ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, February 18, 2016

Big swing, bigger miss

I like Ace. But I think he has gone very aft agley on this most recent pronouncement concerning the latest imminent demise of Donald Trump's presidential campaign:
I think Trump hurt himself badly tonight, enough to knock him out of his first-place standing in most states. Oh he won't completely disappear -- but 2nd Place Trump is not the same thing as Frontrunner Trump.

Trump damaged himself with his claim that Bush lied us into war in Iraq. Not botched the intelligence, not read too much into thin intelligence.

Most Republicans, I think, would agree that that.

No, Trump claimed that Bush deliberately lied us into war.

First, this is alarming because it once again demonstrates that Trump has a conspiratorial mind. It's not enough for the conspiracist to say someone was wrong -- no, they have unrealistically black/white minds, and if you made a bad call, you must have lied.

That conspiracism was always present in his claims about Obama's birth certificate. But that bit of fantasy was about Obama, someone the average Republican voter isn't exactly eager to man the battlements for.

This corker -- this Al Gore roar of quote -- is about George W. Bush, someone still looked upon with affection by most of the party.

Which brings us to the second problem.

If Donald Trump is right, and George W. Bush deliberately schemed with his neo-con advisers to "lie" us into a phony war with Iraq, what does that say about the average Republican voter who supported Bush from 1999, voted for him, defended him through the recount, cried with him on 9/11, agreed with him on Iraq, defended him from ceaseless liberal attacks on him during the war, defended him from Obama's never-expiring "Blame Bush" blame-shifting, etc.?

If Trump is right, then we're not just wrong to have supported him. If Trump's right, we're goddamned rubes and fools to have defended this Actual Hitler-Level Monster for going on 17 years now.
My first response is yes, you were all goddamned rubes and fools to have supported George W. Bush and the invasion/occupation of Iraq. I said so 12 years ago. I was right then, and Donald Trump is right now.

And my second response is to observe that there is already a candidate who is a proxy for the affection George W. Bush enjoys in the party, namely, his brother Jeb Bush. And Jeb has the support of about one percent of the party.

So, I very much doubt that the Republican voters are anywhere nearly as ego-invested in George W. Bush as Ace's argument requires.

Labels:

175 Comments:

Blogger Anchorman February 18, 2016 11:02 AM  

Does that mean you think Bush deliberately lied to get the US into the war?

Blogger CM February 18, 2016 11:08 AM  

supported Bush from 1999

Voted for him

cried with him on 9/11

agreed with him on Iraq

defended him from Obama's never-expiring "Blame Bush" blame-shifting

Talk about black and white thinking.

Many people could have done any number of the above and still not take umbrage with Trump's claim.

That "cried on 9/11" bit is particularly rich, though. So only Bush supporters cried on 9/11?

Anonymous old man in a villa February 18, 2016 11:09 AM  

I can't believe that there are any sentient beings left who actually believe ANY of the claims issuing from Mordor on the Potomac.

Yes, Virginia, he lied. Or read someone else's lies off the teleprompter because he was too addlepated to have actually looked at any of the "intel" with discernment. I guess you can choose what works best for you.

Blogger Jack Ward February 18, 2016 11:12 AM  

Along these line: I'm sure I will face an uphill battle to try and get my representative to file impeachment charges against Obama. And, he richly deserves impeachment if ever a President did. This the only way I see to avoid a stacked SC after the highly suspect and timely [from dem viewpoints] death of Scalia. I had already decided to vote against him in the primary due to his lack of impeachment efforts. We will see...
Around here we roll our eyes and joke a bit about this being 'the most important election ever' this time it may actually be true.

Blogger pyrrhus February 18, 2016 11:13 AM  

The "Trump killed himself in the debate" gang is completely delusional....

Blogger pyrrhus February 18, 2016 11:14 AM  

As the polls show.....

Anonymous drnick February 18, 2016 11:16 AM  

It's a hilarious delusion, because they'll be more shattered than Romney 2012 fanatics when Trump takes South Carolina. Feed it as much as you like. As for the Bush family, I think Trump is giving them a warning: keep standing against me, and I'll stand against you. To much greater effect. He's playing a long game, which makes me wonder exactly how far his vision stretches, and to what purpose.

Blogger dienw February 18, 2016 11:16 AM  

The level of delusion among the "peasant" (what else are they in the eyes of the cartel that runs the party?) Republicans is profoundly astonishing: how easily they discount or ignore Cruz's criminal conduct and his flagrant lies; nor do they consider that there is a reason Jeb! is staying in the race despite being at one percent: he expects a brokered convention because the pluralities being created will require it; and he will become the deal maker. Jeb! may even wrangle a VP position under one of the tacos; but, as one commentator declared, the Bush cartel will arrange for a head shot to elevate him to the presidency.

Blogger dh February 18, 2016 11:18 AM  

> If Trump is right, then we're not just wrong to have supported him. If Trump's right, we're goddamned rubes and fools to have defended this Actual Hitler-Level Monster for going on 17 years now.

Yeah, no shit. All those people who you used to respect who were telling Republicans and conservatives that you can't trust the government, all during the post 9/11 stars and stripes fest, all during the run up to Iraq invasion - during all that time there were a lot of otherwise normal people saying "this isn't right", and we were all shouted down by the killer vampire cheerleader squad.

Of course you were wrong. Even if everything the neocons said was true - that they did have weapons, that they were in league with al Qeada, that Saddam was the new Hitler, it still wouldn't have justified the invasion.

