 PM (NOIQH)

80 Someone should ask him about WTC 7 and see if he has "questions"

Posted by: brak at February 15, 2016 04:46 PM (MJuTN)

81 So, you're not angry with Billy Jeff Clinton for telling us Saddam had WMDs?

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 15, 2016 04:46 PM (FsuaD)

Senators Clinton, Biden, and Kerry voted for the AUMF.

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at February 15, 2016 04:47 PM (5f5bM)

82 Posted by: Suppressed Flasher at February 15, 2016 04:39 PM (X+nFp)

Can you please explain that? What is the significance (or lack there of) of aluminum tubes?

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette at February 15, 2016 04:47 PM (GDulk)

83 You know, maybe that fat pig truther Rosie O'Doughnut had some good points after all.

Posted by: D. Trump at February 15, 2016 04:47 PM (H9MG5)

84 The Elder Bush was right about Iraq. Leave them alone and let them hold Iran in check.

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 15, 2016 04:47 PM (ieoTI)

85 ***"Who is we, pale face?

Posted by: JackStraw at February 15, 2016 04:33 PM (/tuJf)"***

Lotta Morons around here and on the Right in general have.

Speaks to the power of the Left's proficiency at memetic warfare.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 15, 2016 04:47 PM (Wckf4)

86 I've seen the term "neo-con" bandied about with several different connotations. It can refer to people like David Horowitz who was a legacy Communist and saw the light, becoming a conservative. It can refer to the interventionist nation building school of foreign policy. And it can also be used the same way "banksters" gets used, i.e. those sneaky, evil Jooooos running everything to America's detriment.

Posted by: Insomniac at February 15, 2016 04:47 PM (kpqmD)

87 They pretend the Iraqi Liberation document wasn't written in 1998 in Clintons term. where the future goal was to oust Saddam, they also forgot how 'They" always knew what a threat He was , They with the media were complicit in undermining the Iraq War effort for pure Power, no scruples, any damned thing to win. They are the scum of the earth.

i used to have a long list of all of their comments Prior to going into Iraq about Iraq being a huge issue. and their words celebrating the fact of the NeeFUL war with saddam.

then they turned on a fkn dime , sent out their shock troops to start the demonstrations to undermine our men and women.

srsly think how evil this was .

Posted by: willow at February 15, 2016 04:48 PM (9XzdI)

88 very nice points. Yeah, so W lied, huh? He just came up with this one day.
Posted by: joe-impeachin44
.............
No.. doncha know the story goes that Saddam tried to whack pappy Bush and that's why W went to war?

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 15, 2016 04:48 PM (so+oy)

89 I, for one, have never wavered in my support for the Iraq War.

To me, this war was never about WMD's. It was about Saddam's repeated refusals to cooperate with inspections...and that's how Bush should have sold the war.

The US could not afford to be weak after 9/11. Countries that harbored terrorists needed to understand...very clearly...that our threats against them to clean up their houses was real. In that light, we simply could not afford to have Saddam flagrantly ignoring our warnings...as he had been doing for 11 years.

Iraq was relatively stable when Bush left office. That didn't mean it didn't face serious problems. But it well could have been on a trajectory toward a stable country, one that didn't threaten its neighbors or serve as a breeding ground for terrorism.

It was Obama who lost Iraq - as a campaign promise to the mouth-breathing America-haters who supported him.

Posted by: Mike at February 15, 2016 04:48 PM (ISxUB)

90 Also, for those wishing to re-hash history, its not like Saddam hadn't repeatedly lied and hidden programs from the UN.

He had to issue multiple FFCD Full and Final Compete Declarations on biowarfare that went from "we had none" to "we have a defensive program" to "we had a non-weaponized offensive program" to " we have an offensive weaponized program."

Hi son-in-law Kamel spilled the beans. Inspectors would have never known without that.

Recall at the time we had Anthrax being sent to Dc...

Saddam wasn't some angel.

Posted by: Harun at February 15, 2016 04:48 PM (UBBWX)

91 Ya know alot of people seem to becoming out of the woodwork about "opposing" the "war"in Iraq. But I gotta tell ya, I don't remember that many people other than the far left being opposed to it. Some less than thrilled, yeah maybe, but against and donw playing the threat of Saddam...ya not so many.

THAT started to come about as the post "War" "governance" started to go badly ( and yes THAT I blame President Bush and his advisors - and read that as colin powell). Then all the monday QB's came out of the woodwork

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 15, 2016 04:48 PM (mw8Dm)

92 The strategy post conquering Iraq was questionable, from the disbanding of the Iraq army to the fly-paper strategy.

Who knows, maybe we should've locked it down before using the people of Iraq as bait for every jihadi in the world.

Those poor people suffered.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 15, 2016 04:49 PM (w8QP4)

93 >>Can you please explain that? What is the significance (or lack there of) of aluminum tubes?

Well, apparently there are only 3 known uses for Aluminum Tubing;

Tent/Festivus Poles
Bicycles
and
Chemical Weapons

Posted by: garrett at February 15, 2016 04:49 PM (X5+7H)

94 Surprising how chemical weapons that Iran and Iraq used against each other in their nine year war which killed tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, are so harmless to progressives.

Interesting that Syria, who was rumored to have received truckloads of chemical weapons from Iraq in the run-up to gulf war two, suddenly had them. Coincidence.

Posted by: mega machines at February 15, 2016 04:49 PM (fbovC)

95 78
The disgrace of the Iraq war was not the absence of WMDs.

It was Paul Bremers provisional Coalition Order number Two that disbanded the Iraqi Military.

Instead of a quick surgical strike where we replace Saddam with a
new strongman with a intact army that would sell us oil and give us
exclusive contract$ and be a bulwark against Iran, a quagmire was creat d
with 3000 American deaths.

That order was worse than the Benghazi stand down order and nobody was prosecuted.

Posted by: Avi at February 15, 2016 04:46 PM (fijdj)

We made a lot of mistakes (primarily not having enough manpower for the occupation) but that was not one of them. The army was a Sunni institition that had been oppressing a Shiite country. That was not a recipe for success. By the way, we were buying Iraqi oil before -- remember the Oil-for-Food program?

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at February 15, 2016 04:49 PM (5f5bM)

96 First, the fact that Trump wrote about the threat in Iraq in 2000 is not proof he supported the war in 2001. At all. If you think Trump is saying we *should* go to war with Iraq in 2000 you are being disengenous -he clearly says IF we decide we have to do it, we can't go in half-heartedly. That isn't exactly ""Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!"

Second, Trump didn't say Iraq wasn't a *threat* -- he said we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq in the first place when we were supposedly going after Al Quada after 9/11.

Third, it is irrelevant whether Bush lied about WMDs *or* if he relied on hyped intelligence -- the average voters out there don't give a damn about that. What they care about is we went into Iraq instead of concentrating on Al Quada and put ourselves into 3rd world level debt, wounding and killing many of our soldiers to do it. It's 15 years later and it is STILL a mess.

Yes, Obama shares blame, but so what? Obama successfully won the POTUS 2x running against Bush, even though Bush was never his opponent. One idiot lib at the Candy Crowley townhall actually asked Romney how "he wasn't Bush." That was her actual question. The Dems are happy to use that same playbook again.

Neo-con "nation building" foreign policy -- while leaving our own borders *insecure* -- is not popular with the vast swath of the American public -- and both GHWB and GWB are largely responsible for that.

Posted by: Dancing Queen at February 15, 2016 04:50 PM (aNrvT)

97 >>.
Are we supposed to defend the GOPe from this lie now, after some 14 years of the GOPe refusing to defend themselves (and us) from it?

whatever someone's take as to who they support for president, I still think there's a value in saying what the truth is. no?

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 04:50 PM (dciA+)

98 Well, sure, all the evidence points to history being exactly how Ace laid it out.

But shouldn't be follow George W. Bush's example and rise above the controversy? Shouldn't be take the high road and wait until the MSM admits they were mislead by the liberals?

The Kennebunkport Way isn't to blow one's own horn.

Let the masses say what they will. In a hundred or so years, everything will be known and then George Bush will get the apology he so richly deserves.

Posted by: jwest at February 15, 2016 04:50 PM (Zs4uk)

99
Can you please explain that? What is the significance (or lack there of) of aluminum tubes?
Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette at February 15, 2016 04:47 PM (GDulk)

Uranium enrichment. The tubes are used in centrifuges to separate uranium isotopes and isolate the ones needed for nukes.

Posted by: Colorado Alex at February 15, 2016 04:50 PM (fC9RO)

100 So.. is it time for Mitt to jump into the race yet?

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 15, 2016 04:50 PM (so+oy)

101 very nice points. Yeah, so W lied, huh? He just came up with this one day.
Posted by: joe-impeachin44
.............
No.. doncha know the story goes that Saddam tried to whack pappy Bush and that's why W went to war?

***

Right. That would be totally unacceptable. as if.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 15, 2016 04:50 PM (w8QP4)

102 "George W Bush did not care enough to contemporaneously correct the record.
George W Bush did not care enough to speak out as the SCOAMF undid everything we did in Iraq."

Quite. He has maintained a resolute silence on every one of the long list of usurpations and abuses and errors by his successor in office.

However, Dubya did care enough about Ted Cruz to publicly speak up and say "I just don't like the guy."

Tells you something about priorities.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 15, 2016 04:51 PM (noWW6)

103 I don't know why Trump is fighting this battle.

All he'd have to do is point to the fact that 90% of the 9/11 hijackers were here on overstayed visas and that Bush made sure in a Presidential debate to point out that Muslims shouldn't receive additional scrutiny. It would be an easy win.

Instead he gets into the Michael Moore bullshit.

Posted by: Kal at February 15, 2016 04:51 PM (74hKk)

104 Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette at February 15, 2016 04:47 PM (GDulk)

The claim was that these tubes were machined to such a degree that the only explanation for them was the WMD program.

Powell had lots of charts and diagrams etc. to go along with his presentation.

The point was if you weren't building the WMDs you would never order/pay for this kind of machine work.

I bought it.

Posted by: Suppressed Flasher at February 15, 2016 04:51 PM (X+nFp)

105 THAT started to come about as the post "War"
"governance" started to go badly ( and yes THAT I blame President Bush
and his advisors - and read that as colin powell). Then all the monday
QB's came out of the woodwork

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 15, 2016 04:48 PM (mw8Dm)

Remember, the UN pulled out after one car bombing and there was no one left to give the country to.

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at February 15, 2016 04:51 PM (5f5bM)

106
srsly think how evil this was .

You might say demonic. But then its not like they boo'ed God three times at their convention or anything . . .

Posted by: simplemind at February 15, 2016 04:51 PM (C6xeQ)

107 Trump on Savages show was a train wreck. When Trump is through doing his shit flinging monkey routine disguised as a presidential primary run, can we get back to being serious? Trump supporters, sorry to break it to you, but you've been duped. This dude roped you in with the brash talk on immigration, building a wall and nut punching the GOPe. I had fun watching this too, but the fun is over. Like Chomsky, Donald is only an expert in his chosen profession, other than that he's F'ing batshit crazy.

Posted by: JROD at February 15, 2016 04:52 PM (wnwJC)

108 yep, if W had defended himself this wouldn't be necessary. "No WMDS? He's used them before. Every president since Reagan's said he has them. But I made it up? Really?"

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 15, 2016 04:52 PM (w8QP4)

109 The claim was that these tubes were machined to such a degree that the only explanation for them was the WMD program.

Powell had lots of charts and diagrams etc. to go along with his presentation.

The point was if you weren't building the WMDs you would never order/pay for this kind of machine work.

I bought it.

Posted by: Suppressed Flasher at February 15, 2016 04:51 PM (X+nFp)

Not for chemical weapons, but for nuclear.

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at February 15, 2016 04:52 PM (5f5bM)

110 I guess "finish the job" means go all the way to Baghdad this time and knock out nuke capabilities. Trump says Saddam has enriched uranium ... not very enriched. The yellow cake and rumors of centrifuge tubes. How did Trump know what they had?

This doesn't indicate Trump ever advised to take over and democratize the region, just that we had to knock out the nuke development (like we talk of doing to Iran?) But then by 2004 Trump doubts they ever had nuke development?

Since Trump was not getting intel briefings, I'm not quite clear how he flipped on anything except his belief that Iraq had nukes, but based on what? In fact unless I'm missing something, it seems natural that he would believe he was lied to when we didn't find the nuke program or enriched uranium.

yes it was 2000 before Bush, but so what? The "lie" (uncertainty?) continued, except Clinton didn't use it to go to war. It took 9/11 to put US on war footing, then "the lie" had more usefulness. Trump only went by the news, or whomever. Not real intel. Seems reasonable he would be even more outraged if he found out it was not true AFTER it was used to take us to war.

Posted by: Illiniwek at February 15, 2016 04:52 PM (5Gpe2)

111 The Elder Bush was right about Iraq. Leave them alone and let them hold Iran in check.

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 15, 2016 04:47 PM (ieoTI)

Not even close. Bush Sr and his CoS Powell were a couple of imbeciles. They had helped stop the Iran-Iraq War ... which is why Iraq turned around and decided there were greener pastures and easier pickings on the arabian side of the gulf, which is what got the first gulf war started.

As to the idiocy of stopping our pummeling of the other hussein in '91, the minute that he intentionally dumped tens of millions of barrels of oil into the gulf and lit just about every oil well in Kuwait on fire, all as he was being allowed to retreat in the most humiliating military defeat ever ... anyone with a brain realized that that hussein could not be allowed to maintain control of one of the world's most sensitive strategic areas.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 15, 2016 04:52 PM (zc3Db)

112 From the back cover of 'The America We Deserve':

"I believe in the American Dream. My business experience shows me that it works and I want to do everything possible to see that regular Americans can enjoy the same opportunity for success and security that I have had. That means the American Dream unencumbered by bureaucratic ineptitude, government regulation, confiscatory tax policies, racism, discrimination against women, or discrimination against people based on sexual orientation."

In what way did the government discriminate against gays or women in 2000?

Posted by: Global Warming made Hillary lie at February 15, 2016 04:53 PM (ZufZo)

113 This is one of the reason's it was so important to stop Jeb Bush, because the fact we're still dealing with these attacks stems in large part from GWB handling attacks the same way Jeb--valuing a classy demeanor over countering people who attack him and attack us.

Either adopt a Clintonian war room or GTFO.

Posted by: AD at February 15, 2016 04:53 PM (pN0S9)

114 They love me.

They love me not.

They love me.

They love me not.

They love me.

They love me not.

They love me.

They love me not.

...

Posted by: Jeb! lazily batting his pud back and forth at February 15, 2016 04:53 PM (0cMkb)

115 /looks down the page...

Anti Trump thread...

Anti Trump thread...

Anti Trump Thread...

Think I'll go to the Gym...

Posted by: Don Quixote at February 15, 2016 04:53 PM (f7rv6)

116 We made a lot of mistakes (primarily not having enough manpower for the occupation) but that was not one of them. The army was a Sunni institition that had been oppressing a Shiite country. That was not a recipe for success. By the way, we were buying Iraqi oil before -- remember the Oil-for-Food program?
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at February 15, 2016 04:49 PM (5f5bM)

That was a criminal mistake that led to 3000 us deaths and to Isis.
It was inexcusable and even W claims he doesn't know how it happened and the army was supposed to stay intact and run the country

Also in the Prince one of the first chapters is "why didn't Darius's people rebel against Alexander ( paraphrasing by memory). It was because he l ft the existing order intact.

Posted by: Avi at February 15, 2016 04:53 PM (fijdj)

117 No.. doncha know the story goes that Saddam tried to whack pappy Bush and that's why W went to war?

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 15, 2016 04:48 PM (so+oy)

Don't forget that Halliburton wanted to make some money, too.

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at February 15, 2016 04:53 PM (5f5bM)

118 You can't have your yellow cake and eat it, too.

Posted by: Joseph Wilson at February 15, 2016 04:54 PM (X5+7H)

119 The disgrace of the Iraq war was not the absence of WMDs.

It was Paul Bremers provisional Coalition Order number Two that disbanded the Iraqi Military.

Instead of a quick surgical strike where we replace Saddam with a
new strongman with a intact army that would sell us oil and give us
exclusive contract$ and be a bulwark against Iran, a quagmire was creat d
with 3000 American deaths.

That order was worse than the Benghazi stand down order and nobody was prosecuted.

Posted by: Avi at February 15, 2016 04:46 PM (fijdj)

We made a lot of mistakes (primarily not having enough manpower for the occupation) but that was not one of them. The army was a Sunni institition that had been oppressing a Shiite country.

NO Avi is right. By basically disbanding the mostly Sunni Army and making it a mostly SHiite "Army" we intensified the Civil War and set the stage for what came. We could have managed that much better. NOT all Sunnis were bad. And the cowtowing to the Shiites played right into Iran's hands.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 15, 2016 04:54 PM (mw8Dm)

120 "The strategy post conquering Iraq was questionable, from the disbanding of the Iraq army to the fly-paper strategy.

Who knows, maybe we should've locked it down before using the people of Iraq as bait for every jihadi in the world.

Those poor people suffered."

Actually, I have a feeling there was a civil war that was just waiting for Saddam to die.

See Syria.

Syria - no invasion. Still had a civil war. Multi-ethnic, sectarian countries and strong-men end up with bloody civil wars.

Posted by: Harun at February 15, 2016 04:54 PM (UBBWX)

121 Quite. He has maintained a resolute silence on every one of the long list of usurpations and abuses and errors by his successor in office.

However, Dubya did care enough about Ted Cruz to publicly speak up and say "I just don't like the guy."

Tells you something about priorities.
Posted by: torquewrench

I can agree with that.

never did Bush call out Reid and all the other Democrats for trotting out this bullshit buy he made damn sure to single out Ted Cruz and let everyone know he hated him.

Fuck the Bush family and their shit dynasty of failed politicians. I'm not carrying water for them anymore

Posted by: Kal at February 15, 2016 04:54 PM (74hKk)

122 Right. Annie C pointed out that W was soooooooo turn-the-other cheek on PC bullshit "let the arabs fly, let them immigrate here" because that's not who America is. Because America is not America when it's defending America. or something. Let's all lose our rights so as to not offend people that wouldn't even be living here.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 15, 2016 04:54 PM (w8QP4)

123 There's a thing I think many forget in the endless rehashing of whether or not there were WMD in Iraq in 2002.

Saddam *acted* as if there were.

If anything lasting were to have come from Gulf War I it was that there was an international order, that it had teeth, and that the US would lead a coalition to kick your ass if you were a dick.

The coalition did what coalitions do, which is to not hold. We weren't all that vigilant about maintaining sanctions. We let Saddam kill the Marsh Arabs. Things were going not well.

Then Saddam got all defiant about the inspections regime. He dicked around Hans Blix. He basically -- and this part is theory -- needed to act as if he had WMD so that his local enemies would fear him.

Whether or not he had them or was about to have them again soon, he acted as if he did. He played a fatefully bad poker hand.

And no, he didn't do 9/11, but in the immediate post-9/11 world the United States was not in a mood to be trifled with by tinpot dictators.

Everything leading up to the second Gulf War justified it. The only inexcusable thing on the US part was not having a plan for what to do if we won.

Posted by: Bandersnatch, Opus/Bill the Cat 2016 at February 15, 2016 04:54 PM (1xUj/)

124
89 I, for one, have never wavered in my support for the Iraq War.

To me, this war was never about WMD's. It was about Saddam's repeated refusals to cooperate with inspections...and that's how Bush should have sold the war.

The US could not afford to be weak after 9/11. Countries that harbored terrorists needed to understand...very clearly...that our threats against them to clean up their houses was real...

I agree wholeheartedly, however, our retarded nation has a collective memory that's quite distant from the truth.

And, unfortunately, is what politicians have to deal with.

Posted by: Ed Anger at February 15, 2016 04:54 PM (RcpcZ)

125 Posted by: JROD at February 15, 2016 04:52 PM (wnwJC)

Send money to Jeb's campaign?

Posted by: ChocoCheese at February 15, 2016 04:54 PM (OvUux)

126 Please clap.

Posted by: Jeb! at February 15, 2016 04:54 PM (ieoTI)

127 Dear Trumpkins,

Trump being against the war is fine. Its commendable.

Its his claim that Bush lied that is top-shelf douchebaggery.

Posted by: Harun at February 15, 2016 04:54 PM (UBBWX)

128 Still won't matter, Ace. To some people, Trump can do no wrong. And it's not that they should necessarily drop their support for him. An acknowledgment of his weaknesses would be nice, as he is a human being. The things they accuse the other candidates of, Trump does in spades. For example, how could a Trump supporter accuse another candidates of flip flopping with a straight face?

This is not all of his supporters though. Some have given reasons why his crazy statement don't change their support of him, for example, the people who just want to burn the GOP to the ground. It's the ones that defend him no matter what that I find fascinating.