Blogger RobertT February 18, 2016 11:23 AM  

I personally met Bush and his family when I ran for Congress. Supported him initially just because he wasn't a Democrat. Although they were likable. And I donated, to the senate committee, to the Congressional committee. I got all the honors and awards that come with that, including presidential commendations, chairman of this and chairman of that, photos for my trophy wall, the whole shebang. Many of you probably got the same kind of thing. It wasn't unique to me. But about halfway through Bush's 8 years I had my epiphany and dropped the Bushes like a hot rock, quit taking R calls. Yadda, yadda. Eight years later after things have had time to percolate, I would think many Republicans have come to similar conclusions. IN their gut, most people probably agree with Trump. The more the establishment attacks Trump, the stronger he gets. @ricky_vaught99 said last night the poll was an agenda poll and to expect more of them. I agree. This is going to get extremely dirty. The establishment's place in the world is at stake. They are going to pull out all stops, perhaps even fix elections. If Scalia can get himself killed, anything is possible.

Blogger VD February 18, 2016 11:25 AM  

Does that mean you think Bush deliberately lied to get the US into the war?

Absolutely. I met the gang around the Bush clan back when W was still his father's political consigliere and Ken Lay and Georgette Mosbacher were in the limelight. W wouldn't have even HESITATED to lie about it.

Anonymous Ronnie February 18, 2016 11:26 AM  

The Iraq War was a disaster. It set the ball rolling for ISIS and the immigration invasion throughout Europe. George Bush will certainly go down in history as an incompetent. The reason we ended up with Obama was due to massive fatigue of Bush and his war. The events he set in motion are extremely destructive.

Blogger Hostem Populi February 18, 2016 11:28 AM  

The prospect of admitting that the neocon line is humbug is too humiliating for Ace, since he's been carrying water for them for years. Maybe Ace echoes IRL, that would explain things a bit. I used to buy into the neocon narrative, and didn't really get knocked out of it until the Snowden thing hit, and I saw the cucks trying to defend the NSA. In retrospect, I knew better all along, but just went along because politics.

My unsolicited advice to Ace? Admit you were wrong and move on with your life. And that can go to anyone who knows they're rationalizing something they know is wrong because politics. Just cut it out. You aren't getting anything out of this, and you can have a clean conscience again.

Blogger Mastermind February 18, 2016 11:28 AM  

I think Ace overestimates how much ego the average republican has invested in GWB's virtue because he shilled for W for a living, and it's a difficult pill to swallow that a good chunk of your life's work involved you shilling for a traitor. Most will have no trouble relieving themselves of their guilt by placing all the blame on Bush, which IMO is fair to do as the average person knows little about public affairs beyond what mass media and politicians tell them.

Anonymous VFM #6306 February 18, 2016 11:30 AM  

Part of it is that there are dyed-in-the-wool Party insider mindsets at work here. They still think debates are "won" and "lost" and that makes a significant difference. Political dorks like to think it is a game like football, where the "winner" positions himself best for post-season awards like primary elections and general elections.

No.

Debates are for expressing conflicting ideas. That's it. The entertainment/showboat aspect of it left for good at the 2000 elections, even though the tea-readers still act like it is still Reagan-Carter.

When the gang of Useless Idiots in the GOP can't differentiate themselves, it doesn't matter how much drama they simulate. Jeb Bush: "Please clap." That's about as on-the-nose as it gets for a Party member to openly acknowledge that the machine isn't providing the happy biscuits it used too.

Trump, for the most part, just says what he feels and expresses what he believes...and that alone is jacking with the entire system, because as much as the insiders say that his failure to operate the machinery is a "loss" or a "defeat" all that it really shows normal people is that...yep, the machine is broken. It won't turn on.

A dead machine can't dub him the loser or the winner. It can't dub anything.

See also Hillary Clinton's machine expertise, and why it doesn't seem to be setting off any bells and whistles anymore. When a guy who is too old and dotty to remember his email password is beating the pantsuit off your email-encrypting ass, the proof is there: the machine biscuits aren't coming any more.

We'll have to analyze this situation as it actually is, not with whatever prognostication the broken Spinner has stopped on. For once.

OpenID randkoch February 18, 2016 11:33 AM  

Lying about WMDs goes too far. Disagreeing on the war is one thing. Charging deceit on this is another.

Criticizing McCain for getting captured was already moronic. Getting in a fight always risks getting shot down. The Red Baron was shot down twice. I was willing to set that aside because the stakes are so high, putting it down as simple naivety on his part.

I still lean Trump only because the stakes are high. He remains best on immigration. Other than Cruz, the rest of the field is THAT BAD. Cruz isn't as good, but he is looking better and better.

Blogger Hostem Populi February 18, 2016 11:36 AM  

@15 The football fan analogy is apt, the only difference being that if a football team wins or loses, nobody's country gets invaded or gets their healthcare coverage at work cancelled.

This is why I consider sports fans morally superior to politics junkies.

Anonymous VFM #6306 February 18, 2016 11:37 AM  

@11 Absolutely. I met the gang around the Bush clan back when W was still his father's political consigliere and Ken Lay and Georgette Mosbacher were in the limelight. W wouldn't have even HESITATED to lie about it.

Interesting. I always assume that if you have "politics" in your job description, that lying is simply a job requirement to get ahead. Is there anything in particular that made you think he was particularly quick to lie, even compared to other politicians?

Blogger LES February 18, 2016 11:37 AM  

Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan February 18, 2016 11:38 AM  

Trump can bring the contards home just let them know that Obama is much worse than Bush

Blogger Noah B February 18, 2016 11:39 AM  

It should be obvious by now that W either lied about the nature of the threat or was almost unfathomably stupid. It's practically a compliment for Trump to assume that he lied.

Blogger Hostem Populi February 18, 2016 11:40 AM  

@16 From a political perspective, denouncing Bush for lying is sensible, because most people are going to agree with that assessment. I might grant that Bush the Younger did a bit more rationalizing (and getting rid of a thug like Saddam wasn't too hard to rationalize), and may not have technically lied, but the results are the same regardless.

Or, from the perspective of rhetoric, accusing someone of being a murderer will resonate far more than accusing them of involuntary manslaughter.

Blogger Elocutioner February 18, 2016 11:40 AM  

I defended Bush for most of those years because a lie requires intent rather than just being mistaken and I didn't see proof of the intent. It's the fourteen years of evidence that's piled up since then that made me change my mind about the big gov't, crony capitalist neocon cozy with the Saudis who did nothing for the budget or national security or our posterity since then. He (thankfully) helped destroy conservatism and gave us Obama, McCain, Romney, and now Jeb! and Marco. So did he lie or was he just a moron rube who was misoverestimated? I believe it was the former but I don't really care, result is the same.

Trump's statement was also partially positioning for the general election and for states with open primaries (none of the others have much crossover appeal). So, no, I'm not going to defend W or the Holy Prophet Reagan (PBUH) nor get upset when they're rightfully skewered. You don't get to light the house on fire then blame me when I decide to leave. If only I had been exposed to real thinkers early on rather than stumbling across them years later. My children won't suffer from the same mistake.

Here's a quote from Robert Lewis Dabney, 1897:
"It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent: Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. ... No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position."

http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/11/robert-lewis-dabney-on-conservatism/

My how things change.

Now consider that the CIA set up Buckley and NR in the 60's and promptly expunged the Birchers. Do a bit of research on the Birchers. They weren't just some tiny kook fringe doing ineffective rallies like the leftists of today. They had serious clout and meant to conserve our posterity. They had what today looks like some kooky fringe beliefs that were pounced on as the reason to other and silence them, but they were solidly anti-communist. NR has only turned a profit once in 60 years (1994) and is a non-profit for some unknown benefactors. And they just coordinated an entire magazine and media cycle with The NRO 22 to smear Trump, the only man who can actually defeat the Alinsky socialist or the "democratic socialist" from the other party. Nah, it's a totally unfounded conspiracy theory, no way the GOP is simply controlled opposition to the statists, they make all sorts of solid conservative promises every election cycle!

Blogger VD February 18, 2016 11:44 AM  

Is there anything in particular that made you think he was particularly quick to lie, even compared to other politicians?

I wouldn't say he was any quicker to do so than other politicians given that one governor of Minnesota once told my parents one thing, left my Dad's office, then said the exact opposite in a press conference 30 minutes later. But I learned that no one in that entire crowd gave a damn about anything but money and power.

They didn't even care about political principles or ideology, much less truth.

Blogger Scott X February 18, 2016 11:44 AM  

VD, I think you're missing Ace's point. I hate to defend him as he's a partial cuck, but it doesn't matter if the Iraq war was wrong or not (it was). His point is you don't remind conservative voters that they blew a big call and then expect them to feel good about it and vote for you.

Blogger Salt February 18, 2016 11:44 AM  

Was this Ace's "please clap" moment?

OpenID rufusdog February 18, 2016 11:45 AM  

This yo-yo thinks bad mouthing Bush is going to sink Trump, ha.

Trump is channeling everyone’s general anger at government, he is Barnes...but hopefully the village will be the government and not the country.

If Trump fails it will be because his Christian and Conservative bona fides aren’t there and those folks stay home for the general election. But facing Trump vs Clinton…I’m not sure, but I know so many folks on the right that want nothing to do with Trump, I don’t think loath is too strong a word.

I still can’t believe Sanders is giving Hillary a run.
We shall see. Trump or Sanders please, either way I get endless entertainment for four years.

Anonymous Leonidas February 18, 2016 11:48 AM  

Don't forget that the Tea Party was formed every bit as much as a reaction to George W Bush as it was to anything the Democratic party was doing. Whether you support the Tea Party or not, that's ample evidence that a love of W simply isn't a dominant factor for today's GOP voters.

Blogger Hostem Populi February 18, 2016 11:52 AM  

@25 You're giving the voters too much credit. If they have a scapegoat at the ready to absolve them of their sins, then they'll turn on a dime when the political winds shift. The only people who this will trouble are the Republican sports fan types, who look at Bush the Younger as the last head coach to win the Superbowl.

Anonymous mark in orlando February 18, 2016 11:53 AM  

in the not too distant past, Republicans were against being the policeman of the world, against the UN and its resolutions, against nation building, St. Reagan at least gave us this rhetoric and didn't send troops abroad in any significant numbers, but the Bushes on the other hand, so Trump has done us the great favor of exposing Limbaugh, Levin, Medved, NRO, and all 'em as the liberal interventionists that they truly are.