Aside from the establishments Rubio fanboys, is there any other GOP candidate whose supporters think he is well nigh infallible?

Posted by: chique d'afrique at February 15, 2016 04:54 PM (uz/Pv)

129 The idea that Bush schemed with neo-cons to lie is...

-----

9 out of 10 people have no idea what a neo-con actually is.

Only that it sounds icky and is bad.

Posted by: fixerupper - Nativist AoSHQ Leader at February 15, 2016 04:55 PM (8XRCm)

130 >> I want to do everything possible to see that regular Americans can enjoy the same opportunity for success and security that I have had.

Sweet. When do I get my Million Dollars from Daddy?

Posted by: garrett at February 15, 2016 04:55 PM (X5+7H)

131 Syria - no invasion. Still had a civil war. Multi-ethnic, sectarian countries and strong-men end up with bloody civil wars.

***

But they got the Al Qaeda in Iraq treament before ISIS was even a thing...sandwiched in with Saddam's torture regime.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 15, 2016 04:55 PM (w8QP4)

132 whatever someone's take as to who they support for president, I still think there's a value in saying what the truth is. no?

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 04:50 PM (dciA+)
damn right.
And the Dems during Clintons term were where much of the intelligence had come from, ILD in 98.

and then their immediate turn around After we go in,
After their initial shrieking to the heavens . What did Bush know and When did He know it.

Posted by: willow at February 15, 2016 04:55 PM (9XzdI)

133 Trump went on the Alex Jones show. He is just solidifying 10 mil more tinfoil votes. And 10 mil demo swing voters. He is always 2 steps ahead of the game.

Posted by: Tinfoilbaby at February 15, 2016 04:55 PM (lpKcd)

134
Interesting that Syria, who was rumored to have
received truckloads of chemical weapons from Iraq in the run-up to gulf
war two, suddenly had them. Coincidence.

Posted by: mega machines at February 15, 2016 04:49 PM (fbovC)

This. I believe there were satellite pics of trucks heading to Syria just before the war.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 15, 2016 04:55 PM (FsuaD)

135 I think Trump is carpet bombing the media. He is positioning to capture half or more of the LIVs. I also think all the criticism of Trump is valid and would have had meaning before Obama. Trump is running in Obama's style and is getting over 25% of the R vote. I don't know if Trump can win but I do think he is destroying enough of the media to make it possible one of the other R candidates can. He is inoculating Cruz from the media by attacking Cruz. If it works Trump wins the nomination. If it doesn't work then it is old news that has been discounted and is ineffectual because Trump has tainted it.

Posted by: scorecard at February 15, 2016 04:55 PM (CRXed)

136 They are using Neo Cohen now.

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 15, 2016 04:56 PM (ieoTI)

137 Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at February 15, 2016 04:52 PM (5f5bM)

Yes for the nukes. My bad in not saying that plainly.

Aluminum tubes for the nuke program.

Posted by: Suppressed Flasher at February 15, 2016 04:56 PM (X+nFp)

138 #121, good points.

Posted by: Harun at February 15, 2016 04:56 PM (UBBWX)

139
Maddog.

THIS is the thread youve been looking for....

Posted by: fixerupper - Nativist AoSHQ Leader at February 15, 2016 04:56 PM (8XRCm)

140 89 I, for one, have never wavered in my support for the Iraq War.

****

Well, if a time traveler had told me that after 6 hard years, W finally secured the peace...and that the donks' first president after W would come in and give the fucking place away.

Well, yeah, no dice.

Of course, we don't need time travelers, we have Vietnam as a lesson as to donk treason.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 15, 2016 04:56 PM (w8QP4)

141 115 /looks down the page...

Anti Trump thread...

Anti Trump thread...

Anti Trump Thread...

Think I'll go to the Gym...

Posted by: Don Quixote at February 15, 2016 04:53 PM (f7rv6)

You should have seen the Palin days...

It was like Sarah turned Ace down for a date to the prom.

Posted by: jwest at February 15, 2016 04:57 PM (Zs4uk)

142 "Neo-con 'nation building' foreign policy -- while leaving our own
borders *insecure* -- is not popular with the vast swath of the American
public -- and both GHWB and GWB are largely responsible for that."

Not least because GWB had promised as a candidate to abjure "nation-building" in other countries, and then once in office launched into the largest nation-building effort the USA had ever exerted. In not one but two countries at once.

Rather as daddy GHWB had promised no new taxes and then once in office immediately enacted a passel of them.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 15, 2016 04:57 PM (noWW6)

143 The point isn't that Trump wrote that we should invade Iraq, #96. It's that he had a chance to oppose it and wrote something completely not opposing it. And no record seems to exist of him opposing it until 2004. when every other Democrat was also opposing it.

Posted by: spongeworthy at February 15, 2016 04:57 PM (xB4nF)

144 Trump is going for the Democratic crossover vote here. He's aiming for the idiots who still think Bush Lied, People Died. Does it suck? Yeah. Does it really mean anything though? We're not talking about a policy position that will actually affect anything going forward. The war is, for better or worse, over.

If it gets the GOP nominee some votes that would otherwise go to Hillary or Sanders, I'm not particularly concerned.

I'm a helluva lot more worried about Trump's attacks on Cruz than I am about him going after GWB, who, truth be told, did almost as much as Obama to set the conservative movement back.

Posted by: LawLurker at February 15, 2016 04:57 PM (zKwtX)

145 >>>
To me, this war was never about WMD's. It was about Saddam's repeated refusals to cooperate with inspections...and that's how Bush should have sold the war.

bush did sell it that way. And we had justification to knock saddam hussein out of power.

people get confused. The question isn't whether we had the moral justification to do this (we did) but whether it was worth it in terms of all our boys lost and maimed.

Yes, we had the right to do it. but that doesn't mean it was worth it.

Without WMDs, sure, Saddam is still a horrible dictator, but it is simply no longer a great enough threat to be worth our boys' lives and limbs for. Maintenance bombing could continue for decades.

There are many regimes around the world which are so repulsive they have *invited* a visit from our boys. but that doesn't mean we send our boys. Our boys are not to be put at risk over lower-order matters, like how repulsive a dictator is.

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 04:57 PM (dciA+)

146 whatever someone's take as to who they support for president, I still think there's a value in saying what the truth is. no?

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 04:50 PM (dciA+)

*******************************

Like you can keep your doctor if you like your doctor?
Or my healthcare plan won't add a *dime* to the deficit?

No -- the last 2 elections of Obama proved there is no value in saying the truth.

Posted by: Dancing Queen at February 15, 2016 04:57 PM (aNrvT)

147 Saddam was contained after Gulf War 1

By US. We never left. There were rotation of F4 and A 10s that stayed in and around northern Iraq for 8 years! We were in charge of a no fly zone to prevent a genocide of Kurds in the north and Shia in the south

People think we left. We didnt. And Saddam and his emu tried to shoot us down constantly. Iran wasn't holding them in check. We were

Posted by: ThunderB at February 15, 2016 04:57 PM (zOTsN)

148 the wmd's were mentioned of Why Obama must go, and His interest in funding terrorism.
That information came from the Clinton and Dem perceptions during Clinton's term.

which is why they initially screamed that Boosh should Have Known and stopped it before it happened.

so b.s all the way up and down.

Posted by: willow at February 15, 2016 04:57 PM (9XzdI)

149 @125 Nice try, sent plenty to Cruz though.

Posted by: JROD at February 15, 2016 04:57 PM (wnwJC)

150 >>.

Are we supposed to defend the GOPe from this lie now, after some 14
years of the GOPe refusing to defend themselves (and us) from it?

---
whatever someone's take as to who they support for president, I still think there's a value in saying what the truth is. no?
=============
There is.

I'm just tired of this fight we can never win.

And so, if it smears and tarnishes the Bush name further, what does it cost me?

I mean, the Maine was probably an internal explosion.
We won the Tet Offensive.
Sometimes the truth doesn't matter to history.

Posted by: RoyalOil at February 15, 2016 04:57 PM (fQ/0p)

151 >>Also, for those wishing to re-hash history, its not like Saddam hadn't repeatedly lied and hidden programs from the UN.

Which was the major predicate for the war in the first place. It wasn't that Saddam had WMD, it was that he was refusing to comply with numerous UN sanctions that he had accepted as a consequence of the first war to get a cease fire (remember, we were in a state of cease fire not peace) and one of those sanctions called for Saddam to allow weapons inspectors to inspect for WMD.

Liberals don't care about facts or truth. Obama said that Afghanistan was the "real" war and that he would prosecute it and win. More US troops have died there since he took over than under Bush.

But we don't have "Grim Milestones" on the news every frigging night. We don't have Code Pink or other protest groups making paper mache heads of Obama. They don't give a shit.

They just hate us and will use whatever they have including lies to tear us down.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 15, 2016 04:58 PM (/tuJf)

152 Trump Rosie O'Donnell ,is there a difference? I can't see the difference ! Entitled ,rude ,crude ignorant !

Posted by: rufusrastasjohnsonbrown at February 15, 2016 04:58 PM (Dz+P9)

153 Interesting that Syria, who was rumored to have
received truckloads of chemical weapons from Iraq in the run-up to gulf
war two, suddenly had them. Coincidence.

Posted by: mega machines at February 15, 2016 04:49 PM (fbovC)

This. I believe there were satellite pics of trucks heading to Syria just before the war.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 15, 2016 04:55 PM (FsuaD)

Yes and one of the reasons the Iraq/Syria border was wide open is that Powell fucked up the deal with Turkey and the 4th ID never got to invaded from the north and lock that border down and also end the "War" quicker and prevent a Saddam escape north

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 15, 2016 04:58 PM (mw8Dm)

154 >>>It was like Sarah turned Ace down for a date to the prom.

once again i'm getting social pressure to not say things rather than actual intellectual argument explaining why I am wrong.

"We turn our backs on you, we shun you!" is not an argument. it's what babies say.

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 04:58 PM (dciA+)

155 woah, freudian moment there*

Saddam must go*

Posted by: willow at February 15, 2016 04:58 PM (9XzdI)

156 And for the record, I was very against the Iraq war at the time, but I didn't think Bush was an evil maniac warmonger, just misguided. And I never thought for a second that 911 was his fault.

Plus I despised the anti-war people who excused the so-called insurgents who were massacring their own people while protesting and insulting US soldiers who were trying their best to minimize the loss of civilian lives.

Posted by: chique d'afrique at February 15, 2016 04:59 PM (uz/Pv)

157 Posted by: Suppressed Flasher at February 15, 2016 04:51 PM (X+nFp)

Ah, thank you. It sounds like you are less certain now. My personal big problem with the whole thing was letting sharia be put into the constitutions of both Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm sure they didn't allow that sort of thing (deep structural totalitarianism) happen when the governments of Germany and Japan were recreated and doing so was an insult to both our military and the many victims of the regimes.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette at February 15, 2016 05:00 PM (GDulk)

158 Ace, this whole WMD and refighting the Iraq invasion pisses me off about Bush not vigorously and repeatedly defending his policy and decision process and calling out the critics as duplicitous fuckwads... well

shakes head.

Why was it left for "history" to sort out... when the opportunists and the haters spewed their lies and characterizations? It's one thing to make a decision to lead a country into a decisive war or two. It's something else to cede to your critics the field and allow them to make all that sacrifice for your decision noble tools.

Too many gave too much and it really makes me angry. It was a time to kick butt. Everyone agreed... until half the country decided, eh... lets' see if we can use this to win the next election or 5 and de-legitimize the military too! Win/win!

Posted by: Yip at February 15, 2016 05:00 PM (e7T6D)

159 I knew at the time that 9/11/2001 was going to change this nation. It was so cut and dried and witnessed by hundreds of millions on TV. Never did I dream that this one act would divide this nation the way it has.

Bush disappointed me two ways. He didn't mobilize the nation for war against islam and when he did wage war, it was the same old tired "limited conflict" that has hamstrung every US military action since WWII.

Posted by: Soona at February 15, 2016 05:00 PM (Fmupd)

160 as I've said time and time again about political correctness, if you are not saying that someone is wrong, or speaking an untruth, but are still just insisting he shouldn't say it anyway (out of political correctness, or conservative correctness, or political favoritism, or whatever reason), you're just part of the free speech crisis, in which statements you don't like aren't met with counterarguments demonstrating their falsity, but just 8th-grade mean girl social-ostracism games and name-calling.

What.

Did.

I.

Say.

In.

This.

Post.

That.

Is.

Wrong?

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 05:00 PM (dciA+)

161 i've seen people objecting before, asking "Where are
these statements?" Chuck Todd just asked him at a press conference
where we could find these statements in opposition; Trump said the
question was "cute" and then started saying he could point him to "all
these stories" and yet none have yet been provided to the press.

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 04:42 PM (dciA+)
Facts and consistency are for losers. You sound like a loser.

Posted by: Donald T. at February 15, 2016 05:00 PM (LAe3v)

162 @joe-impeachin44

Syria already had a bloody history of repressing sectarian groups.

Just as Saddam gassed the Kurds, assad had killed tens of thousands in Homs.

Look at Libya, too.

The strongman can only keep the lid on the pressure cooker so long.

Saddam's kids were way worse than Assad's, too.

Saddam would 79 this year...probably dead.

Posted by: Harun at February 15, 2016 05:00 PM (UBBWX)

163 God love you Ace, but... there's no reaching people at this point. I don't know why, maybe its just wanting to not stand out, or being shamed into submission, or just having been broken fighting all that time, I dunno. Its such a stupid rack of totally obvious myths but its become common knowledge and may not be questioned now.

So... whatever. I'm a Christian. I'm used to people acting like I'm weird or crazy for believing the truth.

Posted by: Sandra Fluke at February 15, 2016 05:01 PM (39g3+)

164 The idea that Bush schemed with neo-cons to lie is...
***
And more to the point, WMD were found in Iraq after the war. Hell, Obama let ISIS take them at some point.

You can argue that going to war over standard chemical weapons isn't sufficient...but they were there and it is completely documented meaning the "Bush lied" meme is...a lie.

Posted by: 18-1 at February 15, 2016 05:01 PM (X7E8f)

165
Well, if a time traveler had told me that after 6 hard years, W finally secured the peace...and that the donks' first president after W would come in and give the fucking place away.

Well, yeah, no dice.

Of course, we don't need time travelers, we have Vietnam as a lesson as to donk treason.
Yeah. I feel that way too. However prospectively, the idea of fighting it over there before it comes over here has some serious bite for me. Iraq was a platform for terrorism. Stepping on it there,focused things in that region for a period of time. That time has ended as we can all see. So, in the end you are buying time, because you are right, the dems were eventually going to screw it up. As president, the best you ever get to do is BUY TIME.

Posted by: simplemind at February 15, 2016 05:01 PM (C6xeQ)

166 Without WMDs, sure, Saddam is still a horrible dictator, but it is simply no longer a great enough threat to be worth our boys' lives and limbs for. Maintenance bombing could continue for decades.

There are many regimes around the world which are so repulsive they have *invited* a visit from our boys. but that doesn't mean we send our boys. Our boys are not to be put at risk over lower-order matters, like how repulsive a dictator is.

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 04:57 PM (dciA+)

I said this before but I'll say it again. Saddam had the know how and the means to reconstitute his Chemical and Biological program as soon as the sanctions were lifted and the sanctions were about to be lifted by the International Community before Gulf War 2. Europe was eager and ready to get back in there and throw money at SADDAM. And we know Saddam was quite capable of using WMDs. So it really is a "straw man" argument to say he did not have WMDs.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 15, 2016 05:01 PM (mw8Dm)

167 @145 I remember people having serious reservations about W being a "nation builder" during his first run in the primaries. I remember it, a lot people seem to have forgotten.

Posted by: JROD at February 15, 2016 05:01 PM (wnwJC)

168 Hillary's vote on the Iraq War helped get Obama nominated.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 15, 2016 05:01 PM (TJCSB)

169 "We know where [the Iraqi WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad, and east, west, south, and north somewhat."

-- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 2003

Well! East, west, south and north. That should certainly narrow down the search! There are Top Men running this show. We'll be uncovering those dratted things any minute now.

Honestly, with utterly muddled messages like this going out to the general public, as a steady stream of metal transport caskets were being unloaded at Dover, it's a wonder that Dubya even squeaked out re-election.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 15, 2016 05:02 PM (noWW6)

170 @158... I should edit.. Not everyone agreed about the soundness of invading Iraq.. I over-generalized. The consensus was....

and there were no lies.. only folks who weren't paying close attention globbed onto the WMD shit as the reason. No offense intended.

Posted by: Yip at February 15, 2016 05:02 PM (e7T6D)

171 New Gravis Poll SC:

Godzilla: 37
Reverend Dirty Tricks: 23
Lobotomized Robot: 19
Burnt Bush: 9
Headcutter: 6

Posted by: Meremortal at February 15, 2016 05:02 PM (3myMJ)

172 Iraq is a lousy place for a nation. All their neighbors are bastards.

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 15, 2016 05:02 PM (ieoTI)

173 whatever someone's take as to who they support for president, I still think there's a value in saying what the truth is. no?

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 04:50 PM (dciA+)

--------------

And how do *you* know what the "truth" is ?

And even if you *do* know, how do we know that you are right ?

Both Obama and Trump tend to spontaneously say things, which are clearly "untrue". It is fairly clear that they are just making knee-jerk responses in these cases and it is not worth arguing about "truth". All politicians lie but Obama is the first one I've heard contradict himself within a minutes' worth of a speech. Trump is the second ;-)

On the other hand, Obama sometimes spouts forth well-constructed lies in prepared statements. This used to bother me but, I've come to understand that he *believes* the truth of the left's worldview and so he is not really "lying". The problem is that there are many other people who believe the same sh*t.

I've seen Trump in recent videos being interviewed when he is not under pressure and he seems to have consistent and fairly sane positions on most important issues. I think Cruz might be a better president but I believe Trump is more likely to expand the GOP voter base.

Posted by: gh at February 15, 2016 05:03 PM (YlqSL)

174 Amazing how quick everyone forgets that 500 metric tons of yellowcake that was found (shipped off to Canada to be reprocessed into nuclear fuel). Granted the American LSM never reported on this, but it WAS reported. Or how amazing it was that a year or so after all those endless truckloads of "something" were shipped to Saddam's Stalinist pal Assad, he miraculously has a new nuclear facility of his own in the Bekaa Valley (which the Israelis promptly destroyed). Or how even the frigging UN itself stated that Saddam would need all of three months to have a chemical WMD capability up and running, left to his own devices. And on and on.

No, boys and girls. Bush DIDN'T lie. The danger of Saddam getting WMDs WAS there. And Bush stated flatly he was not going to wait until there were some radioactive smoking holes in the ground, even in places like NYC or DC before he took action.

And oh yes, we WON the Iraq war. It was basically over in 2007, for chrissakes, even after every Al Qaeda d-bag around showed up there to muddy the waters, and we killed a fuckton of them for their trouble. That's why it was so quiet in Afghanistan for so long after we took that place; they'd all run off to Iraq to collect their 87 virgin goats or whatever.

It wasn't until after it was pretty much over in Iraq after '07 that things started heating up in A-stan again; when what AQ turds were left went back there, still looking for their virgin goats.

All this had been out there for all to see, had one bothered to look. It just amazes me no end that even here there are people around who still believe all the blatant lies that the Dims and their wholly owned subsidiary, the US snooze media has been pumping out all these years...

Posted by: The Oort Cloud - Source of all SMODs at February 15, 2016 05:03 PM (AYY6Y)

175
ace @ #97,

I don't think we should deny the truth that there was ample and excellent reason to be believe that Saddam had WMD. And just because we never found them (at least not in the huge and potent quantities we keenly expected) doesn't mean they weren't there a year before we invaded. I think they were. And Saddam had plenty of time to see us coming based on that premise and hid them. - Probably out of country.

But I think it's a mistake to rehash the issue in our debates. Trump said a silly and obviously false thing. I think he did it to counter-punch Jeb as hard as he possibly could.
Limbaugh thinks Trump said it to appeal to independents and moderate democrats in an OPEN South Carolina primary. - I'm fine with that ASSUMING it works. (Has this Trump Fan a tiny by nervous.)

But like a lot of others I'm angry at GW Bush and the GOP for standing aside and letting their brand get trashed in the minds of the general public.
Where was GW Bush when Obama was getting ready to give away our hard fought victory in Iraq?
NOW, he's going to open his mouth to help out his hapless brother Jeb!

Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 15, 2016 05:03 PM (zhLKc)

176 >>>
And so, if it smears and tarnishes the Bush name further, what does it cost me?

it's not about the Bush name, dude. I'm going to put up a post where Jeb Bush, childishly, imagines this is about the Bush name.

It's about judgment. People who think that there are these wide-ranging conspiracies, against all the evidence, are just... suspect in terms of their judgment.

I'm not even sure Trump believes this (he's refused to repeat it since). Trump has a bad tendency to suddenly declare whatever is going on in his head at any particular moment the Truth, and then just sort of forget about it an hour later.

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 05:03 PM (dciA+)

177 We all know why Iraq was invaded.

We are that small minority of people who pay attention, read, discuss and seek the truth. Nobody needs to tell us the reasons we went in and why it was the correct decision then and now.

But after a decade of trying to set the record right, we realize it's not going to happen now.

If Trump wants to use it, let him. If he figures it will get him the uninformed right and a portion of the left, then have at it.

Posted by: jwest at February 15, 2016 05:03 PM (Zs4uk)

178 Cruz should play Trumps game." He should keep repeating Trump is "Unstable" and "Donald is having a breakdown"

Posted by: WisRich at February 15, 2016 05:03 PM (hdpay)

179 as I've said time and time again about political correctness, if you are not saying that someone is wrong
***
watching debate with someone who knew "100's of people who died in WTC", Trump went from silly clown to evil-clown for her, as in fuck you for life Trump, in the SC Debate.

These are important issues for those of us who are Trump-Curious.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 15, 2016 05:03 PM (w8QP4)

180 And more to the point, WMD were found in Iraq after the war. Hell, Obama let ISIS take them at some point.

You can argue that going to war over standard chemical weapons isn't sufficient...but they were there and it is completely documented meaning the "Bush lied" meme is...a lie.
Posted by: 18-1 at February 15, 2016 05:01 PM (X7E8f)

----

Speaking of which.....

Did anybody go back and thank Israel for bombing the shit out Syrias nuclear reactors????

Posted by: fixerupper - Nativist AoSHQ Leader at February 15, 2016 05:03 PM (8XRCm)

181 I also think re-litigating the issue about whether Bush lied about WMDs or not plays into Trump's hand by reminding everyone of how much Bush's 2nd term sucked at a time when people have largely forgotten it and now look at Bush at things like the wounded warrior bike riding fundraisers, etc and see him in a softer light.

Hence, Jeb! pulling him in to campaign for him because Jeb! can't stand on his own 2 feet.

This all hurts Jeb! more than it does Trump, in the long run.

Posted by: Dancing Queen at February 15, 2016 05:04 PM (aNrvT)

182 People think we left. We didnt. And Saddam and his emu tried to shoot
us down constantly. Iran wasn't holding them in check. We were
***
Yeah, and he tried to assassinate the president of the United States.

One wonders how the current State Media would cover it if Assad tried the same thing in two years with Obama...

Posted by: 18-1 at February 15, 2016 05:04 PM (X7E8f)

183 >>>I don't think we should deny the truth that there was ample and excellent reason to be believe that Saddam had WMD. And just because we never found them (at least not in the huge and potent quantities we keenly expected) doesn't mean they weren't there a year before we invaded. I think they were. And Saddam had plenty of time to see us coming based on that premise and hid them. - Probably out of country.

i'm with you on that, sort of. but we've seen no evidence, nor gotten no word from saddam's henchmen, that the weapons were evacuated out of the country.

i suppose it's possible.

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 05:04 PM (dciA+)

184 >>"We turn our backs on you, we shun you!" is not an argument. it's what babies say.

Exactly. Ace, maybe you might want to re-post the link to the commenting guidelines to the sidebar again?

We're getting HotAir refugees, plus things are only going to get more heated as the primaries play out and the candidates get nastier...

Posted by: Lizzy at February 15, 2016 05:04 PM (NOIQH)

185 And as far as our intelligence about WMDs and these dictatorships in the Middle East or elsewhere? Well the libs wanted to knee cap our intelligence and make them political and they succeeded. It sucked then and it probalby sucks more today.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 15, 2016 05:04 PM (mw8Dm)

186 Emu was supposed to be army

Anyway we never left Iraq after gulf war one. We know people who basically spent 8 years there. Six months in, go home for six weeks, another six months in. It was destroying people. We were the only people containing Saddam. He never stopped trying to kill us or to cheat. It's a fantasy that we left after gulf war one and he was contained so we could ignore him. A complete fantasy

Posted by: ThunderB at February 15, 2016 05:05 PM (zOTsN)

187 Facts mean nothing to the pelt.

Posted by: DaveA at February 15, 2016 05:05 PM (DL2i+)

188 " Cruz should play Trumps game." He should keep repeating Trump is "Unstable" and "Donald is having a breakdown""

To be fair, Cruz has said similar things on twitter.

Posted by: Harun at February 15, 2016 05:05 PM (UBBWX)

189 and there were no lies.. only folks who weren't paying close attention globbed onto the WMD shit as the reason. No offense intended.

Posted by: Yip at February 15, 2016 05:02 PM (e7T6D)

Yep. ANd the WMD stuff was mostly for the UN, which was trying tis best to protect the other hussein and which George W never should have gone to in the first place. Bush rightfully threatened to just junk the UN when they were being total pricks ... but then, being true to his Bush globalist UN loving, he helped empower the UN by begging and pleading with them. The WMD-based argument was for the security council, not the main reason for the war.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at February 15, 2016 05:05 PM (zc3Db)

190

Oh for Christs sake. Of COURSE SADDAM HAD THEM.

Saddam gassed the Kurds with them.

Posted by: fixerupper - Nativist AoSHQ Leader at February 15, 2016 05:05 PM (8XRCm)

191 >>>Fuck the Bush family and their shit dynasty of failed politicians. I'm not carrying water for them anymore
Posted by: Kal<<<

So you're not supporting JEB?

Posted by: Fritz at February 15, 2016 05:05 PM (BngQR)

192 Ace, it is jwest.

You aren't going to make any headway there.

Posted by: garrett at February 15, 2016 05:05 PM (X5+7H)

193 Aren't emus Australian?

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 15, 2016 05:06 PM (ieoTI)

194 >>>>This all hurts Jeb! more than it does Trump, in the long run.

Jeb is either in a distant third or fourth place. The threat to Trump is Cruz. How does this help him vis a vis Cruz?

It's not just that Trump said something very wrong. It's that he also said it for the WRONG REASON. He said it because he was emotionally upset with the going-nowhere Jeb Bush.

that's not winning. that's getting played by Jeb.

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 05:06 PM (dciA+)

195 ...top-shelf douchebaggery...

Trump is in it to win and politics is nasty. The name of the winner is all than anyone is likely to remember fifty years from now.

He could have learned douchebaggery from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura (Governors). Ventura was a one termer. Guess that means Minnesota is smarter than California?

Posted by: scorecard at February 15, 2016 05:06 PM (CRXed)

196 "We turn our backs on you, we shun you!" is not an argument. it's what babies say.

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 04:58 PM (dciA+)

I see no profit in engaging in the larger grenade party at this point, but, for the record, I have *never* heard a baby say this.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at February 15, 2016 05:06 PM (bLnSU)

197 Saddam would 79 this year...probably dead.
Posted by: Harun

***

it comes down to repression by dictator versus whatever vile shit the AQ,MB, and ISIS dish out.

and those fuckers are evil and demand boots on ground.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 15, 2016 05:06 PM (w8QP4)

198 nice post Oort.

Posted by: willow at February 15, 2016 05:06 PM (9XzdI)

199
T @ #161,

LOL! I could actually here The Don's cadence and New York accent in that comment.

Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 15, 2016 05:06 PM (zhLKc)

200 "I knew at the time that 9/11/2001 was going to change this nation. It
was so cut and dried and witnessed by hundreds of millions on TV."

What I recall is how incredibly fast the most distressing footage was embargoed by the powers that be. And I've never seen again to this day some of the awful things I saw on live feeds on September 11th.

Since average Americans are now no longer capable of intellectual discourse framed in any other arrangement than flickering televisual imagery, having that stuff go away so quickly really made it seem like nothing more than a brief bad dream, instead of an enduring waking nightmare.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 15, 2016 05:06 PM (noWW6)

201 Something to think about - If Trump isn't given the nomination, he might sue each one of us voters.

Posted by: Global Warming made Hillary lie at February 15, 2016 05:06 PM (ZufZo)

202 i'm with you on that, sort of. but we've seen no evidence, nor gotten no word from saddam's henchmen, that the weapons were evacuated out of the country.

i suppose it's possible.

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 05:04 PM (dciA+)

He had the plans and the scientists and the will to use them. It would only take weeks or months at the most to reconstitute the chemical and biological programs. AND WE FOUND THE PLANS

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 15, 2016 05:06 PM (mw8Dm)

203 I think many of us here are not happy at how Bush refused to fight back. With that said, it doesn't make him a liar about WMDs.

Posted by: Tilikum Killer Assault Whale at February 15, 2016 05:06 PM (uhftQ)

204 than face up to the fact that it was an error in judgement.

Contrarily it's a great filter for identifying the ignore worthy.

Posted by: DaveA at February 15, 2016 05:07 PM (DL2i+)

205 Cruz should play Trumps game." He should keep repeating Trump is "Unstable" and "Donald is having a breakdown"
Posted by: WisRich at February 15, 2016 05:03 PM (hdpay)

*************************
Cruz is already doing that -- he said a Trump POTUS might nuke Denmark on a whim.
Pay attention, big guy.

Posted by: Dancing Queen at February 15, 2016 05:07 PM (aNrvT)

206 Not to be too conspiratorial, but we know what some folks mean when they use the term "neocons," don't we? Kind of like the international bankers?

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at February 15, 2016 04:38 PM (5f5bM)

Indeed. It is a leftard smear.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at February 15, 2016 05:07 PM (Z8fuk)

207 i'm with you on that, sort of. but we've seen no evidence, nor gotten no word from saddam's henchmen, that the weapons were evacuated out of the country.

Again -- this is where I pout because people didn't pick up on my point -- Saddam *acted* as if he had them.

It was a full on mooning of the civilized world.

Posted by: Bandersnatch, Opus/Bill the Cat 2016 at February 15, 2016 05:07 PM (1xUj/)

208 Are we all going to get a bumper sticker or T-shirt at the end?

"I lived through the 2016 election!"

Posted by: Harun at February 15, 2016 05:07 PM (UBBWX)

209
Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 04:58 PM (dciA+)

I see no profit in engaging in the larger grenade party at this point, but, for the record, I have *never* heard a baby say this.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at February 15, 2016 05:06 PM (bLnSU)

----

Pro Tip.

Please dont poke the bear.

Posted by: fixerupper - Nativist AoSHQ Leader at February 15, 2016 05:07 PM (8XRCm)

210 Saddam may well have outlived Abe Vigoda.

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 15, 2016 05:07 PM (ieoTI)

211 Not to be too conspiratorial, but we know what some folks mean when they use the term "neocons," don't we? Kind of like the international bankers?

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at February 15, 2016 04:38 PM (5f5bM)

Indeed. It is a leftard smear.
Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at February 15, 2016 05:07 PM (Z8fuk)

They mean JOOOOS

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 15, 2016 05:08 PM (mw8Dm)

212 Saddam may well have outlived Abe Vigoda.
Posted by: Boss Moss at February 15, 2016 05:07 PM (ieoTI)

By a neck?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 15, 2016 05:08 PM (mw8Dm)

213 Why stop at Denmark?

Posted by: ChocoCheese at February 15, 2016 05:08 PM (OvUux)

214 I'm constantly gobsmacked by libs who don't understand why we went to war in Afghanistan. They've conveniently forgotten that's where bin Laden's training camps were.

And I get physically sick when I think of our handing over Helmand Province (including Camp Leatherneck) to the Afghans, who promptly lost control of it, and now it's a training area for Al Qaeda and the Taliban. So much blood and treasure. For what?

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 15, 2016 05:08 PM (FsuaD)

215 "Again -- this is where I pout because people didn't pick up on my point -- Saddam *acted* as if he had them."

1) his henchmen could have been lying to him.
2) he may have needed ambiguity to deter Iran/USA

#2 seems strong. To deter the USA he needs to be able to cause mass casualties.

But that very deterrence changed after 9.11.

Posted by: Harun at February 15, 2016 05:09 PM (UBBWX)

216 Posted by: torquewrench at February 15, 2016 04:57 PM (noWW6)

Which is where *real* history lessons being taught in school (like that thete was an insurgency in Germany after WWII) would have helped people realuze that in-smack-done was unrealistic while also helping them understand that the Iraq insurgency wasn't a sign of US failure.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette at February 15, 2016 05:09 PM (GDulk)

217 I've seen Trump in recent videos being interviewed
when he is not under pressure and he seems to have consistent and fairly
sane positions on most important issues. I think Cruz might be a better
president but I believe Trump is more likely to expand the GOP voter
base.

Posted by: gh

I kind of think that the ability to maintain clarity and calmness under pressure is a desirable attribute in a President.

Posted by: pep at February 15, 2016 05:09 PM (LAe3v)

218 And I get physically sick when I think of our handing over Helmand Province (including Camp Leatherneck) to the Afghans, who promptly lost control of it, and now it's a training area for Al Qaeda and the Taliban. So much blood and treasure. For what?
Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 15, 2016 05:08 PM (FsuaD)

Makes me want to cry and puke

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 15, 2016 05:09 PM (mw8Dm)

219 Former US President Jimmy Carter wins Grammy for Best Spoken Word Album for 'A Full Life: Reflections At Ninety' - ABC

All is well with the world!

Posted by: ChocoCheese at February 15, 2016 05:09 PM (OvUux)

220 "doncha know the story goes that Saddam tried to whack pappy Bush and that's why W went to war?"

If memory serves, the purported attempts by the Iraqi Mukhabarat to assassinate Poppy Bush were one of the twenty-odd reasons for invading Iraq that were listed in the AUMF vote.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 15, 2016 05:09 PM (noWW6)

221 Someone posted on my Twitter feed a picture of a girl looking all angry. It says something about "don't say I throw like a girl! Women are no less in their athletic ability than men!"

Yeah, honey, actually they are. That's why women don't compete against men in almost any sport on earth. And most girls throw like... President Obama.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 15, 2016 05:09 PM (39g3+)

222
It's not just that Trump said something very wrong.

that's not winning. that's getting played by Jeb

Unless, as someone said above, he knows he has a credibility problem and he wants everyone else to have one also, i.e. re-litigating the Iraq war.
It could just as easily be a calculated move. That's why its sooooo interesting.
Crazy or Smart? We will find out soon enough.

Posted by: simplemind at February 15, 2016 05:10 PM (C6xeQ)

223 The thing is, Cruz isn't low energy. He's just got low name recognition. And the name recognition we have is from shit people like McConnell who are butthurt over having to do the things they were elected to do.

Jeb and Rubio made bad policy decisions.

Trump has his ... merits.

But Cruz has his too and he can play nasty like trump, outthink Carson, and seemingly out-talk Rubio. I love how Cruz seemingly relearned Spanish on the spot to talk shit back to Rubez in the debate.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 15, 2016 05:10 PM (w8QP4)

224 Did anybody go back and thank Israel for bombing the shit out Syrias nuclear reactors????
Posted by: fixerupper - Nativist AoSHQ Leader at February 15, 2016 05:03 PM (8XRCm)

fixerupper, Oh sure, But as 'look at those damn Israelis aggression against it neighbors.'

Posted by: willow at February 15, 2016 05:10 PM (9XzdI)

225 Cruz candidacy's ultimate Supreme Court vindication just got a lot harder.

Posted by: rokshox at February 15, 2016 05:10 PM (Ap82b)

226 Speaking of the Iraq war, consider that with Bush's "failed war of choice" we never had Iraqi agents in America committing acts of terror.

Due to Obama/Clinton's "failed war of choice" in Syria and Libya though we now have ISIS agents murdering Americans in America....

Posted by: 18-1 at February 15, 2016 05:10 PM (X7E8f)

227
ace @ #194,

You may have a point. If the decision was born of emotional incontinence as Rush put it, then it represents a weak moment. (But hey, who hasn't had one or two of those in his life while being repeatedly and loudly booed by an overwhelmingly Pro-Establishment Stacked Audience?)

On the other hand, Rush believes that while it may have come at a moment of irritation (due to the audience's boos) that Trump had made this outrageous claim as a matter of strategically trying to pick up Independent and Moderate Democrats in an open South Carolina primary.
I think that makes as much sense as anything.

Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 15, 2016 05:11 PM (zhLKc)

228 "You can't reason someone out of something they did not reason themselves into."
Mark Twain

Posted by: IanDeal at February 15, 2016 05:11 PM (QgD01)

229 And you saw in SC Debate that Trump tried to verbal-kill shot Cruz...as nasty.

Didn't work like it did earlier on low energy Jeb. He nuked Jeb so badly that SNL termed him Jebra.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 15, 2016 05:11 PM (w8QP4)

230 >> It is fairly clear that they are just making knee-jerk responses in these cases and it is not worth arguing about "truth"

I really really hate that people think like this.

Posted by: spongeworthy at February 15, 2016 05:11 PM (xB4nF)

231 He's lying for political gain.

He's always selling Trump, whether it's facts or nonsense in the presentation doesn't matter.

Posted by: DaveA at February 15, 2016 05:12 PM (DL2i+)

232 Winning!

Posted by: Jeb! at February 15, 2016 05:12 PM (ieoTI)

233 does not matter. Iraq was a mistake because you can't go to war while the left is out of power. they'll switch sides every time.

Posted by: x at February 15, 2016 05:12 PM (nFwvY)

234 Much ado about nothing.

Posted by: eman at February 15, 2016 05:12 PM (MQEz6)

235 it's not about the Bush name, dude. I'm going to put up a post where Jeb Bush, childishly, imagines this is about the Bush name.
=======
In a way, I'd say it is.

W was slowly drifting into the media's favorite Republican category: Out of office and weak.
8 years since the daily attacks had ceased and some luster had returned to the name.
"Miss me yet?"

Now Trump--by repeating the stupid lie about the lie--is reminding everyone why they hate Bush.
Democrats and independents because he lied; Republicans because he refused to counter-attack against the lie.

Posted by: RoyalOil at February 15, 2016 05:12 PM (fQ/0p)

236 >>Did anybody go back and thank Israel for bombing the shit out Syrias nuclear reactors?

Nope. Too busy trying to erase Obama's Red Line through the Syrian desert.

Posted by: garrett at February 15, 2016 05:12 PM (X5+7H)

237 I'm constantly gobsmacked by libs who don't understand why we went to
war in Afghanistan. They've conveniently forgotten that's where bin
Laden's training camps were.
***
And continuing that line of thought, when we chased Zarqawi out of Afghanistan he went to...Iraq. Because Saddam openly hosted Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to 2003.

Posted by: 18-1 at February 15, 2016 05:13 PM (X7E8f)

238 So as my trump curiousness gets replaced by Cruz-Control, I just wonder...how close to ZERO IMMIGRATION can we get Cruz to go?

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 15, 2016 05:13 PM (w8QP4)

239 >>If memory serves, the purported attempts by the Iraqi Mukhabarat to assassinate Poppy Bush were one of the twenty-odd reasons for invading Iraq that were listed in the AUMF vote.

Correct. Again, there were more than enough reasons to go back to Iraq and finish the job. The left and apparently Trump, chose to cherry pick the WMD angle.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 15, 2016 05:13 PM (/tuJf)

240 Not noticing a lot of new nics.

TBH3K striking?

Posted by: RWC - Team BOHICA at February 15, 2016 05:14 PM (hlMPp)

241 BTW, where is the outrage that Rubio stood on the stage and defended going into Iraq because the UN sanctioned it -- as if the UN sets our foreign policy? The U-effing-N for peete's sake.

How anyone can support that brain dead neo-con with Latin flair is beyond me.

Posted by: Dancing Queen at February 15, 2016 05:14 PM (aNrvT)

242 I don't get it. Why do some people--I mean Americans, not Iraqi generals--think it's a bad thing that Saddam had no WMDs (well, hardly any) when we invaded?

He had them before, right? And he would have had them again, given the chance? So we attacked him just when he was out of WMDs? Best time for it, wouldn't you say?

Posted by: bof at February 15, 2016 05:14 PM (Bu4wL)

243 Has anyone brought up yet that the bastards plotted to kill GHWB?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 15, 2016 05:14 PM (8PbKi)

244 I'm moving past (tepidly) endorsing Trump to tolerating Trump on my way to apologising for having earlier supported Trump. (Still unsure of when stage 3 happens. Maybe next week at this rate.)

If I were like Trump I suppose I'd claim to have hated him all along.

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at February 15, 2016 05:14 PM (6FqZa)

245 So ponder this... '43 lays low and for 7 years says almost nothing about how Obama and Reid and Pelosi, et al, have behaved. He has been above it.

Ok fine. Honorable.

Now he's out campaigning for his brother and against GOP rivals.

Yeah.. not real impressed with this.

How about some vinegar for the Democrats? And the lack of it speaks volumes.