OpenID b1bae96e-6447-11e3-b6bb-000f20980440 February 18, 2016 11:53 AM  

Seems a bit hard on Bush, who genuinely loves the US. Unlike Obama who more or less admits he didn't in his memoirs and confirmed by his "wife" the day he was elected.

Where Bush lied was in not telling people "oh and by the way we are going to need to have a permanent military presence in Iraq for as long as we want it as a puppet state, and it won't be like Germany, Japan or Korea. They are going to have to do some killing the entire time". Which of course was known from the facts before hand.

At the time I was indifferent to Iraq, which I suppose is enough that I should have been against the war. If you don't have a good reason to fight a war, you should be against the war. Learned from that one. Not really a big fan of the nation building part.

As for Trump, he really isn't more vile than any other candidate. He just gets more traction. Plus, he is pivoting to the general. Which might seem ballzy but the boys at Princeton have pointed out that unless the GOP field clears to Trump +2 by SEC Tuesday, and Trump +1 by March 8, its going to take a massive upset to beat him.

Plus, any time Trump says specifics he has a solid answer. For example, Bill Pryor would end Roe v. Wade, and Diane Sykes has some solid 2nd Amendment cred. The Former is a southerner (though he did spend a few years in San Fran), and the latter is a Midwestern gal neither of them have spent any time in New England.

Which is why neither is talked about in relationship to Trump because everybody in the pundit class would have nothing to say except "Damn, solid candidates.". So they keep bringing up the time Trump said nice things about his sister.

Will Best

Blogger praetorian February 18, 2016 11:53 AM  

His point is you don't remind conservative voters that they blew a big call and then expect them to feel good about it and vote for you.

I agree with your analysis, but we have enough empirical evidence now to at least grant the possibility that, rather than hurting Trump, this will help him.

What if this provides the catharsis that many duped-by-neo-cucks normie conservatives need to make a clean mental break with the (((mistakes))) of the past?

Anonymous mark in orlando February 18, 2016 11:56 AM  

and the great thing about attacking GWB is that the only defense people such as ACE and the rest of the neo-con media/Republican Establishment, the only defense they have against Trump's charge that they lied us into war, is that they are monumentally incompetent, plus Hillary voted for the war and he can tar her with it as well, he hit multiple targets hard with one shot

Anonymous BGKB February 18, 2016 11:57 AM  

I was a medic in the first gulf war, while I realized all the Kuwaiti's I meet were incompetent it was not until years after 911 that I realized taking Kuwait from a secular power was a mistake which I participated in.

That "cried on 9/11" bit is particularly rich, though. So only Bush supporters cried on 9/11?

Liberals outside of NYC thought the US got what it deserved. With 17 of the 911 guys being Saudi's I didn't understand why we didn't fight Saudi Arabia.

The "Trump killed himself in the debate" gang is completely delusional

He must have gotten self defense training for when pillows attack on their own.

Even if everything the neocons said was true - that they did have weapons

I believed they had weapons because the US gave them weapons, it just turned out they either got used on the bad moslems or carried out of state.

As for the Bush family, I think Trump is giving them a warning

In Trumps letter to Putin he said they must never be in Texas at the same time or they would both be assassinated, because of the Bushes
kremlin-in-turmoil-after-trump-letter-to-putin-suggests-us-supreme-court-justice-was-murdered-2474012

Criticizing McCain for getting captured was already moronic

No one is criticizing McCain for being captured, they are criticizing him for being a songbird in jail, and for killing 167 sailors on one of his 3 crashes that if he was not an admirals son would have been discharged before. Some of them died because he was trying to show off. Its legitimate to question if he killed more US soldiers than enemy.

Blogger Dexter February 18, 2016 11:57 AM  

There is NOTHING the Democrats would love more than to make this election a referendum on Dubya rather than what it should be - a referendum on Obama.

Nominating Jeb and embracing the stupidity of the Iraq War is the PERFECT way to give the Democrats what they want.

Trump attacking Dubya and the Iraq War was an excellent way to deprive the Democrats of that argument and get the albatross of the previous administration's failures off the GOP neck.

Anonymous Ad Victoriam February 18, 2016 11:58 AM  

@27 "... but I know so many folks on the right that want nothing to do with Trump,..."

Do they love their nation/people more than they hate Trump? What does it mean to be 'on the right'? Are they conservative globalists or are they patriots? One can be conservative and not be loyal to one's own people, or any other. There are Chinese conservatives and Argentinian conservatives and internationalist conservatives etc and none of them are loyal to America or any other Western nation.

This isn't about Trump. He is simply the only one who COULD step up to the plate to lead that HAS stepped up to the plate to lead. You go into battle for the existence of your civilization with the leaders you have, not the leaders you wish you had.

Blogger VD February 18, 2016 12:01 PM  

VD, I think you're missing Ace's point. I hate to defend him as he's a partial cuck, but it doesn't matter if the Iraq war was wrong or not (it was). His point is you don't remind conservative voters that they blew a big call and then expect them to feel good about it and vote for you.

I'm not missing his point. I'm saying he's wrong. I think those conservative voters feel very betrayed by George W. Bush, and that's why they aren't cheerfully supporting Jeb. If Trump loses South Carolina, Ace might be right. And if Trump wins South Carolina, he's obviously wrong.

Blogger Scott X February 18, 2016 12:04 PM  

Praetorian, I can't help but think that sounding like a Puffington Host poster at a Republican debate could be a plus for Trump. I like the guy but that was not his greatest moment. It seems to have had no effect on his poll numbers, as his supporters (I count myself as one of them) are driven by rage more than anything else. After being betrayed by the GOPe and seeing them fold up like a deck chair at Pavarotti's house so many times, it truly is time to hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.

Blogger VD February 18, 2016 12:04 PM  

Seems a bit hard on Bush, who genuinely loves the US.

I doubt it. He wouldn't have wasted its military and endorsed so many globalist projects if he did.

Anonymous Crude February 18, 2016 12:05 PM  

I hate to defend him as he's a partial cuck, but it doesn't matter if the Iraq war was wrong or not (it was). His point is you don't remind conservative voters that they blew a big call and then expect them to feel good about it and vote for you.

I think this analysis fails, but I get why it'd seem to work. Ace is assuming that wholeheartedly supporting W in the past makes W basically bulletproof in the present with conservatives - to attack W is to tell his supporters they made a mistake. No one likes to be told they made a mistake. Ergo...

But this misses some key points.

* A good share of this election basically boils down to the following view: 'We believed you idiots in the Establishment. We trusted you. We worked and promoted things on behalf of you. And you screwed us again and again and again. We despise you.' In other words, 'We made a big fuckup in the past' is already baked into the current reaction. That is what Trump has been thriving on. 'You supported them, and they gave you Roberts. You voted them in, and they tried to force amnesty on you.'

* Second, and I think more important: I think a lot of W's popularity is W as a person, not as a president. Even (or 'especially', given guys like Buchanan) fairly right wing conservatives regard the Iraq war as a mistake, and Bush's presidency as a failure. He increased the size of government, got us involved in a war, wasted absurd amounts of money, and more. But people have been hands off about W on this assumption that he's a kind of idol in the GOP. Which is a bit like how immigration and BlackLivesMatter were topics that needed to be handled with delicate care, because they were such sensitive topics.

Trump demonstrated that delicacy was not needed in the latter cases - in fact, they were getting in the way. With Bush, I think there's going to be a different payoff. Bush's sacred status has been challenged, and no one's capable of defending it. And now that a Republican - an extremely prominent one - has done it, everyone else who has reservations will feel like they can finally say what they've long been thinking.

To be honest, I don't trust Ace's analysis. He's on record as saying 'Yeah I lied on behalf of the establishment, knowingly, because I was convinced that's what I was supposed to do for the good of the party, but now I know better.' Between that and other shit (See him talking about the need to calm down and just put up with black people hating white people after that church shooting, see him talking about how he's long been a secret Trump supporter when he's constantly railing against Trump). He, unfortunately, comes across to me as someone who plays the narrative game.

Anonymous karsten February 18, 2016 12:05 PM  

There is no question that "the intelligence was shaped around the policy." In other words, it was a fabrication. A lie. That is known. That is a fact.

It is also known that Blair was aware of this, and likely involved in said shaping/lying.

I personally do believe that W. knew. If he didn't, then that only makes me even MORE pleased that Trump stated this, because it means that he, Trump, is savvy enough to know shenanigans when he sees them -- and unlike W., he won't be duped by them.

Being most charitable as possible to W., it was in fact W.'s LACK of conspiratorial awareness that enabled the (((neocons))) to bamboozle him so utterly.

Trump's own comments demonstrate that he's too clear-eyed to be taken in by them.

Anonymous Ras al Ghul February 18, 2016 12:05 PM  

"VD, I think you're missing Ace's point. I hate to defend him as he's a partial cuck, but it doesn't matter if the Iraq war was wrong or not (it was). His point is you don't remind conservative voters that they blew a big call and then expect them to feel good about it and vote for you."

The majority of Americans (probably close to two thirds) believe that Bush lied about the WMD and none of them were convinced by any "evidence" there were wmd.

Every democrat believes he lied. Probably every moderate does too. They think that Bush went into Iraq because he had daddy issues.

Trump is appealing to all those people in the long game for the general election, and in the short game for all the moderate republicans, all the libertarians, all the republicans that see what the wars have wrought.

The war in Iraq and afgan has gained the american people nothing but the deaths of their sons.

Bush betrayed the american people when he bailed out the banks, so the entire Bush family should be called traitors and run out of the country (after being stripped of every penny).

A fair number of conservatives feel like they were betrayed too by the Bushes. So while a few people will see this as being called out for making a mistake, most people will think in their hearts:

"He feels like I do, the Bush family betrayed me"

Blogger Elocutioner February 18, 2016 12:06 PM  

I chuckle that Trump being a "conspiracist" is damaging. I don't know ANYONE with two brain cells who buys the official line on anything out of DC or the media any more.

This is the fruit of the media and gov't spinning EVERYTHING for political gain to push a narrative and protect their biased asses, especially regarding immigration and gun control - they have zero credibility.

So if you don't buy the official line on something you're a conspiracy nut!? Pfft. I'm already racist sexist homophobic heteronormative reactionary bigot and that's the best you can do? Faggot.

Anonymous Ad Victoriam February 18, 2016 12:06 PM  

@25 "His point is you don't remind conservative voters that they blew a big call and then expect them to feel good about it and vote for you."

I don't think Trump did it just to gain new voters. I think he estimated that it would not hurt him (much). I think he did it because he is, yet again, moving the Overton Window. He is preconditioning the political battlefield for a full-on Presidential attack on the globalists inside government after he is sworn in. The globalists infest too many bureaucracies for him to affect meaningful change in policy without their removal.