Posted by: Yip at February 15, 2016 05:14 PM (e7T6D)

246 Hugh Fitzgerald over at Jihad Watch and The Iconoclast has a great article on why Iraq was a colossal mistake: http://tinyurl.com/gtou954

Posted by: Mister Ghost at February 15, 2016 05:14 PM (MGycO)

247 Again, there were more than enough reasons to go back to Iraq and finish the job. The left and apparently Trump, chose to cherry pick the WMD angle.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 15, 2016 05:13 PM (/tuJf)

It was stupid and suicidal not to finish the first time. Thanks Colin

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 15, 2016 05:15 PM (mw8Dm)

248
Cuz tonight, I'm living in a fantasy
My own little nasty world
Tonight, don't you wannavote forme?
Do you think I'm a nasty guy?

Posted by: Cruz/Vanity 666 at February 15, 2016 05:15 PM (uhftQ)

249 It doesn't really even matter what the truth is at this point. the lies and myths have become common knowledge now like "Radon will kill you" and "Reagan threw people out of asylums and created homeless." Its part of the public consciousness, so much now that even people who really ought to know better bought into it.

Why? I dunno. Maybe they got tired of fighting and just gave in. Maybe they are embarrassed by standing out and are just going along to be cool. Maybe they never really understood the facts and bought it all. Who can say. But it ain't changing no matter what we say or what the facts are.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 15, 2016 05:15 PM (39g3+)

250 y at Bush or his team for misleading me about that fact.

Saddam's flunkies misled everybody, skimmed a mint, smuggled and put the programs into the ordered cold storage.

All of the above.
And they're GONE now which was the point.

Posted by: DaveA at February 15, 2016 05:15 PM (DL2i+)

251 I love how Cruz seemingly relearned Spanish on the spot to talk shit back to Rubez in the debate.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44

Agreed. That exchange got less attention than it deserved. As in, where the hell did Rubio decide that Cruz doesn't speak Spanish? It made Rubio look like a fool, but the exchange was lost in the shuffle.

Posted by: pep at February 15, 2016 05:15 PM (LAe3v)

252 I've seen the term "neo-con" bandied about with several different connotations. It can refer to people like David Horowitz who was a legacy Communist and saw the light, becoming a conservative. It can refer to the interventionist nation building school of foreign policy. And it can also be used the same way "banksters" gets used, i.e. those sneaky, evil Jooooos running everything to America's detriment.

Posted by: Insomniac at February 15, 2016 04:47 PM (kpqmD)

And the bad drives out the good.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at February 15, 2016 05:16 PM (Z8fuk)

253 @233 does not matter. Iraq was a mistake because you can't go to war while the left is out of power. they'll switch sides every time.

Posted by: x

THIS ^^

Posted by: Yip at February 15, 2016 05:16 PM (e7T6D)

254 Instead of calling out the left for saying he lied George Bush instead went after Ted Cruz............what a joke.

Posted by: Geoffrey at February 15, 2016 05:16 PM (LoRcb)

255 "He's always selling Trump, whether it's facts or nonsense in the presentation doesn't matter."

He runs himself like a consumer products conglomerate. Spinning out little subsidiaries to market things only tangentially related to the core brand, but using the name.

The Trump Shuttle. Trump University. Trump Steaks.

And if such a peripheral product fails, he quickly folds the tent on it.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 15, 2016 05:16 PM (noWW6)

256 I love how Cruz seemingly relearned Spanish on the spot to talk shit back to Rubez in the debate.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44

Agreed. That exchange got less attention than it deserved. As in, where the hell did Rubio decide that Cruz doesn't speak Spanish? It made Rubio look like a fool, but the exchange was lost in the shuffle.

***

Also:

"No, it was 1987"

That was a dayyyyammmmm moment.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 15, 2016 05:16 PM (w8QP4)

257
i'm with you on that, sort of. but we've seen no evidence, nor gotten no
word from saddam's henchmen, that the weapons were evacuated out of the
country.

i suppose it's possible.

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 05:04 PM (dciA+)

As I seem to recall, there was one of Saddam's generals who claimed the chem weapons were flown out of Iraq to Syria by the Russians.

Posted by: davidt at February 15, 2016 05:17 PM (8aOqE)

258 Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds. And low and behold Assad used the same mustard gas in Syria

We never left northern Iraq in order to maintain the no fly zone, and Saddam never stopped shooting at us

This is all so much BS

Posted by: ThunderB at February 15, 2016 05:17 PM (zOTsN)

259 Iraq was a mistake because you can't go to war while the left is out of power. they'll switch sides every time.

Posted by: x

THIS ^^
Posted by: Yip at February 15, 2016 05:16 PM (e7T6D)

Sigh all to true. Ya don't ever want to be in a fox hole with a liberal

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 15, 2016 05:17 PM (mw8Dm)

260 OK, I have an idea for a new thread. (A real thread, not a hijacking of this one).

Most of us have been pretty tolerant of the Trump supporters. Ace is or was Trump-curious. We recognize that the inchoate anger needs a focus and a Bernie and a Trump serve that well.

We're generally tolerant of the idiosyncrasies of well-meaning Morons. It's not as if anyone wants to class up the joint.

But we've reached a point, I think, where it's reasonable to ask what it would take for the Trump die-hards to reconsider their fanboiism.

He pretty much lit his hair on fire on Saturday and then squirted Zippo lighter fluid all over it. All I see is a doubling down.

I liked Carly, but she let me down. I liked Rand, but thought the crazy might show through. I like Cruz now, but I don't trust my like of him.

Is there anyone moderately for Trump now or is it all True Believers?

Posted by: Bandersnatch, Opus/Bill the Cat 2016 at February 15, 2016 05:17 PM (1xUj/)

261 WMD's THEY HAD THEM
WE FOUND SOME

Okay, Caps lock off. But, it is true, we have found some, and not just one or two canisters. I recall many reports of a convoy of trucks going to Syria and staying there in the run-up to the war. So we knew they were ditching them.
We also knew where they were ditching them.

We did find shit-tons of uranium.
We did find labs with precursor ingredients.
We did find rape rooms, and torture chambers. Mass graves of Kurds killed by a combination of neural and chemical attacks simultaneously.

We waged war poorly, as far as the plan to keep the peace.
But someone over there needed an ass-kicking if for no other reason than to show the world what could happen to them if they cross us, and Saddam was in need of a good ass-kicking.

If I had been king of the forest on 9/12/01, things would have gone much worse for a good chunk of the ME, so one of the current candidates for president is talking our of his ass on this issue.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at February 15, 2016 05:17 PM (kKHcp)

262 Maybe the army went home but the Air Force never did

Posted by: ThunderB at February 15, 2016 05:18 PM (zOTsN)

263 How anyone can support that brain dead neo-con with Latin flair is beyond me.

Posted by: Dancing Queen

It's that oily Guinea charm.

Posted by: Jack Woltz at February 15, 2016 05:18 PM (LAe3v)

264 I heard some German network interview Trump right after 9/11 and Trump said we have to retaliate, make them pay, I forget exactly. And he said we should rebuild quickly.

But he is supporting knocking them out, or finishing by going all the way to Baghdad maybe, and under presumptions about enriched uranium (that were wrong). I don't see anywhere that Trump thinks we should have had a long term occupation, or a democratization. So I don't see the flip flop, except that he found out the enriched uranium was a ruse. That's right a RUSE I tell you. ha

Really ... agreeing with knocking out the nuke program (that didn't exist) is not the same as putting Wal-Marts in Baghdad, per the Bush plan.

Posted by: Illiniwek at February 15, 2016 05:18 PM (5Gpe2)

265 In fact a cannot even come up with a single enduring accomplishment by these two men other than ruin.

I'm sure they have many fine accomplishments - including disqualifying JEB.

Posted by: DaveA at February 15, 2016 05:18 PM (DL2i+)

266 True Conservative Donald Trump for government paid universal health care ;

http://tinyurl.com/grgzmoq

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 15, 2016 05:18 PM (TJCSB)

267 This is all so much BS
Posted by: ThunderB at February 15, 2016 05:17 PM (zOTsN)

Amen

We let the left and MSM set the meme

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 15, 2016 05:18 PM (mw8Dm)

268 If between Trump and Hillary I would stay home (and stockpile necessaries)

Posted by: xnycpeasant at February 15, 2016 05:19 PM (9chpj)

269 Is there anyone moderately for Trump now or is it all True Believers?
Posted by: Bandersnatch, Opus/Bill the Cat 2016 at February 15, 2016 05:17 PM (1xUj/)

No they are all cultists, right? Isn't that how this works year after year?

Jeb '16!

Posted by: ChocoCheese at February 15, 2016 05:19 PM (OvUux)

270 Tornado sirens. So much for a quiet afternoon. It's to the east, no worry for me this time.

I suspect one day it will be the attack siren. I look of at dad and pray.

No wonder I hate the zombies we laughably call "fellow citizens".

Posted by: Brother Cavil, turkey ain't all that's stuffed at February 15, 2016 05:19 PM (D0J8L)

271 For me, in hindsight, Iraq was a small but expensive war. Ultimately not worth it because it gave us Obama who abandoned Iraq and let ISIS turn into Mother Fucking Daesh.

The USA cannot handle wars when the MSM4DNC decides to act like a small occupational insurgency is "the gravest mistake in all of mankind's history." No, we were killing Haaji's and doing our best. The casualties (insert statement here) were light, our cause was just. But the donks needed to politicizae the the war, so there we are.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 15, 2016 05:19 PM (w8QP4)

272 I've always used "neo-con" to refer to the interventionist nation building school of foreign policy.

The link that (it is claimed) bridges them is: Jewish Trotskyites now conversos to American patriotism, but bringing over some of their old habits like "tikkun olam" and spreading democratic revolution abroad.

I don't believe in this genetic fallacy myself but that's how they talk out on the alt-right, and some not-so-alt right.

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at February 15, 2016 05:20 PM (6FqZa)

273 I think the mistake was not getting rid of Saddam in gulf war one, taking the oil and installing a strong man. I have reverted to colonialism for these backward fucks

Posted by: ThunderB at February 15, 2016 05:20 PM (zOTsN)

274 that disbanded the Iraqi Military.

The Iraqi Military disbanded itself - twice.

BuhBye

Posted by: DaveA at February 15, 2016 05:21 PM (DL2i+)

275 Aaaaaand....the HA KMA thread approaches 4,000. Smooth move, Ed.

Posted by: pep at February 15, 2016 05:21 PM (LAe3v)

276 Although all of us agree that going into Iraq was not only the right move, but the only move a president could have made at that time, we can't defend Bush on his choice of Bremmer as the person who fucked everything up.

Once you win a war, it's fairly easy to win the hearts and minds of the vanquished.

Give them clean water
Give them electricity.
Keep the shit from running open in the streets.
Make sure everyone has an income of some sort.
Make work cleaning the streets and building apartments.

It's not rocket science.

But Bush and Bremmer couldn't figure it out and let the place turn to shit.

So, even if want to defend him for the invasion, we can't defend him for how he managed the victory.

Posted by: jwest at February 15, 2016 05:21 PM (Zs4uk)

277 @249

The only reason Reagan threw the mentally ill out on the streets WAS to save them from all the radon that was contaminating all the old mental hospitals! Also, they were being given vaccines against their will and that lead to peanut allergies !

No?

Posted by: Yip at February 15, 2016 05:21 PM (e7T6D)

278 Gutfeld just called out Trump for his "Bush lied" comment.

"That's pure Code Pink territory."

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 15, 2016 05:21 PM (FsuaD)

279 I kind of think that the ability to maintain clarity and calmness under pressure is a desirable attribute in a President.

Posted by: pep at February 15, 2016 05:09 PM (LAe3v)
---------------------------------------There is an "Ali G" video (on youtube) with Trump in it. He was calm and very polite. Listened to two takes and then looked directly into the camera and told them to "have fun".Not fooled for a second and completely in control. Ali G. managed to fool a lot of smart people in that show and a few people really lost it when they figure it out.

Posted by: gh at February 15, 2016 05:21 PM (YlqSL)

280
even without nukes found, you tied up a lot a crazy b -tards in middle east for a decade. Fought them over there. It bought time.

Even if you know in the end a democrat is going to come after you and screw things up, you still try and do the right thing while you are President.
Of course if you are the current GOPe you just go with the rationalization, oh well we will eventually lose the majority and the dems will just undo it all anyway.
The democrats on the other hand, get their sh"t passed even without a majority and keep it without a majority. How's that working out for ya. . .

Posted by: simplemind at February 15, 2016 05:21 PM (C6xeQ)

281 Iraq was a mistake because you can't go to war while the left is out of power. they'll switch sides every time.

Posted by: x

THIS ^^
Posted by: Yip

****

yup, and the next GOP prez better not be a religious nutball who is too nice to make this a policy point during our next 18 month rush to war.

"I will got to war but I ask you now to not lose faith when the democrats try to pull a vietnam or an Iraq or an Afghanistan and decide to politicize the thing. We are not baby killers, we will take casualties, there will be mistakes, liberals will use lawfare against us. But I will be strong and I will call the left out for abandoning us simply to make politicial points"

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 15, 2016 05:22 PM (w8QP4)

282 The Iraq military was surrendering to reporters and cameramen.

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 15, 2016 05:22 PM (ieoTI)

283 The link that (it is claimed) bridges them is: Jewish Trotskyites now conversos to American patriotism, but bringing over some of their old habits like "tikkun olam" and spreading democratic revolution abroad.

I don't believe in this genetic fallacy myself but that's how they talk out on the alt-right, and some not-so-alt right.
Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at February 15, 2016 05:20 PM (6FqZa)

Tikkun Olam. A jewish concept defined by acts of kindness performed to perfect or repair the world. The phrase is found in the Mishnah, a body of classical rabbinic teachings.

It has nothing to do with Trotsky

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 15, 2016 05:22 PM (mw8Dm)

284 Another thought or two:

Trump has seen his biggest poll boosts from two things--immigration and attack Jeb.

Also, if he's attacking Jeb--and drawing all the GOPe drones to defend their queen--that takes heat off of Cruz?

I am not a Trump guy.
But, I can't deny he keeps playing this shit like Briar Rabbit.

Posted by: RoyalOil at February 15, 2016 05:22 PM (fQ/0p)

285 The comments at hot air have been hysterical. El Capitan probably has the sadz.

Posted by: NCKate at February 15, 2016 05:23 PM (KPhjz)

286 224
Did anybody go back and thank Israel for bombing the shit out Syrias nuclear reactors????

Posted by: fixerupper - Nativist AoSHQ Leader at February 15, 2016 05:03 PM (8XRCm)

fixerupper, Oh sure, But as 'look at those damn Israelis aggression against it neighbors.'

Posted by: willow at February 15, 2016 05:10 PM (9XzdI)

Isn't there some kind of movement for sanctions against Israel and disinvestment? I think I saw recently that some arm of the United Methodist Church is selling their holdings of stock in banks doing business there.

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at February 15, 2016 05:23 PM (5f5bM)

287
All history is fungible

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot, 'Who Decides?' at February 15, 2016 05:23 PM (BK3ZS)

288 >>Is there anyone moderately for Trump now or is it all True Believers?

Only interested in Trump as the "burn this mo'f'er down" way if it comes down to him and Rubio, or him an Hillary or Bernie.

Always seen Trump as the change agent, not the nominee. He changed the debate, and now he's in meltdown...no idea what comes next.

Posted by: Lizzy at February 15, 2016 05:24 PM (NOIQH)

289 279
I kind of think that the ability to maintain clarity and calmness under pressure is a desirable attribute in a President.

Posted by: pep at February 15, 2016 05:09 PM (LAe3v)
---------------------------------------There
is an "Ali G" video (on youtube) with Trump in it. He was calm and very
polite. Listened to two takes and then looked directly into the camera
and told them to "have fun".Not fooled for a second and completely in
control. Ali G. managed to fool a lot of smart people in that show and a
few people really lost it when they figure it out.

Posted by: gh

I have no idea what this means.

Posted by: pep at February 15, 2016 05:24 PM (LAe3v)

290 "It pisses me off that he's playing to the left already, like he's already got the nomination sewed up."

He's not playing anything, merely stating what he believes. He's straight up DNCe.

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at February 15, 2016 05:24 PM (kf2iZ)

291 Loving this circus!! Look at the clowns!!

Posted by: JEM at February 15, 2016 05:25 PM (ZoYwk)

292 I have been on the fence for a long time about whether or not I could vote for Trump if he does become the GOP nominee--my general position was that I probably could, although I wouldn't like it. Between this Iraq BS and his "9/11 happened on Bush's watch!" line at the debate Saturday, and the creepy cult of personality his followers have going, I've reached the point where I think I would either do a write-in or vote Constitution Party. It would be throwing my vote away, but if it's a choice between a Democrat and a Democrat, why not?

Posted by: T at February 15, 2016 05:25 PM (NctcF)

293 Seems to me that Khadaffi had some pretty choice intel on the whole Saddam/Iraq/WMD scenario, but oops, he's fucking dead!

Posted by: Fritz at February 15, 2016 05:25 PM (BngQR)

294

Posted by: Mimzey at February 15, 2016 05:25 PM (aRUb8)

295 >>I have no idea what this means.

phew. I thought it was me.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 15, 2016 05:26 PM (/tuJf)

296 >>>I've seen the term "neo-con" bandied about with several different connotations. It can refer to people like David Horowitz who was a legacy Communist and saw the light, becoming a conservative. It can refer to the interventionist nation building school of foreign policy. And it can also be used the same way "banksters" gets used, i.e. those sneaky, evil Jooooos running everything to America's detriment.

well you probably already know this but "neo-con" first referred to liberals who had become alienated from the increasingly leftist democrat party. They felt it betrayed true liberalism.

Thus, neo-cons joined the republican movement, but their ideas were largely "liberal" (often in a way acceptable to conservatives, sometimes not so much).

People in groups tend to wind up adopting each other's positions and it just so happened -- though it didn't have to happen this way -- that an important part of the neo-con disaffection from the leftists was the leftists' always attacking America first, and their moral relativism vis a vis the soviet union and other evil anti-western regimes. So, while the neo-cons *could have* had different approaches on foreign policy, they began as being forward leaning on military interventionism, and, groupthink being groupthink, became moreso over time.

Plus, many neocons are in fact Jews. Some of the first neocons were former liberal intellectuals turned off by the new left -- I think William Krisol's mom and dad were both among the first neo-cons. Jon Podhoretz's dad too, I think.

This isn't some indictment, it's just life. Combine a natural sympathy for Israel with their already built-in belief in the general good of American military leadership and that leads them to wishing to take the fight to the Mullahs.

at any rate, it's hard to pin down the neo-con philosophy generally (t's amorphous, and it means different things to different people; it was never really about a philosophy but simply a group of different people, with different ideas, who had all decided they'd had it with the america-hating left).

but it was born of a *liberal* critique of leftism's excesses. it still has that sort of tendency to accept many of the assumptions of progressivism while disputing the particulars. (See Charles Krauthammer, for example.)

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 05:26 PM (dciA+)

297 Kaddaffy had a stick up his ass.

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 15, 2016 05:26 PM (ieoTI)

298
He's not playing anything, merely stating what he believes. He's straight up DNCe.-----Baron Von Ottomatic

He sure sounds like it for the most part.

Posted by: Cruz/Vanity 666 at February 15, 2016 05:26 PM (uhftQ)

299 Whoever said that about me is a terrible person....terrible. I know good people..the best, the best, and whoever said that about me is a terrible liar.

Posted by: Donald Trump at February 15, 2016 05:27 PM (aRUb8)

300 Is there anyone moderately for Trump now or is it all True Believers?

***

trump-curious. Only because I am a notorious xenophobe.

no one else even bothers to address immigration or admit that USA is made up of Americans, not that we are just a bunch of people who showed up here one day.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 15, 2016 05:27 PM (w8QP4)

301 What's the play? Humiliate Trump supporters and back them into a corner? Or try to leave them an out so they can rejoin sanity with some dignity intact?

Posted by: spongeworthy at February 15, 2016 05:27 PM (xB4nF)

302 Seriously - I am trying to see how he and Hillary are different at this point. Right now it seems immigration is about it - and only about the degree of amnesty each would go for.

Amazing. I get a choice of two democrats in the general.

Posted by: JEM at February 15, 2016 05:27 PM (ZoYwk)

303 Seems to me that Khadaffi had some pretty choice intel on the whole Saddam/Iraq/WMD scenario, but oops, he's fucking dead!
Posted by: Fritz at February 15, 2016 05:25 PM (BngQR)

And he saw what happened to Saddam and gave up his WMDs...If the World and the Left here had backed President Bush we might have gotten other regimes to "see the light". But the minute the left undercut President Bush ( with all he many faults) THAT went out the window. And when that asshole Fredo backed getting Kadaffi he was already a toothless tiger

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 15, 2016 05:27 PM (mw8Dm)

304 So why doesn't some ex-NSA type sit Trump down and tell him the birds and the bees story?

Or perhaps Trump is just trying to peal off some easy Dem / libtard votes?