Anonymous VFM #6306 February 18, 2016 12:16 PM  

W. loves America like GB the Elder loves Barney Frank's orphans.

Anonymous VFM #6306 February 18, 2016 12:22 PM  

Even if Trump is mistakenly reminding honest conservatives they blew it, at least half of those conservatives are going to remember him as a straight shooter - willing to tell them something unpopular. The other half are cucks who are scared of him anyhow.

Proving once again that what the pundits think matters...doesn't matter.

Anonymous Crank February 18, 2016 12:26 PM  

I think he's both right and wrong. If Trump had said this 8 months ago, it probably would have been a problem for him. But, at this point, most everyone who supports him has made up their minds for other reasons (cough, immigration, cough, islamorealism). And they aren't looking for reasons to change their minds because they're already emotionally invested in him. So, they'll shrug it off - especially if he says something like "I don't know that George Bush lied - maybe he didn't. But, if he didn't, then somebody must have lied to him."

It's almost as if Trump is so confident now of winning the nomination that he is willing to risk losing a few votes in the primaries in order to start winning over some independents and democrats for the general.

That said, I think "lying" is an inaccurate term here. I think they fully expected to find WMD programs. And so did the Brits. But they clearly overstated their level of certainty.

Blogger James Dixon February 18, 2016 12:26 PM  

> Every democrat believes he lied. Probably every moderate does too. They think that Bush went into Iraq because he had daddy issues.

I'd wager most of the Republican rank and file agrees. That was really the only valid reason for going into Iraq.

Blogger Giraffe February 18, 2016 12:26 PM  

My first response is yes, you were all goddamned rubes and fools to have supported George W. Bush and the invasion/occupation of Iraq. I said so 12 years ago. I was right then, and Donald Trump is right now.

Most republicans STILL are goddamned rubes and fools with regards to the invasion of Iraq. Like Ace. Trump isn't exactly enlightening people with regards to their status as rubes and fools, and he isn't doing himself much good politically even if he were. This damages him, although maybe not that much. Witness the posturing about turning Iran into a glass parking lot or standing up to Putin in Syria. They all want to appear hawkish because a lot of Republicans are still hawkish.

Bottom line, you were right, Trump is right, and a lot of Republicans are still wrong.

OpenID b1bae96e-6447-11e3-b6bb-000f20980440 February 18, 2016 12:28 PM  

I doubt it. He wouldn't have wasted its military and endorsed so many globalist projects if he did.

Didn't say he was right. Its just that he still visiting VA hospitals and all kinds of things he doesn't need to do now that nobody is paying any attention to him. So either he is committed to the role or he actually does. Clinton on the other hand is running off to pedo island while nobody is looking.

---

In other news the Pope has come out against Christianity err.... Donald Trump's immigration plan.

Will Best

Blogger Mr.MantraMan February 18, 2016 12:28 PM  

Speaking of clowns who are working to elect Trump the Pope has basically excommunicated Trump from Christianity, another bump in the polls

Anonymous Chad February 18, 2016 12:32 PM  

If the Bush brand is so wonderful... why isn't Jeb! using his favorable last name all over his campaign signs?

Blogger Giraffe February 18, 2016 12:33 PM  

I think the dislike for Jeb is due to gamma revulsion, and the fact that his brother had all three branches of government in Republican control and an only accomplished things that benefit the left. If anything, he overseas adventures are thought of as the good part of his presidency.

Blogger Gaiseric February 18, 2016 12:35 PM  

Mastermind wrote:I think Ace overestimates how much ego the average republican has invested in GWB's virtue because he shilled for W for a living, and it's a difficult pill to swallow that a good chunk of your life's work involved you shilling for a traitor.
3. SJWs always project.

OpenID rufusdog February 18, 2016 12:35 PM  

“Do they love their nation/people more than they hate Trump?”

The same nation that kills of babies by the millions, oh I would say there are a lot of us on the right that think the USA deserves to reap what they have sown. Love the people? Are we talking about the same people who voted for Obama twice? Our politicians are just a reflection of us, we as a nation are sick and if you think Trump is going to fix it your deluded.

“What does it mean to be on the right?”

I was speaking very broadly about American politics and the spectrum. I shouldn’t have to (and won’t) explain it to you. If a large enough percentage of the right stays home Trump has no chance. Although if its Sanders…ha, what an election! Hillary choking, breaking down before our eyes, Trump being a crass sophomoric douche and STILL tromping the competition. “Two Corinthians” he says, Pro-choice for decades…till well, politics.

Anonymous 5343 February 18, 2016 12:35 PM  

Further, Trump may be courting Dems and undecideds with that particular statement. Everybody knows the numbers don't work for him to beat Hillary or Bernie with only conservatives onside.

Blogger Hostem Populi February 18, 2016 12:37 PM  

@51 *Any* Pope "excommunicating" Trump would effectively be an endorsement in South Carolina.

Blogger Nick S February 18, 2016 12:37 PM  

I never supported W, but I don't believe he personally lied. He certainly wasn't smart enough to cook up any such schemes. He may not realize it even to this day or is too embarrassed to admit it, but I believe he was lied to/manipulated and it was his administration, so he was ultimately responsible for allowing it. I think he was an honorable, good-hearted and misguided idiot. His brother's administration would be more of the same. You can see how easily his campaign obviously shifts on bad advise.

Anonymous #118 February 18, 2016 12:38 PM  

Yes, I just saw the Pope's comments regarding Trump where the Pontifex said someone who wants to build wall isn't a Christian...

Isn't Vatican City completely surround BY A WALL? LOL!

The Pope going after trump is more likely to HELP Trump in a place like SC. In the general election however, I don't know if it would cost him any of the Catholic vote. I think Repubs usually need a certain percentage of the Catholic vote. That could be offset this year however, if Trump gets more Independents, etc...

Words I would never have thought I would ever say. Would never have said 6 months ago: I am going to vote for Trump in 2016. I haven't bothered to vote since 2006, and neither has my husband. We'll both vote this year though if Trump ends up being the nominee...

Anonymous VFM #6306 February 18, 2016 12:39 PM  

Jeb Bush isn't even using his name for jebbush.com...

Loyalty to W is a very misguided assumption for Ace to make.

Blogger Shimshon February 18, 2016 12:42 PM  

I voted for Bush in 2000. I soured on him as soon as he began pushing the PATRIOT Act. I was against the war in Iraq. I was foolish, not stupid.

Blogger Shimshon February 18, 2016 12:42 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger pyrrhus February 18, 2016 12:42 PM  

@58 http://www.vdare.com/posts/bush-opposed-racial-profiling-of-arabs-on-planes-before-and-after-911

Anonymous mark in orlando February 18, 2016 12:42 PM  

being originally from Chicago, the local media always told us that Mayor Daley had such a deep love for Chicago, I always thought if this was love, what would be different if he hated Chicago! With GWB it seems the same, if the results of his Presidency was because he loved America, what would have happened if he hated this country, he just left us with huge debt, no jobs and Obama, it could be worse!

Anonymous Comment #59 February 18, 2016 12:47 PM  

Vox or Moderators, please delete comment #59. I just realized I made an error which should be recognizable to Vox... I need more coffee this morning...

Blogger Dexter February 18, 2016 12:49 PM  

His point is you don't remind conservative voters that they blew a big call and then expect them to feel good about it and vote for you.

Hah. He won't lose conservative votes. Only neocon votes. And he already knows the disgusting cucks at NRO and Weekly Standard hate him.

Blogger Anchorman February 18, 2016 12:59 PM  

W didn’t lie.

He didn’t need to lie.

You’re letting a massive bureaucracy off the hook because they failed in their professional duty.

The Intel community, of which I was a member from early 90s through the buildup to the Iraq War, failed to re-check prior conclusions. I very likely read the same summary reports and analysis policy-makers read and concluded Saddam had a massive and in many ways covert (i.e. literally underground) program.

I distinctly remember reviewing imagery and the conclusions that X is an Iraqi WMD site. Y is evidence of this type of program.

I’m not suggesting the Neocons didn’t push the narrative to get us into war. I’m saying they never needed to cook the books, because the Intel community, since the time of his dad and Clinton, was 100% dead certain of the massive WMD stockpiles and programs.

So, to go along with “BUSH LIED!” is to let them off the hook for professional malpractice. They were more than happy to have everyone attack politicians, but look at the track record of the Intel services since we abandoned HUMINT networks and started relying on SIGNINT, IMINT, etc. The US was caught flat-footed time and again and, each time, the Intel community shrugged.

This is all a separate part of the Iraq War argument. It’s personal to me, because I saw the DC Intel orgs push conclusions, be shown wrong, and escaped culpability. With culpability comes true reform and we never reformed the processes.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet February 18, 2016 1:04 PM  

I'm more center of the road, and this made Trump more appealing in my eyes.

He has the balls to speak up even if that view could cost him significantly. He's not only right, he's willing to take the risk and say it without pussy-footing around.

There's respect in that.

Blogger Gaiseric February 18, 2016 1:04 PM  

Nick S wrote:I never supported W, but I don't believe he personally lied. He certainly wasn't smart enough to cook up any such schemes. He may not realize it even to this day or is too embarrassed to admit it, but I believe he was lied to/manipulated and it was his administration, so he was ultimately responsible for allowing it. I think he was an honorable, good-hearted and misguided idiot. His brother's administration would be more of the same. You can see how easily his campaign obviously shifts on bad advise.
That's generally my suspicion about W. as well. Decently decent (for a politician) but hopelessly wrong. But honestly; who cares? What difference does it make if he was dishonest or "merely" incompetent? The only ones who are willing to withhold judgement for incompetence are women (of both sexes) and they're already either voting Democrat because they've bought into the government as ersatz daddy/husband figure, or their voting for Trump because of his palpable alpha aura, or they're just voting for the person that their husband tells them he's voting for anyway.

Anonymous BGKB February 18, 2016 1:06 PM  

Seems a bit hard on Bush, who genuinely loves the US Dollars
FIFY

bush-opposed-racial-profiling-of-arabs-on-planes-before-and-after-911

Letting his Saudi financers slip away on planes when no one else could fly shows who paid his bills.

Hah. He won't lose conservative votes. Only neocon votes.

He could shoot the residents of 1600 PA ave and not lose any votes.