Posted by: torabora at February 15, 2016 05:27 PM (TE3Yr)

305 Ooops, Cruz/Vanity sock off.

Posted by: Tilikum Killer Assault Whale at February 15, 2016 05:28 PM (uhftQ)

306 >>I have no idea what this means.

Ali G was a persona, a UK wannabe rapper/personality (created by Sasha Baron Cohen) who had a show (HBO?) where he interviewed people, a lot of politicians, who did not know it was a joke. So Trump knew it was a joke when interviewed.

Posted by: Lizzy at February 15, 2016 05:29 PM (NOIQH)

307 I am tired of us dying for them. For propping up countries that they desert. I'm done. If we aren't going full colonial, don't go at all. Fuck these guys

Posted by: ThunderB at February 15, 2016 05:29 PM (zOTsN)

308 I hate that this is distracting from the absolute disaster Obama, Hillary, and now Jean Francois have made of so much of the world. Instead, we are relitigating the Iraq war, which none of our candidates (except Kasich?) had anything to do with.

Posted by: chique d'afrique at February 15, 2016 05:29 PM (OkKDg)

309 So why doesn't some ex-NSA type sit Trump down and tell him the birds and the bees story?

The NSA guy can go on the shows, you know the Sunday shows?, and then Trump will see him.

Posted by: Bandersnatch, Opus/Bill the Cat 2016 at February 15, 2016 05:29 PM (1xUj/)

310 Is there anyone moderately for Trump now

That would be me.

Cruz is my first place guy, however I can still live with Trump, mainly because-

there's a Japanese saying about using poison to fight poison.

As much as I would enjoy the big FU to the GOP that Trump would represent-

what I'm enjoying more is the "Trump is the craziest mofo in the monkey house" reputation he's getting around the world.

I believe that we're about to enter a very dangerous time internationally as in major or world war type dangerous. There just too much crazy and instability out there.

Cruz is smart, calm, and patriotic- he'd be a fine CiC in a time of war.

However, with Trump we might not even have to fight based on his international reputation.

Reagan's "he gonna blow up the world!!!" reputation while nonsensical also stood him in similar good stead.

Maybe not the best of reasons, but I can't see anyone else in that group I'd want as CiC in the period we're entering besides Cruz and Trump.

We'll see.

Posted by: naturalfake at February 15, 2016 05:29 PM (0cMkb)

311 301
What's the play? Humiliate Trump supporters and back them into a corner?
Or try to leave them an out so they can rejoin sanity with some dignity
intact?

Posted by: spongeworthy

A reasonable question. Unfortunately, I think we've passed the point at which dignity is an option.

Posted by: pep at February 15, 2016 05:29 PM (LAe3v)

312
It would be throwing my vote away, but if it's a choice between a Democrat and a Democrat, why not?
what if the choice is between a democrat or a socialist/criminal?
Yeah, I don't know what I'm going to do either.

Posted by: simplemind at February 15, 2016 05:29 PM (C6xeQ)

313 Bandersnatch,

I'll admit, I have been a Trump supporter, and I still support him, although the debate gave me some pause. I guess I'm a moderate Trump supporter now, but I've always been a Trump-or-Cruz guy anyway.

Why do I still support him? I'm not sold on Cruz's ability to win in the general. I think Trump gets the LIV vote that no other GOP candidate can get. Finally, I am still so distrustful of anyone and anything that comes out of the GOP that I genuinely want a candidate that doesn't have to take the party's money or the CoC's money.

Do I think there's a possibility that the Trump knife will turn in my hand and we'll end up with Obama II? Yes. But I think the alternative is Hillary/Bernie (let's not sit here and say that they're weak and can't win, no Dem candidate is EVER weak, the media sees to that), or a GOP candidate who will, like the long line of GOP candidates before him, turn into a neo-statist as soon as his hand hits that Bible.

Bush screwed us. Boehner screwed us. McConnell continues to screw us. Every "hero" we've elected to Congress has flopped or been ineffectual. Why should I pin my hopes on anything coming out of the GOP at this point?

Posted by: LawLurker at February 15, 2016 05:29 PM (zKwtX)

314 If the World and the Left here had backed President Bush we might have gotten other regimes to "see the light".
***
Yep. You can almost track the start of effective Iraqi "resistance" to when Kerry started politicizing the war and Syria and Iran started arming the various factions in Iraq (including the Sunnis at first...).

Posted by: 18-1 at February 15, 2016 05:30 PM (X7E8f)

315 Isn't there some kind of movement for sanctions against Israel and disinvestment? I think I saw recently that some arm of the United Methodist Church is selling their holdings of stock in banks doing business there.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at February 15, 2016 05:23 PM (5f5bM)

I guess because i'm pissed off general about the Treatment , my first repsonse is, "don't let the door hit them in the ass on their way out"

Posted by: willow at February 15, 2016 05:30 PM (9XzdI)

316 >>>What's the play? Humiliate Trump supporters and back them into a corner? Or try to leave them an out so they can rejoin sanity with some dignity intact?

i don't wish to humiliate anyone. Until last week, Trump was my #2 (sometimes secretly my #1).

I get it. I get the appeal. I can't knock anyone for finding Trump appealing because I've found him appealing myself.

Let's stop humiliating each other, maybe, and just try talking.

Except for Mario and his stupid supporters.

just kidding

kind of

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 05:30 PM (dciA+)

317 Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 05:00 PM (dciA+)

Nothing you said is wrong, but I have come to the conclusion that many Trump supporters are not looking for a Washington, a Lincoln or a Reagan, but rather a Napoleon.

Posted by: Tyrconnell at February 15, 2016 05:30 PM (jeKFO)

318 A lot of rice bowls got kicked over when the US deposed Saddam.

Posted by: davidt at February 15, 2016 05:31 PM (8aOqE)

319 It was stupid and suicidal not to finish the first time. Thanks Colin

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 15, 2016 05:15 PM

Truest statement of the whole damn thread.

At least Daddy Bush allowed -- or wasn't looking while -- his commanders brought in the men and materiel they needed to take a Big Swing at Saddam. He didn't try to look nice and just dribble a few guys and a rifle or two onto the field of battle.

My major gripe with Dubya on the Middle East is that he tried to look like a nice guy while fighting a war. You can't do that.

That Choom Boy was even better at screwing the military pooch doesn't let Bush 43 off the hook for that, IMO.

The purpose of a "just war" is not "building" some damn nation. It is protecting your own nation. All else is bullshit.

Posted by: MrScribbler at February 15, 2016 05:31 PM (iW5Mq)

320 As an interesting side note, anyone want to bet that Saudi Arabia regrets sending Joe Wilson IV to Africa to make his false claims now?

The Saudis were mad that Bush was squeezing them a bit to ease off the Islamism. Well, Bush 43 is nothing compared to Iran now was he...?

Posted by: 18-1 at February 15, 2016 05:31 PM (X7E8f)

321 "What's the play? Humiliate Trump supporters and back them into a corner? Or try to leave them an out so they can rejoin sanity with some dignity intact?"

I prefer option B. although terms like "rejoin sanity" hints that your own heart is with A...

Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at February 15, 2016 05:31 PM (6FqZa)

322 This just in: a super secret poll shows Jeb winning 100% of the vote in every primary. No, seriously.

Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 15, 2016 05:31 PM (D/hUK)

323 They just hate us and will use whatever they have including lies to tear us down.

Embedded reporters and DNC politicians might help with this problem.

As tank fender guards.

Posted by: DaveA at February 15, 2016 05:31 PM (DL2i+)

324 Didn't Piglosi and someone else visit Saddam prior to our entrance into Iraq?

trying to shore the bastard up?

Posted by: willow at February 15, 2016 05:31 PM (9XzdI)

325 304
So why doesn't some ex-NSA type sit Trump down and tell him the birds and the bees story?

Or perhaps Trump is just trying to peal off some easy Dem / libtard votes?

Posted by: torabora at February 15, 2016 05:27 PM (TE3Yr)

Like someone could tell Trump something.

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at February 15, 2016 05:31 PM (5f5bM)

326 Trump is a loose cannon, he's always been a loose cannon and he always will be. If that's who you want for president, by all means pull that fucking lever. Holy fuck.

Posted by: Jewells45 at February 15, 2016 05:31 PM (CNHr1)

327 I'm expecting Donald to start wearing pink clothing. He fits perfectly with the clowns of Code Pink

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 15, 2016 05:31 PM (voOPb)

328 And he saw what happened to Saddam and gave up his
WMDs...If the World and the Left here had backed President Bush we might
have gotten other regimes to "see the light". But the minute the left
undercut President Bush ( with all he many faults) THAT went out the
window. And when that asshole Fredo backed getting Kadaffi he was
already a toothless tiger

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 15, 2016 05:27 PM (mw8Dm)

Yep. Yet, according to the Progs, Hillary's! Libyan adventure was a great success. Unless you were Chris Stevens and the other three brave Americans. And they don't matter because Hillary!

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 15, 2016 05:31 PM (FsuaD)

329 The quickest way to lose an argument is to make it clear that you believe that the other party is inferior.

there's already enough ego on the line in any ideological dispute. piling up more Ego into the bet, the stakes, just guarantees that no one can even consider the possibility of changing his mind, ever.

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 05:32 PM (dciA+)

330 Until Saturday night I would have said, semi-proudly, that I would support Trump if I had to. After Saturday night and that performance I think he is a sick bastard.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 15, 2016 05:32 PM (mw8Dm)

331 So Trump knew it was a joke when interviewed.

Posted by: Lizzy

Okay, thanks. I still don't see what that has to do with Trump having a presidential temperament, though.

Posted by: pep at February 15, 2016 05:32 PM (LAe3v)

332 >>However, with Trump we might not even have to fight based on his international reputation.

I don't think the death cult members who fly planes into buildings are all that frightened by The Donald. Mutually assured destruction only works with rational actors.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 15, 2016 05:32 PM (/tuJf)

333 Our boys are not to be put at risk over lower-order matters, like how repulsive a dictator is.

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 04:57 PM (dciA+)

Abso-fvcking-lutely.

We cannot fix the world.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 15, 2016 05:32 PM (Zu3d9)

334 willow.. yes she did. I remember vividly her sitting there with that stupid fucking scarf on her head.

Posted by: Jewells45 at February 15, 2016 05:32 PM (CNHr1)

335
What's the play? Humiliate Trump supporters and back them into a corner? Or try to leave them an out so they can rejoin sanity with some dignity intact?

i don't wish to humiliate anyone. Until last week, Trump was my #2 (sometimes secretly my #1).

I get it. I get the appeal. I can't knock anyone for finding Trump appealing because I've found him appealing myself.

Let's stop humiliating each other, maybe, and just try talking.

Except for Mario and his stupid supporters.

just kidding

kind of

Man you always say it just right.

Posted by: simplemind at February 15, 2016 05:33 PM (C6xeQ)

336 "Ace:

The idea that Bush schemed with neo-cons to lie is... Lord we used to be smarter than this."

Yes, he schemed with neocons (well, he IS a neocon) and Clintons because they're two sides of the same corporate government apparatus. If it hadn't been Bush it would have been Gore or Kerry or some other empty suit. Why is this so incredible in your opinion?? We did not used to be smarter than this. We used to be really really stupid and believed there were two different parties with radically different goals when in reality there are two similar parties with slightly different plans as to how they will turn us all into consumer drones who exist to do nothing except service a corporate agenda. And now for some reason people are willing to die at the feet of a dynasty of traitors that pissed away America's prosperity and sovereignity because MoveOn.org called those traitors names 10 years ago.

Posted by: Johnny at February 15, 2016 05:33 PM (MZKpF)

337 >>Okay, thanks. I still don't see what that has to do with Trump having a presidential temperament, though.

I *think* the point is that other politicians, upon discovering they were trolled by a fake show/host, got angry and Trump didn't?

Posted by: Lizzy at February 15, 2016 05:33 PM (NOIQH)

338 I think the whole purpose of the moderators last week was to stir a pot of shit. I wish none of the candidates had fallen for it. And yes, I believe the MFM and the GOPe coordinated this in every detail.

Posted by: Soona at February 15, 2016 05:33 PM (Fmupd)

339 >>>I prefer option B. although terms like "rejoin sanity" hints that your own heart is with A...

so silly.

sneering is not persuasive.

sneering is not undertaken to convince your counterparty that you are right, but to convince yourself you are right, and therefore superior.

"You're an asshole" is the world's favorite political claim, and one that has never actually been proven, all seventy nine billion times it's been tried.

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 05:34 PM (dciA+)

340 To all the scribes and artists and practitioners of magic through whom these spirits have been manifested . . .

NOTHING IS TRUE. EVERYTHING IS PERMITTED.

--William S. Burroughs, Cities of the Red Night.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/303809-this-book-is-dedicated-to-the-ancient-ones-to-the

Posted by: Dancing Queen at February 15, 2016 05:34 PM (aNrvT)

341 Jewells, it's been traitorous up and down with ALL these clowns.

Posted by: willow at February 15, 2016 05:34 PM (9XzdI)

342 Our boys are not to be put at risk over lower-order matters, like how repulsive a dictator is.

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 04:57 PM (dciA+)

Abso-fvcking-lutely.

We cannot fix the world.

***

It is a strange world, this is what W ran on...before 9-11.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 15, 2016 05:34 PM (w8QP4)

343 Didn't Piglosi and someone else visit Saddam prior to our entrance into Iraq?

trying to shore the bastard up?
Posted by: willow at February 15, 2016 05:31 PM (9XzdI)

That was Assad

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 15, 2016 05:34 PM (mw8Dm)

344 but it was born of a *liberal* critique of leftism's
excesses. it still has that sort of tendency to accept many of the
assumptions of progressivism while disputing the particulars. (See
Charles Krauthammer, for example.)

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 05:26 PM (dciA+)

I always defined it as "hawkish liberals" and let it go at that out of my frustration with their apparent failure to understand that freedom and property rights are root causes of prosperity.

Your analysis has greater depth

Posted by: Kindltot at February 15, 2016 05:34 PM (q2o38)

345 No they are all cultists, right? Isn't that how this works year after year?

Jeb '16!
Posted by: ChocoCheese at February 15, 2016 05:19 PM (OvUux)

Please name two Jeb supporters that are cobloggers or regular commenters here. You can start with just one and we can go from there.

Posted by: chique d'afrique at February 15, 2016 05:34 PM (OkKDg)

346 SC is an open primary

Trump may be trolling for Dem votes

Posted by: Feh at February 15, 2016 05:34 PM (JSqK4)

347
Let's stop humiliating each other, maybe, and just try talking.

Except for Mario and his stupid supporters.

just kidding

kind of

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 05:30 PM (dciA+)

*sobs*

Posted by: "Mario" Rubio's garbage at February 15, 2016 05:34 PM (FsuaD)

348 >>Didn't Piglosi and someone else visit Saddam prior to our entrance into Iraq?

>>trying to shore the bastard up?

I believe that was Assad in Iraq. Same result though.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 15, 2016 05:35 PM (/tuJf)

349 Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 05:34 PM (dciA+)

Hear! HEar! A dearth of that amongst the anti-'s

Posted by: ChocoCheese at February 15, 2016 05:35 PM (OvUux)

350 Nothing you said is wrong, but I have come to the conclusion that many Trump supporters are not looking for a Washington, a Lincoln or a Reagan, but rather a Napoleon.
Posted by: Tyrconnell at February 15, 2016 05:30 PM (jeKFO)

Is that such a bad thing?

Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 15, 2016 05:35 PM (D/hUK)

351 Why do I still support him? I'm not sold on Cruz's ability to win in the
general. I think Trump gets the LIV vote that no other GOP candidate
can get.

I agree absolutely. But I can't support someone who I think will be genuinely dangerous, regardless of whether or not he can win. I'll take my chances that Cruz will prevail.

Posted by: pep at February 15, 2016 05:35 PM (LAe3v)

352 My regret isn't that we were wrong or lied to

My regret is that they aren't worth anymore of our men. Not one. When graham and McCain start arguing for more, I want to shoot them out of a cannon

Posted by: ThunderB at February 15, 2016 05:35 PM (zOTsN)

353 Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 05:30 PM (dciA+)

-----

Why is there this obsession with "trump supporters"?

IMO either of Cruz or Trump would be satisfactory but I get the impression that the GOPe would make more of an effort to sabotage Cruz so Trump seems more likely to win.

Posted by: gh at February 15, 2016 05:36 PM (YlqSL)

354 why does every conversation about trump have to devolve into an attack on his supporters?

isn't that the main problem? Isn't that why people are having a hard time convincing these terrible Trump supporters?

"You're an asshole" is not a political argument that can be won.

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 05:36 PM (dciA+)

355 Trump: Bush lied, people died.

Posted by: Zeno at February 15, 2016 05:36 PM (VrQW9)

356 >>Yep. Yet, according to the Progs, Hillary's! Libyan adventure was a
great success. Unless you were Chris Stevens and the other three brave
Americans. And they don't matter because Hillary!

And all the survivors, some of whom were permanently injured, and then threatened by the Obama admin not to talk.
Oh, and all the Libyans killed by ISIS, too. On the shores of Tripoli....

Posted by: Lizzy at February 15, 2016 05:36 PM (NOIQH)

357 Boulder Terlit Hobo, "Jewish Trotskyites now conversos to American patriotism" is an odd concatenation of concepts.

Do they eat apple pie three times a day?

Posted by: Kindltot at February 15, 2016 05:37 PM (q2o38)

358 OOhhh. shit my bad. It WAS Assad she visited.

Posted by: Jewells45 at February 15, 2016 05:37 PM (CNHr1)

359 I believe that was Assad in Iraq. Same result though.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 15, 2016 05:35 PM (/tuJf)

ASSAD IN Syria

It was our women Ambassador April Glaspie who met with Saddam and gave the impression we were ok with his invasion of Kuwait, because she was a stupid State Department asshole

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 15, 2016 05:37 PM (mw8Dm)

360 "So, you're not angry with Billy Jeff Clinton for telling us Saddam had WMDs? "

It's not in the top 100 reasons I'm angry with Bill Clinton, but sure, it can be on the list.

Remember, as a Trumpster I'm anti-uniparty, not just anti GOP.

Posted by: Just Sayin' at February 15, 2016 05:37 PM (2kjDY)

361 ugh, so i again have cussed and become angry over this same argument in the last two days.
so maybe a typing breather and i will just read all of you .

Posted by: willow at February 15, 2016 05:37 PM (9XzdI)

362 >>why does every conversation about trump have to devolve into an attack on his supporters?

Because most of them begin with a Trump supporter calling anyone who isn't a GOPe supporter or afraid.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 15, 2016 05:37 PM (/tuJf)

363 338 I think the whole purpose of the moderators last week was to stir a pot of shit. I wish none of the candidates had fallen for it. And yes, I believe the MFM and the GOPe coordinated this in every detail.
Posted by: Soona at February 15, 2016 05:33 PM (Fmupd)

_____

MSM: Isn't it horrible how money influences politics?

Oh by the way our 30 second ads for the debate will be $250K.

Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 15, 2016 05:37 PM (D/hUK)

364 Saddam was a evil dictator who gassed his own people tortured many and a bulwark against Iran. The US didn't mind when he was a vassal.
Of course April Glaspie and daddy Bush f-ckef that all up.

Posted by: Avi at February 15, 2016 05:38 PM (YGFh2)

365
Okay, thanks. I still don't see what that has to do with Trump having a presidential temperament, though.------pep

Takes a phony to know one? Somewhat kidding.

Posted by: Tilikum Killer Assault Whale at February 15, 2016 05:38 PM (uhftQ)

366 My major gripe with Dubya on the Middle East is that he tried to look like a nice guy while fighting a war. You can't do that.

I hate to tell you this, but we did not have the Cold War 1991 force in 2004. After a decade of the "peace dividend," mostly under Clinton but some under Bush 41, the force in 2001 was substantially smaller than it was in 1991. Fighting the Gulf War again was an impossibility.

Even in the Gulf War, there was a Saudi armored division and a French armored division. We had a lot of small contributions from allies in Iraq (some actually pretty large, considering the size of their countries, thank you Britain), but we sure could have used some explicit help from the Arab countries. Especially in the occupation. Going in with a force big enough to topple Saddam, but not big enough to enforce law and order in the aftermath, led to a lot of problems down the road. I hope we learned our lesson on that.

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at February 15, 2016 05:38 PM (5f5bM)

367 jack, thanks for the clarity.

Posted by: willow at February 15, 2016 05:38 PM (9XzdI)

368 >>>I'm not sold on Cruz's ability to win in the
general.

well, the Democrat party is in disarray and discord, if you haven't noticed! It's 1968 again. Sure, Cruz has Nixon's lack of charisma, and Nixon's vibe of shiftiness.

But then, Nixon won in 1968 didn't he?

>>> I think Trump gets the LIV vote that no other GOP candidate
can get.

that remains to be seen. It's a theory I've been open to, but so far, he still polls pretty badly against hillary and bernie.

No, that isn't conclusive, but this idea that Trump gets LIVs is still just a speculation, for which there is no evidence, and for which there is some evidence against.

Also bear in mind he alienates a lot of Upper middle class college educated republicans. You have to look at both the votes he gets you, and the votes he loses.

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 05:38 PM (dciA+)

369 You are getting 'The America You Deserve', good & hard.

Posted by: G*d's Still Small Voice at February 15, 2016 05:38 PM (nbGZj)

370 I remember Babwa Walters visiting Assad. She was "charmed" by him. Of course, she also has a "thing" for Fidel Castro.

What is it about crazy old prog wimmin and vicious dictators?

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 15, 2016 05:39 PM (FsuaD)

371 Unpossible.

Haven't you heard? Trump is going to round us up with his brownshirts and put us in boxcars. Guaranteed.

Why , I heard it right here at the HQ!

Posted by: Mortimer at February 15, 2016 05:39 PM (iQwFx)

372 Of course April Glaspie and daddy Bush f-ckef that all up.
Posted by: Avi at February 15, 2016 05:38 PM (YGFh2)

I beat ya to the April Glaspie name by 30 seconds...Hey but you know your stuff Landsman

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 15, 2016 05:39 PM (mw8Dm)

373 You're welcome willow.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 15, 2016 05:39 PM (/tuJf)

374 Posted by: Lizzy at February 15, 2016 05:33 PM (NOIQH)

-------

Partly. Also, Trump is much smarter than he looks.

Posted by: gh at February 15, 2016 05:40 PM (YlqSL)

375 Cruz would make a good President.

If we are lucky he will make things better and strengthen the USA enough to survive the collapse.

Trump brings a very different scenario.

He is a radical.

I'm in the mood for a radical.

Posted by: eman at February 15, 2016 05:40 PM (MQEz6)

376 Sabo's for Cruz, I'm for Cruz.

Posted by: ChocoCheese at February 15, 2016 05:40 PM (OvUux)

377 So Brennan is saying Isis is making chemical weapons and will use them here. History is rhyming. Now what

Posted by: ThunderB at February 15, 2016 05:40 PM (zOTsN)

378 348 >>Didn't Piglosi and someone else visit Saddam prior to our entrance into Iraq?

>>trying to shore the bastard up?

I believe that was Assad in Iraq. Same result though.
Posted by: JackStraw

Jim Moran and crooked dead Murtha

Posted by: x at February 15, 2016 05:40 PM (nFwvY)

379 The US didn't mind when he was a vassal.

Saddam was never our vassal.

Posted by: Grump928(c) has a joke at February 15, 2016 05:40 PM (evdj2)

380 Posted by: Jewells45 at February 15, 2016 05:31 PM (CNHr1)

How are you doing Jewells? Was your surgery today, or just soon?

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette at February 15, 2016 05:41 PM (GDulk)

381
364, Until Saddam invaded Kuwait we tolerated him.
After we humiliated him, he wanted revenge. That dog had to be put down.

Posted by: Tilikum Killer Assault Whale at February 15, 2016 05:41 PM (uhftQ)

382 354
why does every conversation about trump have to devolve into an attack on his supporters?

Fear. Fear that he will actually win, and we'll end up with a complete lunatic in the WH. Or perhaps fear that he'll cost us a layup election, and Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton will select the bulk of the Supreme Court.

No, it's probably not constructive to slam them, but frustration is building and can be tough to tamp down.

Posted by: pep at February 15, 2016 05:41 PM (LAe3v)

383 >>so maybe a typing breather and i will just read all of you

*pushes lemon square through usb to willow*

I'm right there with ya!

Posted by: Lizzy at February 15, 2016 05:41 PM (NOIQH)

384 "However, with Trump we might not even have to fight based on his international reputation.

Reagan's "he gonna blow up the world!!!" reputation while nonsensical also stood him in similar good stead."

No. Ronald Reagan spent many years studying and articulating conservative values. He had been governor of America's largest state. He was rock steady and held a set of beliefs he had tested over time and found to be truisms.

How many times did you ever hear Reagan shoot off his mouth and say something totally retarded?

The reputation of Reagan being a dunce perpetrated by the media may have led the USSR to underestimate him. They found out how wrong that image was.

I can't see how Trump's thin-skinned loudmouth schtick would serve the US quite so well.

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at February 15, 2016 05:41 PM (kf2iZ)

385 Pud...pud...puddy...pud...pud. Puddity...pud..pudz.

Posted by: Mr. Pud at February 15, 2016 05:41 PM (YbLrU)

386 Partly. Also, Trump is much smarter than he looks.

Posted by: gh at February 15, 2016 05:40 PM (YlqSL)

What's with his orange skin?

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 15, 2016 05:41 PM (FsuaD)

387 >>>Partly. Also, Trump is much smarter than he looks.

is he?

i don't think so.

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 05:41 PM (dciA+)

388 Ace, there are people on the Left and the Right who are more than willing to ingore facts and contradictions so long as they get the Win, Baby!

I think that Trump people are basically people who want to win, and see Trump as just the guy to do it. That's all he is offering -- the opportunity to win.

If he were a Dem, he would be polishing the same turd. And a significant percentage of Dems would be calling that turd a rose.

It seems to me that both of the parties have principled true believers -- maybe a third on each side. The other two-thirds are people who have inherited their party by birth, or have simply chosen sides because...because. That leaves two-thirds with Winning! as their only political polestar.

And that is a recipe for a lot of people falling for some pretty moronic sophistry.

I mean, hell, isn't that what the GOPe has been selling to us for the last three election cycles? Electability?

*spit*

Posted by: ObjectionSustained at February 15, 2016 05:41 PM (Yo8pD)

389
"Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability - which was essentially destroyed in 1991 - after sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which existed previously."

From the summary of Duelfer report - apparently secret and inaccessible to the press, and the public, and those incl. many many here who cling insanely to their Code Pink misunderstanding of Iraq. Lots more there, worth a quick read.

And recall, this analysis was based not just on best guess, using history, common sense, and available hard/soft info gleaned despite the deception and secrecy of a hostile closed totalitarian regime - like intel *estimates* were for Iraq. This is the distilled analysis based in addition on access to regime personnel, documents, and physical evidence, during occupation.

ace, the intel wasn't "thin" - not at all. It was what it was (see nature of intel target, foregoing paragraph). It was shared, more or less completely, by every intel service on the planet with assets and an interest in the topic.

Of course it's jaw-droppingly idiotic to talk about being "lied" into Iraq. But it's perhaps no less idiotic to pretend that the world wasn't what it was, history wasn't what it was/is, and that pre-emption of Iraqi WMD (and other possible aid to terrorism, something the regime had been neck-deep in for decades) was not a rational and solid judgement call in 2003. After 9/11 had shown long-standing assumptions about security to be incorrect.

It wasn't just, or even mainly, about "stocks", it was about capability and future risk. As was clear from the discussion at the time.

But whatever. Unserious country, will pay for it sooner or later. Tragically many good people already paid, to have their efforts squandered by an unserious, hysterical nation.

Posted by: rhomboid at February 15, 2016 05:41 PM (QDnY+)

390 I heard that trump was worse than hitler...so that seems like a bad choice. Or a bad analogy.

Anyway, we can nominate who we want w/o worrying about electability. The other side has a felon and weirdo running.

There's no gold standard here. We just need someone who can make a case as to why they should get elected.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 15, 2016 05:41 PM (w8QP4)

391 Later the transcript has Glaspie saying:
We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.

Which essentially gave Saddam the go ahead to invade. the State Department should be disbanded along with the EPA and Dept of Education and a few others

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 15, 2016 05:42 PM (mw8Dm)

392 Every election year we find out how many people just want to love Landru and the Body.

Posted by: eman at February 15, 2016 05:42 PM (MQEz6)

393 Pep-

Genuinely dangerous how? What specifically are you concerned about him fucking up? That hasn't already been fucked up by the last 3 mopes who we've elected.

Another point - I love his pro-America outlook. I know it's a bit uncouth and jingoistic, and sometimes I get a little weirded out. But ever since Reagan left office, the general tone of the national conversation has focused entirely on our flaws, how awful we are, and driving wedges between Americans. I'm sick of it, and Trump, for all the bullshit, does the best and more believable job of showing that he wants to put America and its legal citizens *ahem ahem* first.

Posted by: LawLurker at February 15, 2016 05:42 PM (zKwtX)

394 Saddam was the Ruskies vassal.

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 15, 2016 05:42 PM (ieoTI)

395 Looking like that sidebar warning to be civil or banned is getting warmed up in the driveway.

Posted by: Tinfoilbaby at February 15, 2016 05:42 PM (lpKcd)

396 The reason why everyone believed Saddam had WMD was that Saddam had WMD. When we invaded, two of our soldiers were wounded by a WMD rigged as an IED. It had about a gallon of sarin nerve agent in it.

Three years after the invasion, the military announced that it had found 500 WMD. It was spread all over the country in onesies and twosies, with one cache of one hundred shells. I asked my boss, a former artillery man, how much damage you could do with 500 WMD shells. He said you could take out New York City.

Two years ago, the New York Times said that the CIA had bought forty rockets with WMD warheads on them from a shadowy Iraqi source in order to keep them out of the hands of terrorists.

Last year, the New York Times wrote a big article on how five thousand WMD had been found since the invasion. Most of them were unmarked and were discovered after our guys exhibited symptoms of WMD exposure after carrying them off to be disposed.

So, when it is so thoroughly documented that Iraq had WMD, why do so many claim it did not?

Posted by: Tantor at February 15, 2016 05:42 PM (wmfHi)

397 ace, by the way, I enjoy the podcasts tremendously, and I especially love the long ones since more podcast = more awesome.

And I LOL'd at Mario Rubio.

Posted by: chique d'afrique at February 15, 2016 05:42 PM (OkKDg)

398 Saddam was a Russian client. Not ours.

Posted by: ThunderB at February 15, 2016 05:42 PM (zOTsN)

399 Partly. Also, Trump is much smarter than he looks.

is he?

i don't think so.

Posted by: ace

***

people with big brains need to hunker down and do their homework, not show up to debates and wing it.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 15, 2016 05:43 PM (w8QP4)

400 My main belief about why Fredo wanted to kill Kaddafy was _because_ he had turned over a lot of details on Iran's nuclear bomb program, to the point of enabling the Stuxnet virus.

Trump by and large has the same sort of problem-with-reality that Obama does: he wants to believe there isn't any such thing as the Putin-Pakistan/Dr-Khan/China/Ex-Soviets/North Korea/Iran "mafia," up to and including their talking points on the Iraq War. He just wants to believe the Iran deal is bad, Because Reasons, while kissing up to Putin and believing the left line about everything else.

Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at February 15, 2016 05:43 PM (kCfMX)

401 I only pay attention to people who write about why their candidate is the best.

And I pay very little attention to even them.

The antis I pay no attention to at all, no matter who they don't like.

Posted by: Meremortal at February 15, 2016 05:43 PM (3myMJ)

402 Forgive me got spouting off, but I get irritated every time I read some assbite mentioning that "the government lied about Saddam Hussein having WMD."

I was in Iraq in 2004, and I can tell you firsthand that he had weapons of mass destruction. It's an established fact. It's an established fact that he had them, because HE USED THEM. He used them on the Kurds, and to devastating effect.

I have seen and met people who were living with the effects of nerve gas. I have walked in fields where there are now signs warning people not to enter, because Hussein's lacked sowed the ground with so many land mines that we may never find them all, except by accident.

I have been in an auditorium at Salahaddin University in Erbil with a crack running twenty-five feet up a back wall. That crack was the result of aerial bombing, ordered by Hussein. I have seen building whose walled have been chewed up with machine gun fire.

Saddam Hussein was an industrial-strength sonuvabich, no argument about that. Was it America's job to be the planet's policeman, to rescue the Kurds from their own national leader? There can be reasonable debate over that. But there is no argument about whether he has WMD. Besides the Israelis, the most pro-Western, pro-America, pro-freedom bunch of people in that region are the Kurds, and I will go to my grave believing that the best untried hope for stability in the Middle East is a free and independent Kurdistan.

Posted by: Qoheleth at February 15, 2016 05:43 PM (iIzG7)

403 rhomboid,

i saw you post that the other day and meant to respond.

However, i'd say that if a large part of your case is based on a discredited fabulist (Curveball), how strong is the rest of your evidence? why were you forced to include his crap?

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 05:43 PM (dciA+)

404 It's like saying you're not a mafioso because you don't work for one of the Five Families, you work for Carlos Marcello instead.

Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at February 15, 2016 05:43 PM (kCfMX)

405 Brownback Shirts.

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 15, 2016 05:44 PM (ieoTI)

406 is he?

i don't think so.

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 05:41 PM (dciA+)
---------He's a salesman.

Posted by: gh at February 15, 2016 05:44 PM (YlqSL)

407 Reading some of these comments it's obvious a lot of neocons here think the average conservative is heavily invested in their vision of foreign policy and will thus see this as a huge betrayal when in reality most of us are not married to any single foreign policy and mainly defended Bush out of partisan tribalism (which I regret since it turned out that Bush did not feel that I was his tribesman in the same way I thought of him). Many people were behind the neocon machine because they did a good job pretending they were competent (they weren't, Obama has done a better job than Bush at foreign policy which is about as low as you can get), but they were neither competent nor did those goals serve the well being of the Tribe so much as serve the goals of the guys in charge. I don't think it's all Bush's fault, I think the Prime Mover in this clusterfuck was the dominance of a stupid, delusional liberal policy (egalitarianism) that came out of the civil rights era. This idea that we're all equal and the same turned people stupid to the reality that people are in fact different and you can't invade some desert hellhole and turn them into Iowans at all, let alone overnight like Bush thought he could.

Posted by: Johnny at February 15, 2016 05:44 PM (MZKpF)

408 Going in with a force big enough to topple Saddam,
but not big enough to enforce law and order in the aftermath, led to a
lot of problems down the road. I hope we learned our lesson on that. Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at February 15, 2016 05:38 PM

My main contention -- I've said it before, and it came up in an earlier thread today -- is that Daddy Bush has to carry the can for the Iraq failures. He HAD the tools, and they were in place (thanks to Gen Schwarzkopf and his team), but he chose to wimp out and pull them back before they served up Saddam on a platter.

And no, I don't think "we" have learned the lesson. It will take a lot of beefing-up of our military -- and, probably, lots of replacements at the top -- before we could say that we have.

Posted by: MrScribbler at February 15, 2016 05:44 PM (iW5Mq)

409 people with big brains need to hunker down and do their homework, not show up to debates and wing it.
Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 15, 2016 05:43 PM (w8QP4)

They really need those polished 10 second soundbites to sound genuine and thoughtful. Afterall the superpacs and polling groups paid big money to lick that finger and stick it up into the breeze to see what to say in the first place.

Posted by: ChocoCheese at February 15, 2016 05:44 PM (OvUux)

410 >>>There can be reasonable debate over that. But there is no argument about whether he has WMD.

we know he had them in the 1980s. it appears at some point he did not have them.

I say "appears." We didn't find any WMDs except some old mustard gas artillery shells. I think maybe there was a sarin shell.

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 05:45 PM (dciA+)

411 Great overview of "neo-cons" ace.

Posted by: Insomniac at February 15, 2016 05:45 PM (kpqmD)

412 397 ace, by the way, I enjoy the podcasts tremendously, and I especially love the long ones since more podcast = more awesome.

And I LOL'd at Mario Rubio.
Posted by: chique d'afrique at February 15, 2016 05:42 PM (OkKDg)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way about the podcasts. The longer the better. Btw, where has Gabe been?

Posted by: Arson Wells at February 15, 2016 05:45 PM (UnJ7w)

413 Maybe the reality show antics were all just a ruse to hide the fact that, in reality, he's a Democrat.

I mean, how to you sell a shit sandwich? Cover the plate in cookies and potato chips. But eventually, you realize it's a shit sandwich.

Posted by: AlaBAMA at February 15, 2016 05:46 PM (2PHKP)

414
We cannot fix the world.
Agreed.
At the time:
1. sponsor of terrorism
2. use of wmd on his own people and
3. known and proven stock piles of WMD- chemical.
4.International agreement as to theirprogress on nuclear
5. Would you put it past Saddam or his sons, to pass WMD to terrorists?
6. Sanctions were being eroded by corruption. He was buying off foreign companies with massive graft.
7.Would youprefer to react to 5 if it happens here or fight then over there before it happens here?
8. Yes the democrats will screw things up eventually, they always do. Is that ever an acceptable reason to not do what you think is the right thing?
9. Is it worth it to buy time, no WMD attack on American soil?
What you can't calculate today is what the cost would have been of not going in, what would have happened if we did nothing. What we know now is what it cost in blood to do it, and that's a bitter bitter thing to swallow. I'm not going to slam W on Iraq. It's probably the toughest decision US president made in my lifetime. The goal wasn't to fix anything, the goal was to buy time. That's always the goal. Its the best they've got. Its an 8 year gig at best, usually followed by the opposition.

Posted by: simplemind at February 15, 2016 05:46 PM (C6xeQ)

415 I think the whole purpose of the moderators last week was to stir a pot of shit. I wish none of the candidates had fallen for it. And yes, I believe the MFM and the GOPe coordinated this in every detail.
Posted by: Soona at February 15, 2016 05:33 PM (Fmupd)

I agree with that.
The media more or less said that sparks were going to fly, and so were the campaigns of certain candidates.
So did the GOP.
There probably was some sort of collusion. Shaking the snow globe can't hurt when things aren't going your way.

as proof that we all feel that way, I give you exhibit A

The Donald.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at February 15, 2016 05:46 PM (kKHcp)

416
Duelfer report available on CIA website.

Haven't read the 2005 addendum.

The VX remains a mystery. Not the only one.

And Republican Guard generals did, in fact, believe they would have access to chem artillery rounds to use on the Coalition. Of course they didn't. But this level of insane secrecy and deception is what you can get in totalitarian regimes. Or, alternatively, these top Ba'athist military officials were "lied" into their false expectations by "cherry picking" which the moronic congressional intel committee Dem staff failed to find in their ludicrous "review".

Posted by: rhomboid at February 15, 2016 05:46 PM (QDnY+)

417 "My major gripe with Dubya on the Middle East is that he tried to look like a nice guy while fighting a war. You can't do that."

Shock And Awe.

Which was not some sort of indiscriminate killing spree of Iraqi civilians. Or even of the Iraqi military. It was a huge noisy show very carefully calibrated to show what could happen if organized resistance to the invasion continued. A show put on with as little loss of life as possible in the process.

Unfortunately, the audience for this was Muslim Arabs.

Once they figured this out, viewed through their peculiar cultural prism, they concluded that the USA was a weak horse. Unwilling or unable to put superior power to its proper use of bloody vanquishment. Their fighting spirit returned.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 15, 2016 05:46 PM (noWW6)

418 Besides the Israelis, the most pro-Western, pro-America, pro-freedom bunch of people in that region are the Kurds, and I will go to my grave believing that the best untried hope for stability in the Middle East is a free and independent Kurdistan.
Posted by: Qoheleth at February 15, 2016 05:43 PM (iIzG7)

And we did/are/ and will continue to sell the Kurds down the river and also force the Israelis to abandon them. It is one of the great tragedy of the last 25 years

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 15, 2016 05:47 PM (mw8Dm)

419 Ugh. We need another Pet Thread.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 15, 2016 05:47 PM (FsuaD)

420 people with big brains need to hunker down and do their homework, not show up to debates and wing it.
Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 15, 2016 05:43 PM (w8QP4)

They really need those polished 10 second soundbites to sound genuine and thoughtful. Afterall the superpacs and polling groups paid big money to lick that finger and stick it up into the breeze to see what to say in the first place.

***

My trump-curiousness is hurt by his apparent big city liberal lifestyle. Which is fine. We were told redneck flyover pols who are too churchy will lose us the moderates. If he's just a Clinton plant or unstable or just lying, we're fucked. So, it's good to know.

So, trump needs to come ready and make valid points.

Sat night's debate was no that.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 15, 2016 05:47 PM (w8QP4)

421 "Posted by: Tantor at February 15, 2016 05:42 PM (wmfHi)"

The overwhelming majority of WMDs were destroyed and most of the remaining ones were expired. "A little bit of sarin gas" is not what people mean when discussing Saddam's WMDs.

Posted by: Johnny at February 15, 2016 05:47 PM (MZKpF)

422
Lizzy @ #288,

>> Always seen Trump as the change agent, not the nominee. He changed the
debate, and now he's in meltdown...no idea what comes next. <<

If Trump flames out (and no, I don't YET think he is), I can tell you what comes next.
Cruz will inherit most of Trump's Anti-Establishment support and thereby easily win the GOP nomination.

But then we will see a huge general election disaster as the media and the left (one and the same) relentlessly pound the fact that under the US Constitution Cruz is ineligible to serve as president because he was born on foreign soil and thus is obviously not a "natural born" citizen.
Welcome to the Left's REVENGE BIRTHERISM. - And no, you won't be able to stop it.

There is Supreme Court majority-opinion precedent making it abundantly clear that "natural born" means the citizen in question was NOT born on foreign soil.

The current Supreme Court will fast track the case just like they did in Gore v Bush and Cruz will lose on the merits.
The GOP will quickly replace him with Bush or Rubio. But it won't matter because everything will be in disarray.

Say hello to your new President Hillary Clinton.

Good job, Cruz Supporters!
The DNC will not be able to do a better jobs themselves.

Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 15, 2016 05:48 PM (zhLKc)

423 So, when it is so thoroughly documented that Iraq had WMD, why do so many claim it did not?

Posted by: Tantor at February 15, 2016 05:42 PM (wmfHi)

I presume that's a rhetorical question. Just like whatever happened to Cindy Sheehan after Obama won the 2008 election, or why the LA Times took the daily body count off the front page.

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at February 15, 2016 05:48 PM (5f5bM)

424 The only thing Bush got wrong was trying to stay and rebuild.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 15, 2016 05:48 PM (39g3+)

425 Posted by: Johnny at February 15, 2016 05:44 PM (MZKpF)

get lost anti-semite

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 15, 2016 05:48 PM (mw8Dm)

426 Ace,

I think you are mostly correct in your definition of "Neocon." It is a convenient term to describe those on the Jewish Left who morphed into foreign policy conservatives. Norman Podhoretz, who edited Commentary for years, is probably the most famous of them, mostly because Commentary itself was the flagship of the Neocon movement.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at February 15, 2016 05:48 PM (Zu3d9)

427 Once they figured this out, viewed through their
peculiar cultural prism, they concluded that the USA was a weak horse.
Unwilling or unable to put superior power to its proper use of bloody
vanquishment. Their fighting spirit returned.

Posted by: torquewrench at February 15, 2016 05:46 PM

You fight the enemy that is facing you, not the one you want to fight.

"Shock and Awe" probably shocked and awed more Americans and journalists than it did Muzzies.

Posted by: MrScribbler at February 15, 2016 05:48 PM (iW5Mq)

428
They really need those polished 10 second soundbites to sound genuine and thoughtful.osted by: ChocoCheese at February 15, 2016 05:44 PM (OvUux

You're right, I don't think Trump could've learned what the Nuclear Triad was in 10 seconds.

Posted by: Arson Wells at February 15, 2016 05:49 PM (UnJ7w)

429 Posted by: rhomboid at February 15, 2016 05:46 PM (QDnY+)

I've read opinions that Sadaam thought he had them too.

Posted by: gh at February 15, 2016 05:49 PM (YlqSL)

430 Nood

Posted by: Skip at February 15, 2016 05:49 PM (BkhW6)

431 >>Except for Mario and his stupid supporters.

just kidding

kind of

Lots of people think Mario can grow the party and this is why they think this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLCgeRN_FAE&feature=youtu.be

I find their case...somewhat compelling

Posted by: spongeworthy at February 15, 2016 05:49 PM (xB4nF)

432 I think one thing is clear. Trump fears Cruz.

Posted by: maddogg, now certified infrequently vile at February 15, 2016 05:49 PM (xWW96)

433 Ugh. We need another Pet Thread. Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 15, 2016 05:47 PM

A kitteh-centric one next time, please.

Posted by: MrScribbler at February 15, 2016 05:50 PM (iW5Mq)

434 The "neo-con conspiracy" is the nation building, the globalism, world's policeman, world banks, TARPs, too big to fail or jail ... etc. That is all Bushies. And Clintons. Robert Rubin hopped easily from one to the other.

So often those decisions don't put America First. Too many billionaire Saudi princes in our markets and our politics. Every time they tell us our social security is solid, and debt is no problem, they are lying to us. Was nation building in the ME just a miscalculation or a Big Lie ... does it really matter so much?

The big picture is our government has been lying and turning us socialist, or into a oligarchy, for decades. So people know government lies, like when the tea party gave congress to Republicans and McConnell Boehner flipped us the bird. They Lie ... Trump is at least more America First that the entrenched others, who were selling us junk housing stocks as AAA.

Posted by: Illiniwek at February 15, 2016 05:50 PM (5Gpe2)

435 Obama has done a better job than Bush at foreign policy which is about as low as you can get

um....

no.

Posted by: Egyptian Spring at February 15, 2016 05:50 PM (iQwFx)

436 >>Partly. Also, Trump is much smarter than he looks.

Yep, think it's fair to assume that Trump has dealt with a lot of politicians (who always had a hand out wanting his $$$), and a lot of other high-roller/big ego types in his line of work.
He reminds of a friend's businessman grandfather -- they guy dropped out of school in 3rd grade to help support his family (Depression-era), and as rough around the edges and vulgar as the guy was, he could read people and size up situations very quickly; he was successful based on street smarts, not polish and degrees (like Dangerfield in "Back to School"). Really smart guy wrapped in an unsuspecting package. Still think Trump is a loose canon based on how he's behaved in the last 4 weeks or so.... I am not a "Trumpster" or a Trump-hater, just....ugh.

Posted by: Lizzy at February 15, 2016 05:50 PM (NOIQH)

437 and that brings me to another suggestion for GOP primary debates.

We already agree on everything.

So, let's have a public humiliation session for past heresies. That's what we need.

Trump "you're basically a democrat plant, aren't you? Explain why you palled around with Pelosi, etc."

Rubio "explain yourself, re: TPP, Gang of 8"

Jebra, "explain yourself via you"

Cruz "why do people hate you"

Kasich "what's up with you and obamacare?"

Coulter's kind of right, hearing people argue 1% differences in position we all agree on is a waste of time.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 15, 2016 05:50 PM (w8QP4)

438
Also, what would have happened if they had IED'd up a couple of mustard gas shells and a sarin gas round and set them off in downtown manhattan?

Would've been a lot easier to do that then go suitcase nuke. A. Lot. Easier.

Posted by: simplemind at February 15, 2016 05:50 PM (C6xeQ)

439 "isn't that the main problem? Isn't that why people are having a hard time convincing these terrible Trump supporters?"

Trump or I'm not voting seems to be the general consensus among the die hards. I'm not sure about what they can be convinced.

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at February 15, 2016 05:51 PM (kf2iZ)

440 Saddam Hussein was an industrial-strength sonuvabich, no argument about that. Was it America's job to be the planet's policeman, to rescue the Kurds from their own national leader? There can be reasonable debate over that.

I'm not sure. If the other side felt there could be reasonable debate over that, they'd argue it. They'd rather argue "Bush lied, people died" because even if it's wrong it lets them pretend they're being moral, instead of abandoning yet another minor tribe to their fate.

Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at February 15, 2016 05:51 PM (kCfMX)

441 Obama has done a better job than Bush at foreign policy which is about as low as you can get

um....

no.

***********

Jesus, what? What the fuck? That is stupid.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 15, 2016 05:51 PM (w8QP4)

442 >>However, with Trump we might not even have to fight based on his international reputation.

I don't think the death cult members who fly planes into buildings are all that frightened by The Donald. Mutually assured destruction only works with rational actors.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 15, 2016 05:32 PM (/tuJf)

I agree with you.

However, let's not pretend that all of these assholes aren't backed by the Emirates, the Saudis, the mullahs of Iran, etc-

as an "unofficial" but yeah official war against the West. That this group of jihadis or that group of jihadis aren't an official arm of the government means nothing when their funding comes from say, the Saudi royals or the Emirates.

Right now, Trump is talking about dealing with North Korea by dealing with the Chinese. Everyone knows that NK is China's dog and if they say, Down boy. NK lays down.

Same with the jihadis. If we start going after their money men, or they think we will a lot of this nonsense ends.

Posted by: naturalfake at February 15, 2016 05:51 PM (0cMkb)

443 Don't forget the no-fly zones, if they haven't been mentioned already.

US military had to fly the two Iraq no-zones, under fire, every single day between the two gulf wars. We were at with Iraq the entire time until we deposed Saddam

Posted by: stace at February 15, 2016 05:51 PM (c80mr)

444 >>The only thing Bush got wrong was trying to stay and rebuild.

I don't know how people can say this when they have vivid proof of what happens when we leave too soon and allow the crazies to take over.

Oh and I didn't see it live but apparently CIA chief Brennan was on 60 Minutes last night claiming that ISIS, those nutbags who are mainly in Iraq, now have chemical weapons.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 15, 2016 05:51 PM (/tuJf)

445 >> So, when it is so thoroughly documented that Iraq had WMD, why do so many claim it did not?<<

Partly because of the term, "WMD," which includes several types of weapons, but many people conveniently take to mean only nukes.

Posted by: davidt at February 15, 2016 05:51 PM (8aOqE)

446 Pep-
Genuinely dangerous how? What specifically are you
concerned about him f***ing up? That hasn't already been f***ed up by
the last 3 mopes who we've elected.

I certainly wouldn't use our last 3 choices as an example of what I'd like Presidents to be, but I mean a man who is so thin-skinned and lacking in judgement and restraint that he's willing to do what he did at the last debate. I saw an undisciplined, petulant bully who lashes out when he doesn't get what he wants.

That's tolerable in a business exec, but not in someone who controls nukes and could well trigger a war with his big mouth. I think Putin and Trump are cut from the same cloth, and I'd rather not play a game of international chicken because neither one wants to admit the other guy has the bigger schwanz.

Aside from that, my biggest concern is that on issues other than immigration, he's a liberal. And I'm not sure that immigration wasn't just an issue of convenience, albeit one he's used to great effect. Don't get me wrong, he did a valuable service by bringing it up and highlighting it, but that doesn't make him a President.

Posted by: pep at February 15, 2016 05:51 PM (LAe3v)

447 259

Nevergiveup 5:17

That really is the lesson of Iraq. Vietnam was not a fluke. Democrats will always betray us and throw away military victory. Always.

The consequence of this lesson is that the United States does not have the capacity to conduct any policy that will have to be sustained past the next Democratic administration.

That leaves few options other than killing enough people in a short enough time that the news media don't give it enough cycles to penetrate the consciousness of most low information voters.

That means doing stuff like carpet bombing during the Super Bowl or Oscars and then following up with an executive order that overturns the Supreme court's ruling on gay marriage. By the time the media can talk about any thing else, the death of tens of thousands of foreigners in some remote third world shit hole will be old news and the only people who will care are the activist loudmouths who are already saying that stuff now when we are not doing it.

Posted by: obnoxious ahole at February 15, 2016 05:51 PM (MpvuV)

448 Obama left Iraq.

We still have troops in Germany and Korea. It takes time.

This country is half pussy and will abandon military projects at first chance.

Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 15, 2016 05:52 PM (w8QP4)

449
simplemind, well said.

One other (yuuuuuge) thing.

Regime removal, pre-emption of possible merging of the "Iraqi WMD/support" and "global terrorist" circles on the strategic Venn diagram, had nothing inherently to do with what followed, 2004 - 2007 (at which point things were calm).

Nope, not the ridiculous boogey man of "nation-building", or the equally incorrect "restrictive rules of engagement". Just basic strategic blunders, easily fixed later, in the way the "insurgency" was fought. Gen. Casey's incompetence (and thegenerally delusional nature of much contemporary military dogma on insurgency)- and the administration's incompetence in tolerating it for more than a week - had nothing to do with the overall decision to remove the regime. Separate, separable issues.

Posted by: rhomboid at February 15, 2016 05:54 PM (QDnY+)

450 is Trump electable?

Posted by: bubba at February 15, 2016 05:54 PM (/AUZ3)

451 The main lesson from 9-11 was you don't wait until there is an imminent threat. You act way before then.

That is why the invasion of Iraq is connected to 9-11 and to actual or potential Iraqi WMD.

BTW, Saddam thought he needed to bury massive stores of "pesticides" out in the desert. Maybe it said that on the labels.

Posted by: eman at February 15, 2016 05:54 PM (MQEz6)

452 Polliwog.. it's tomorrow and I am prepping right now and OMG... this is the worst ever!! I started taking the anti biotics at 1:00 and THOSE gave me the damn runs and nausea. Then I still have to drink the stuff that makes you shit!!! I called her and said look, I already have diahhrea from the meds. She said just back off the drink once you know you are "clean". Jesus this sucks

Posted by: Jewells45 at February 15, 2016 05:54 PM (CNHr1)

453
Are we supposed to defend the GOPe from this lie now, after some 14 years of the GOPe refusing to defend themselves (and us) from it?

Posted by: RoyalOil at February 15, 2016 04:45 PM (fQ/0p)

I don't get this line of reasoning. Yes, the GOPe and the Bushes should have defended themselves against this lie.

It's still a lie, independent of whatever response was or should have been made to it. If someone falsely accuses me of murder, the charge does not become true if I bungle my response to it. I either did it or didn't.

Trump is doing the work of the devil - the Left - here.

Posted by: Donna&&&&V (a white) (whitely brandishing ampersand privilege ) at February 15, 2016 05:55 PM (P8951)

454 What you can't calculate today is what the cost
would have been of not going in, what would have happened if we did
nothing.

Posted by: simplemind at February 15, 2016 05:46 PM (C6xeQ)

^^this x 1000. It's not like the status quo would have held forever. Something would have happened, and odds are it would not have been change for the better. You can't argue about alt-history because no one really knows, but I think we know the direction things were going, and it wasn't good. So the choice isn't between where we were as of 2009 and some idyllic perfect state. Ask yourself, realistically, where would we have been in 2009 without the invasion?

Another thing to consider -- being on the strategic offensive may have contained Iran for a time, too. From their perspective, we had bases to their east (in Afghanistan) and south (in Iraq) within easy flying or cruise missile distance of their nuclear sites.

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at February 15, 2016 05:55 PM (5f5bM)

455 Ace-

Yes, you're right. Nothing is a given here. That's why I only "think" he gets the LIV vote. Free shit is hard for them to turn down. But that's what it's come to, hasn't it? Empty promises of shiny things to people who don't know any better and only look up from American Idol long enough to pull a lever? Obama made it an artform. No GOP candidate has even come close to being able to do that. Trump at least has the potential to sell them conservative shiny things.

As to the upper middle class GOP voters, well, if they came to the polls for Dole, McCain, and Romney, why not Trump? Especially when the alternative is Hillary or an open socialist? Isn't the GOPe's whole strategy to bet on its base showing up no matter who is nominated? Why not let that work for us for once?

I think this party has tried to look "nice" since 1988. It hasn't worked. I like that Trump is a loose cannon, and will say whatever the hell he needs to to win. It's a total roll of the dice that we'll get good Trump if he gets elected. But I think the GOP dice are loaded, and we'll get snake eyes no matter what.

Posted by: LawLurker at February 15, 2016 05:55 PM (zKwtX)

456 Was Saddam even CLOSE to an A Bomb?
Look at the huge infrastructure Iran has and how long they might have worked and got nothing

Posted by: bubba at February 15, 2016 05:55 PM (/AUZ3)

457 368 this idea that Trump gets LIVs is still just a speculation, for which there is no evidence, and for which there is some evidence against.

Also bear in mind he alienates a lot of Upper middle class college educated republicans. You have to look at both the votes he gets you, and the votes he loses.
Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 05:38 PM (dciA+)

Do you believe all that? Trump's support in the Republican Party is strong across a broad range of voters: he wouldn't be pulling down 30%+ in actual votes if he was. Now, you can believe what you like, but you're setting yourself up for the Romney shock many Republicans felt back in 2012.

If you can handle knowing that politicians exaggerate and lie to meet their objectives, then Trump's goal is simple. Purge the credentialed establishment core that was never going to vote for him anyways, and replace them with other voters. Like LIVs, patriots who hated seeing what happened in Iraq, and especially Democrats who want to see Bush in a jail cell- even if it costs them things Hillary wouldn't have given them anyways.

People think Trump is stupid, and I suppose that to attract the attention of many voters you have to look a little stupid. But he's done what many considered impossible- which makes continuing to underestimate him utterly foolish- and how his rivals react to his newfound dominance will determine their future as much as his.

Maybe the Bush family and their hangers-on think Trump can be brought down if they go all in. Fair enough, but the thing about poker is that when you go all-in, you might lose all the stakes you place at the table.

Posted by: trev006 at February 15, 2016 05:57 PM (eg0e6)

458 It's a total roll of the dice that we'll get good Trump if he gets
elected. But I think the GOP dice are loaded, and we'll get snake eyes
no matter what.

Yeah, pretty much this.

Posted by: Mortimer at February 15, 2016 05:58 PM (iQwFx)

459 Trump is not electable no matter what the nattering nabobs of negativity who support him think.

Posted by: Geoffrey at February 15, 2016 05:58 PM (LoRcb)

460 Rich, even self-made =/= smart. Savvy, maybe.

Case in point: The Oprah

Posted by: chique d'afrique at February 15, 2016 05:59 PM (OkKDg)

461 "Besides the Israelis, the most pro-Western, pro-America, pro-freedom bunch of people in that region are the Kurds, and I will go to my grave believing that the best untried hope for stability in the Middle East is a free and independent Kurdistan. "

The Kurds may be the best people in the region, but a free and independent Kurdistan may NOT be the best hope for stability, because it would have territorial claims on four or more existing countries.

Posted by: Just Sayin' at February 15, 2016 06:00 PM (2kjDY)

462 Well Obama is without doubt the penultimate smart president. His IQ is off the charts so we have heard. And what a great leader that smart man has made.

Posted by: ChocoCheese at February 15, 2016 06:00 PM (OvUux)

463 Posted by: Trump Super Fan at February 15, 2016 05:48 PM (zhLKc)

Wait, are you saying that a child who emerges from an American citizen's vagina in a foreign country is not a natural born citizens? Shouldn't we alert all the men and women in the armed forces living abroad that, despite our deep gratitude for their service, their children can born abroad can never grow up to be president?

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at February 15, 2016 06:00 PM (kf2iZ)

464 How do you calculate electability?

What are the arrows, where do they point, and how do you know?

Posted by: eman at February 15, 2016 06:01 PM (MQEz6)

465
Trump is doing the work of the devil - the Left - here.

Like Romney being pro-choice in 1998 and 2004?

They are politicians people.

It's what they do.

Posted by: Mortimer at February 15, 2016 06:02 PM (iQwFx)

466 461
"Besides the Israelis, the most pro-Western, pro-America, pro-freedom
bunch of people in that region are the Kurds, and I will go to my grave
believing that the best untried hope for stability in the Middle East is
a free and independent Kurdistan. "

The Kurds may be the best people in the region, but a free and
independent Kurdistan may NOT be the best hope for stability, because it
would have territorial claims on four or more existing countries.

Posted by: Just Sayin' at February 15, 2016 06:00 PM (2kjDY)

Not to mention, in order to supply said Kurds with weapons and ammunition or buy oil from independent Kurdistan, it is necessary to go through one of said countries upon which the Kurds have territorial claims, because Kurdistan is landlocked in the middle of nowhere. That was poor planning on their part.

Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at February 15, 2016 06:02 PM (5f5bM)

467 Posted by: Jewells45 at February 15, 2016 05:54 PM (CNHr1)

Well, think of it this way - by tomorrow morning, you'll have been through the worst part of it. When I got home after the procedure, I slept for a while and then had a great big ribeye. I was so hungry at that point. I thought it was the best steak I had ever eaten.

So do that - plan on eating something you really love tomorrow as a treat and a reward for spending tonight in the bathroom. It'll give you something to look forward to.

Posted by: Donna&&&&V (a white) (whitely brandishing ampersand privilege ) at February 15, 2016 06:03 PM (P8951)

468 >>How do you calculate electability?

Ace did a great post on this -- "electable" means you think you know how *other* people will vote. I'm so tired of that word after getting McCain and Romney pushed on us because they were "electable."

Posted by: Lizzy at February 15, 2016 06:03 PM (NOIQH)

469 Part of the debate that gets twisted if the definition of WMD. Most people hear WMDs and think nukes. So when you say well of course Saddam had WMDs, he gassed his own people, that doesn't prove much since mustard gas isn't really WMDs, for the man on the street.

Posted by: Monsieur Moo Moo at February 15, 2016 06:03 PM (D/hUK)

470 Pep -

Looks like I got willowed, but if you're still here...

I won't dismiss your concerns. But I think that mutually assured destruction works, no matter who is in charge. We managed not to get into a nuclear war with LBJ and Khrushchev (two dangerously egotistic people who both had severe inferiority complexes, as I understand it) in power. We managed to stay out of wars with King Barack in power, and I think he's about as thin skinned as it gets.

Trump is a blowhard, no doubt about it, and he's slowly turning me off. But I still like the idea of US having a blowhard who screws everyone else to get what he wants for once.

Posted by: LawLurker at February 15, 2016 06:04 PM (zKwtX)

471
The counter-factuals on Iraq are of course difficult. But the odds, the risks, the trends, were clearly very very very bad. Not even close to a close call on that.

But the quadruple-guessers on Iraq usually display almost no understanding - none - of the actual factors that go into any such analysis.

Related trivia question: which was the only regime in history that theUSthreatened with nuclear retaliation, if it crossed any of three specific red lines? And how did that regime respond?

Posted by: rhomboid at February 15, 2016 06:06 PM (QDnY+)

472 "The consequence of this lesson is that the United States does not have
the capacity to conduct any policy that will have to be sustained past
the next Democratic administration."

That would be a potent line of argument. Invading Iraq may have been a mistake but the biggest tragedy was passing responsibility for finalizing victory to Barack Obama, who threw victory away out of spite for George Bush. Why can't Trump say that?

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at February 15, 2016 06:06 PM (kf2iZ)

473 Donna, NOPE.. after surgery I will be in the hospital for at least 3 days, liquid diet and maybe if I'm lucky a soft diet after. They have to make sure the bowel is working properly, since they will be doing a resection.

Posted by: Jewells45 at February 15, 2016 06:07 PM (CNHr1)

474 "Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 15, 2016 05:48 PM (mw8Dm)"

Are you another nujob who sees "Tribe" and thinks I'm talking about The Jews even when it's obvious from the context that I'm not? Eat a dick.

Posted by: Johnny at February 15, 2016 06:08 PM (MZKpF)

475 Why can't Trump say that?

Because he is courting votes from the left.

It's ugly.

It's politics.

Posted by: Mortimer at February 15, 2016 06:11 PM (iQwFx)

476 Re: how close Saddam was, and how long it's taken Iran... I think we learned enough in the process of the invasion that it contibuted to the various efforts to slow down Iran's bombmaking. I think I mentioned Stuxnet already, there's probably other stuff we don't know about.

...and, Obama's done as much as he can to wreck _that_ as well.

Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at February 15, 2016 06:12 PM (kCfMX)

477 394 Saddam was the Ruskies vassal.
Posted by: Boss Moss at February 15, 2016 05:42 PM (ieoTI)

Until Reagan flipped him.

Then daddy bush and April Glaspie fucked it all up

Posted by: Avi at February 15, 2016 06:14 PM (YGFh2)

478 wmd links

http://theburningtruth.us/2011/06/24/wmds-in-iraq-are-irrefutable/

Posted by: Feh at February 15, 2016 06:15 PM (JSqK4)

479 There is a deal that The Donald could do with Putin that would settle down a lot of the turmoil in the Middle East. We can look the other way while the Russians or their surrogates blow up the Saudi's oil terminal at Ras Tanura and they look the other way while we destroy the entire Iranian oil infrastructure. Then we support the Chinese in an invasion and occupation of Iran.

We also send our navy, or better still, killer drones to the Med to sink refugee ships and we offer air transport assistance to European countries to fly Muslims back to Muslim countries.

Since Muslim countries cannot feed themselves and without oil exports they cannot outbid Chinese pigs on the world grain market, they will soon be back in their natural state of raiding and killing each other for meager resources, probably mixed with some cannibalism in the cities.

In any case they won't be our problem.

Posted by: obnoxious ahole at February 15, 2016 06:18 PM (MpvuV)

480 That really is the lesson of Iraq. Vietnam was not a fluke. Democrats will always betray us and throw away military victory. Always. /

Yah, that's something to think about, next time...

Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at February 15, 2016 06:24 PM (kCfMX)

481 Obnoxious: they're not going to go for that deal, Iran is (like Pakistan and North Korea) their proxy for making war on us while pretending to be at peace. It gives them the best of both worlds.

Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at February 15, 2016 06:26 PM (kCfMX)

482 Ack! I left the italicans on!

testing

Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at February 15, 2016 06:26 PM (kCfMX)

483 whew

Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at February 15, 2016 06:27 PM (kCfMX)

484 I say "appears." We didn't find any WMDs except some old mustard gas artillery shells. I think maybe there was a sarin shell.

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2016 05:45 PM (dciA+)

Sorry, ace, but if you believe this you have not been paying attention. Read what I wrote above about WMDs.

Posted by: The Oort Cloud - Source of all SMODs at February 15, 2016 06:29 PM (AYY6Y)

485 Until Reagan flipped him.

Then daddy bush and April Glaspie fucked it all up

No, I am aware of no point where Reagan "flipped" him. He continued to buy and use Russian weapons on "credit."

Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at February 15, 2016 06:33 PM (kCfMX)

486 Trump's already cracking.

Posted by: Jason M at February 15, 2016 06:37 PM (+urQ2)

487 Trump's campaign is over, iteration 105...

Posted by: ChocoCheese at February 15, 2016 06:40 PM (OvUux)

488 I was in the Navy stationed with 1st MarDiv in the mid-90s. (95 - 96) We were getting ready to deploy on a WestPac which included that general area of operations. As part of workup for that deployment I saw some of the intelligence, some from AFMIC, Some from DIA and some from CIA. All of it indicated Saddam had WMDs and was willing to use them. That was one of the reasons I was such a supporter of the Iraq War and despite what we later learned I still think it was the right call by Bush based on faulty intel provided him.

Posted by: Chad at February 15, 2016 06:41 PM (gYowz)

489 485 Until Reagan flipped him.

Then daddy bush and April Glaspie fucked it all up

No, I am aware of no point where Reagan "flipped" him. He continued to buy and use Russian weapons on "credit."
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at February 15, 2016 06

That's why Iraq was the third biggest recipient of US aid.

Posted by: Avi at February 15, 2016 06:47 PM (fijdj)

490 #417 absolutely + the experience with Vietnam was that our enemy could infiltrate and buy off or kill and weaken the native 'allies', we would tire of the game and go home. Only reason Baghdad hasn't fallen to ISIS is Iran.

Posted by: torabora at February 15, 2016 06:51 PM (TE3Yr)

491 Avi, I found a list of the top fourteen countries receiving US Foreign Aid in 1988. Iraq isn't even in the list.

(It gave Israel and Egypt as the top two, followed by, in no particular order: Turkey, Philippines, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala,
Morocco, Greece, Portugal, Costa Rica, Panama, Bangladesh, and India.)

Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at February 15, 2016 07:00 PM (kCfMX)

492 Only reason Baghdad hasn't fallen to ISIS is Iran.

Yeah, but also note that ISIS is composed of a shole lot of people Iran was supporting with arms when we were in Iraq. AND furthermore all they do is hang out in Sunni and/or Kurdish areas and kill people, and gives Iran a reason to be in Iraq.

When they're through using ISIS, they'll probably kill them. In the meantime it gives Iran an excuse to be in Iraq, and Putin a way to help Iran while pretending he's the Defender of the Faith.

Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at February 15, 2016 07:03 PM (kCfMX)

493 91 Avi, I found a list of the top fourteen countries receiving US Foreign Aid in 1988. Iraq isn't even in the list.

(It gave Israel and Egypt as the top two, followed by, in no particular order: Turkey, Philippines, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala,
Morocco, Greece, Portugal, Costa Rica, Panama, Bangladesh, and India.)
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at February 15, 2016 07:00 PM (kCfMX)

read up on "Iraqgate" mostly clandestine.

and the soviets refused air to Iraq.

Posted by: avi at February 15, 2016 07:25 PM (fijdj)

494 Or perhaps Trump is just trying to peal off some easy Dem / libtard votes?
Posted by: torabora at February 15, 2016 05:27 PM (TE3Yr)

*****

IMO, ding ding ding.

Posted by: Tim in GA at February 15, 2016 07:39 PM (VynIP)

495 and the soviets refused air to Iraq.

And the Migs that were being dug up out of the sand were holograms?

Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at February 15, 2016 07:49 PM (kCfMX)

496 " Every single person here knows that the reason we all thought Saddam Hussein had WMDs is that we heard it from four different presidents, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and then Bush the Younger,"

And almost ever intelligence agency in the world. A goodly chunk of 1st World leaders. The United Nations. A goodly chunk of elected Democrats.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Donald Trump started spouting about the evils of the Iraq war at the same time Democrats started castigating Bush, right?

Posted by: William Teach at February 15, 2016 07:50 PM (Nyq7O)

497 Agree,William. Only a useful idiot would support him over Cruz.

Posted by: Geoffrey at February 15, 2016 07:54 PM (LoRcb)

498 Your really grasping at straws Ace with your palpable hatred of all things Trump.

Posted by: gonzotx at February 15, 2016 08:00 PM (eV1YV)

499 Hmmm . . . was Ace's Trump flirtation with Trump real, or was he just riding in his wake the whole time like Cruz, Limbaugh, and others? I love this site, but Ace's previous support for Trump seems like a con.

The base is angry. And many of them have found a fighter in Trump. So, some who wave the Republican flag no matter what have some intelligence to note that if they are obvious in their contempt for the 'vulgar' frontrunner, a lot of people will see their posts and opinions as just another obvious tool of party line propaganda. But the more skillful hide their true intentions and slowly try to subvert the opinions of others. It's clever, but it won't work this time.

I hope I'm wrong about Ace's motivations with these posts, but it's just weird that he is devoting so much time to defend W and his legacy, which has really done a lot of damage to this country.

By the way, the original post doesn't prove anything: we didn't go to war in Iraq in 2000. The facts are that Trump has been a very vocal critic of the Iraq debacle and no other candidate can make that claim. There doesn't need to be an article between 2002-2004 to prove that Trump was adamantly against the war. That's just an artificial marker. His rhetoric in 2008 alone distances himself from neocon foreign policy.

Posted by: Turkey O Tooley at February 15, 2016 08:08 PM (kwHPo)

500 Cruz is a liar who is getting exposed. It's sickening that he waves the bible and thanks God for his victories, when his team constantly cheats. I would love for some bible thumpers to square their blind support for Cruz with me. You people who are supporting Elmer Gantry are getting conned.

Rubio's foreign policy is just like GWB's, only more reckless and irresponsible, so his administration would be one big feckless escapade. All of you defending GWB now need the practice for a Rubio administration, I guess.

And Bush. He is the one that will outlast the other candidates aside from Trump. Support for Cruz and Rubio is support for Bush. You're wasting your time and effort propping up these first term senators. They are vote splitters for Bush.

Posted by: Turkey O Tooley at February 15, 2016 08:14 PM (kwHPo)

501 500 tons of uranium shipped from Iraq, Pentagon says
Pentagon: U.S. secretly shipped Iraq's low-grade uranium dating back to Hussein era
Officials: U.S. military spent $70 million for the transport of materials to Canada
"Yellowcake" uranium transfer was requested by the Iraqi government

Posted by: truther at February 15, 2016 08:16 PM (MpG4L)

502 another all about Jeb!? poor fool, bless his heart.
Gah, I hate these fucks. Not interested in another Bush, nope.
FYNQ

Cruzing to victory....

Posted by: micky at February 15, 2016 08:35 PM (LBYzV)

503 "Are we really now adopting the 2003 MoveOn.org theory of the war?"

Not "we." This Democrat pretender that the Angry Right keeps trying to sell us on, as if he were a legitimate contender for the nomination.

He's not.

Posted by: Attila Girl at February 15, 2016 08:49 PM (HI1YC)

504 Thanks for the post. I swear every time it comes up there are more of these fuckface
mush-mind weak-willed fucks trying to say that there were never any
weapons of mass destruction. Or they try to say "oh we really only
thought they meant nukes?". BullShit. Why the fuck do people think we
were bombing them for 10 years BEFORE any invasion. If people want to
argue the weapons were worth attacking them or not, that's one thing but
what the leftists and thier useful idiots are pushing something else
entirely.

Posted by: JoshO at February 15, 2016 09:16 PM (Q5m9w)

505 I'm of the opinion that Bush did not lie. I think we were lied into a war in Iraq, all right, but the liar what lied was none other than Saddam Hussein, himself.

He was making moves that gave the impression that he had a fully-functioning WMD program again. I think he did this to put up appearances against his longtime enemy, Iran, and try to stave off an invasion from there.

I think we, in the US, were in a position where we saw some evidence of a WMD program, and what some folks are now calling "lying us into war" was merely our leaders trying to fill in the blanks.

That said, there are some pundits that I respect who've taken the "Bush lied" position. Michael Savage and Peter Boyles are of that opinion. Savage is a big-time Trump supporter, and has interviewed Trump several times on his show.

I disagree with Trump on the "Bush lied" thing. But! What's the worst-case scenario if Trump wins? He might launch an investigation, which, in the end, may reveal "The Truth", or may reveal nothing.

I'm not seeing a problem, either way.

Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler... Trump/Camacho 2016! at February 15, 2016 09:33 PM (0OG8D)

506 Well, GWB should have put an end to the "lie" argument. He didn't. We got Obama. Our loss ...
Moron.

As to Trump, he's right now thinking about the general election. That's why he brought up the subject. Appeal to would be Dims defectors. Triangulation it is called ....

Posted by: G6loq at February 15, 2016 09:50 PM (zj+JZ)

507 I'm pretty anti-interventionist - not quite Ron Paul-esque, but close enough. I hated the idea of the Iraq war back then and hate it now. I actually voted for Michael Peroutka in 2004 - the single only time in my life I didn't vote for a Republican for any federal office so far. I even participated in an anti-war demonstration while summering in Europe- actually a Winter vacation, it was in Rome, mid-February 2003. I'm getting old.

Yet I can't still warp my mind there are people who take Trump's illiterate utterances as some legitimate points on war and peace, foreign policy or the Iraq war. Ace is spot on: he's parroting the MoveOn nonsense. He's as eloquent, thoughtful and profound talking about this like some ghetto beautician. This is just the underground of political thought and speech.

And this coming from a guy who says he wants to invade other countries to take their oil. It's cringe inducing to see the same people trying to dignify Trump's statements by suggesting some sort of rationale to them, pretending they're the product of some reasoned thought on these issues, forgetting this is the same guy who wants to "go in there and steal their oil".

At this point, there is no way I can vote for Trump in the general. Either I'll stay at home if Sanders is the nominee, or I'll vote for Hillary. I don't want a know-nothing rube in the White House and that's what this ape is.

Posted by: Abali at February 15, 2016 09:51 PM (89I+i)

508 Allright, to take Ace's theory for all of you protecting your ego: let's say that Bush didn't lie (debatable, but whatever).

At the very least, bare minimum, the management of the Iraq war was colossally stupid. Republicans were in charge at that time. Look at the results right now: there is chaos in the Middle East, massive migration that is changing the face of Europe, the proliferation of terrorism, the rise of ISIS, trillions gone, maimed soldiers, and those who didn't make it out alive.

Complete disaster. And it was a big reason the country swung over to a communist agitator who hoodwinked them.

For all of those of you who are personally offended at Trump's insinuations and are massaging your bruised ego, let me extend you an out to preserve your self___: George W. Bush's failures are not yours. Just because a Republican did a horrible job as president does not mean that you are a moron or that you did a horrible job.

We were poorly served by bad leadership. The same party that fails us left and right is the same party, essentially, that was calling the shots at that time.

I voted for and supported Bush throughout his residency. Many of you did too. But you know what? His administration's incompetence is not on us. Whether he lied or whether he was grossly incompetent and out-of-touch with this nation, he made some very poor decisions.

Now we have the chance to turn the page. Drop the weight of a poorly run administration. What Bush did and what Republicans have done for the past 16 years is not conservatism.

Finally, I thought Ace was tired of shoveling the shit of the Republican party. The Iraq war (whether through lies or gross incompetence) was a steaming pile. Republicans do not win by trying to spin this turd into a diamond. It's not going to happen.

But we can turn the page. That failure is not on us. It's on the Bush administration. We can pick a better course, and I think that we will.

Posted by: Turkey O Tooley at February 15, 2016 10:16 PM (kwHPo)

509 But it's ok for Rubio to start the vicious untrue rumors first right Trumpketeer?

Posted by: Geoffrey at February 15, 2016 10:32 PM (LoRcb)

510 There is lying and there is choosing to believe only the evidence that fits your objective. It was well-known Bush wanted to go into Iraq and finish what is father started. This was prior to him being elected and prior to 9/11.

After 9/11, Bush decided to imply that Saddam might share WMD's with terrorists (a supposition at best) so we needed to go in on that basis and oust him. He never said it was going to be an indefinite exercise costing trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.

The WMD's weren't there (Conservative dogma about chemical weapons to the contrary). If Bush were an honest man, we should have gotten us out right then and there as the main rationale for going in was gone. And yes, GWB admits in his book that without the WMD threat the country and Congress would have NEVER approved the use of force.

So, did Bush lie? On many things he obfuscated and equivocated. He painted a picture to get what he wanted and that picture turned out to be false. Trump is more right than wrong and any so-called "Conservative" who thinks it is still important to defend the colossal failure that was the Bush administration is a fucking asshole.

Bush took us all for an ugly ride. It cost the country big and the right-wing even bigger. I don't get the hate for someone who is telling us the truth at long last.

Posted by: Chris Vaughn at February 15, 2016 11:01 PM (4ddzj)

511 Bush took us all for an ugly ride. It cost the country big and the right-wing even bigger. I don't get the hate for someone who is telling us the truth at long last.

Posted by: Chris Vaughn at February 15, 2016 11:01 PM (4ddzj)

You and Trump are both full of shit. Deal with it.

Posted by: The Oort Cloud - Source of all SMODs at February 15, 2016 11:38 PM (AYY6Y)

512 In the US you are unaware of Richard Butler the UN weapons inspector who was at the forefront of the pro-WMD claims, "Of course there were Iraqi WMDs, I held them in my hands!" he said when the "lie" meme surfaced. You are unaware of him because he is Australian. An Australian leftist in fact, former secretary to Australia's legendary leftist Prime Minister Gough Whitlam (utter prick). Butler is not a "neocon" in any way shape or form. Yet look up his numerous books on Iraq's WMD. Everyone read them in the 1990s and Butler used to appear on your PBS talking about Saddam's WMD. Do Americans only see what they want to see? Is it all about the last few years? Does anyone there even do any research? Why have you ignored Richard Butler for the past ten years? Is it all about who yells loudest in your shrill "democracy"?

Posted by: bruce at February 16, 2016 12:52 AM (lNRoU)

513 At the Saturday debate, Trump claimed he lost - his words - many friends in the September 11 attacks. No one has asked him to name them. Someone should. He says this sort of crap constantly, and gets away with it because he filibusters every single challenging question. Like a cheap street bully, someone challenges him on something he says, he calls the challenger Nasty and The Biggest Liar Ever. There must thousands of people in his The Biggest Liar Ever Hall of Nasties.

If the other candidates were to put aside their picayune differences and go after this sleek pig fucker, no way would he win this contest. But no, that will not do, so, yes, he will win. And then: Armafreakinggeddon. If you try to translate his support among GOP primary voters, it comes out at one third, at best. But everyone else hates him. Most regular GOP voters hate him. That one third plurality taken to the general election will get him maybe 100 Electoral Votes, I think not even.

Posted by: Strumpet McDonald at February 16, 2016 02:54 AM (lqeGC)

514 Trump University graduates don't care if he's told yet another provably false, borderline-insane thing, because

Trump Has Electrolytes!

Posted by: TallDave at February 16, 2016 10:25 AM (74ZYB)

515 Posted by: Strumpet McDonald at February 16, 2016 02:54 AM (lqeGC)

I believe he actually said "hundreds of friends."

His response to question about how he would accomplish the various unconstitutional things he's promised was "consensus with Congress." At this point I can't decide whether he's really so nuts he thinks Congress is going to support his insanity or whether he's so nuts he's planning to march his Trumpraetorian Guard into the Senate and House and have them vote at gunpoint.

At one point he also said gets along with everyone. Headdesk.

Posted by: TallDave at February 16, 2016 10:29 AM (74ZYB)

516 Ace, I pretty much agree with your takes on the Bush Lied attacks from Trump. One other thing to consider --- remember SC is an open primary. Dems and Indys can vote. Is Trump trying to pull off enough liberal votes with the Moveon.org old liberal attacks regarding Iraq war to get him to victory in SC? I believe the open primary is basically why we still have Lindsey Graham in the senate. He is impossible to primary out because of the open primary in SC - he gets votes from the libs.

Posted by: Kevin at February 16, 2016 03:05 PM (PB1cT)

Processing 0.11, elapsed 0.1143 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0396 seconds, 525 records returned.
Page size 318 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.