Blogger Ceasar February 18, 2016 1:08 PM  

I think Ace is projecting a bit here. No one wants to be considered a rube so...I have talked to several people that, like me, supported Bush during his terms and believed him when he said there was WMD present. However, these people agreed with me that we all thought Bush and Co. had dead to rights evidence and were just waiting to bury the Dems with it. It never came. Strong evidence is needed for serious charges. So while I did support Bush then, I have no problem of putting on the dunce cap and saying "I was a Rube". Learn and move on which is to say I don't trust anyone in the Bush family or any of their allies. One last thing, how can anyone not think there is something VERY wrong with the bizarre/cozy relationship the Bushes have had with the Saudi family? That alone is enough for me not to vote for Jeb besides that fact his is a cuckservative.

Blogger Ben Cohen February 18, 2016 1:13 PM  

Now the Pope is picking a fight with Trump.

Blogger Shimshon February 18, 2016 1:13 PM  

Bush knew Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, yet insinuated over and over that it did. There were many who bought it and supported the war for that reason, not WMDs.

Anonymous VFM #6306 February 18, 2016 1:18 PM  

The Pope is just shooting to boost his name recognition by fabricating a reason for Trump to tweet about him. I believe this is what passes for evangelization these days...

Anonymous chedolf February 18, 2016 1:18 PM  

I like Ace.

Does Ace publicly talk to anyone to his right? Does he ever discuss or link anyone to his right? If he has, I haven't noticed. He behaves like a gatekeeper who is determined to stop the right from disturbing the imagination of his respectable conservative readers.

Anonymous aegis-1080 February 18, 2016 1:25 PM  

Ace is wrong on his first assumption, which is wrong given the very basics of Trump's success:

Why the base should give a damn for the fate of the party if it doesn't serve THEIR interests? Part of not being "rubes and fools" is to not accept to be treated as such. The base is tired of being cucked by the cuckservatives.

This is specially important on this election, the people that want the status quo or are too proud to admit that they fucked up voting for it before are already voting for the Lizard Queen, Republican status quo candidates are superfluous.

Second, the only people offended by Trump pointing out that the emperor has no clothes are pundits that bet their credibility on being Irak War cheerleaders. And all of them deserve to be beggars on the street. Nobody is going to feel bad if that's the fate of a bunch of liars.

Blogger praetorian February 18, 2016 1:25 PM  

MFW Le Pope criticizes big, beautiful walls.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling February 18, 2016 1:31 PM  

@77 praetorian:

"Mr. Bergoglio, tear down this wall!"

Blogger YIH February 18, 2016 1:39 PM  

Over at Mansized target I mentioned that post by Ace, and like Vox, didn't think highly of it.
Unlike most, I opposed our involvement in Iraq from the time the Bush administration was pushing for it in the UN and with our allies.
I did not consider Saddam's Iraq to be any threat whatsoever to the US, nor even to Israel or even Kuwait because of the actions of the Gulf War and the sanctions.
Nor I did I ever believe that Saddam's Iraq had anything whatsoever to do with 9/11 (regardless of what one believes happened that day).
The claim from Duhbya himself put the lie to it: My fellow citizens, at this hour American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.
Nor did I believe that ''free its people'' was anything that the US was even remotely capable of doing - something that quickly proved itself, and is still true to this day.
But to the main point, I think it's quite clear that it did no harm to Trump's campaign.
Overall, neither a positive or a negative.
But I did enjoy watching Please Clap squirm.

Anonymous Ad Victoriam February 18, 2016 1:40 PM  

@55 ""... we as a nation are sick and if you think Trump is going to fix it your deluded.

I don't disagree, and I don't think Trump can 'fix it'. I see him as the guy who can kick the can down the road by opening up our political space and restoring the possibility that the will of the people can mean something to actual governance. The rest of the candidates, the socialist excluded, are globalists who will not only not kick the can down the road, but will at the behest of their masters, crush the can. The enemy have their eye on that can.

We are near a tipping point where open immigration of the people we have been getting will preclude any change for the better via ballot. Yes, we are not a virtuous society, but any possibility of a corrective return to more traditional values will not be possible under the globalists. They are mammon-worshipers, each and every one.

It is clear to me that the left won't live and let live. They will stop their attacks on traditional culture and institutions only when they achieve an exterminatory victory. Our generation sitting on the sidelines because we don't have a perfect candidate ensures that our children and grandchildren will inherit the conflict with greater adversity. I'd prefer we had a Dwight Eisenhower leading us, but we don't. Trump is simply what we have, and we are damn lucky to even have him, given that it is crystal clear now that anti-American globalists are majority shareholders in both parties and have been for some time. I'm closer to 50 than 40, and in my lifetime the rigged system has ensured that we have not had a chance to say 'no' to the globalism and multiculturalism rammed down our throats. A vote for Trump is a chance to say "HELL NO!"

Also, I see many ten's of millions of American citizens as simply foreigners with papers. This includes immigrants who come here and don't assimilate and the 'world-citizen' left who do not self-identify as Americans but as internationalists. I don't count them when I assess 'American' worthiness or virtue, because they do not see themselves as Americans.

Blogger Doom February 18, 2016 1:46 PM  

Almost all the big name politi-bloggers are in the bag for AnybodybutTrump, including Hillary. Which is how the West was lost, of course. On the good side, there are very few of them in reality. Real people aren't even going to vote anything like what they want. Hell, Dems don't even want Hillary. It must suck to realize everyone has un-yoked and gone their own way. I really wonder how far their page-views have dipped as well.

As for the war? I am still for it, just not for the nation-building. Not that I believe that is what it was supposed to be. That was just a smoke-screen for something else, though what I can't be sure. It failed, unless the goal was to create ISIS, which it might have been. Why the cocksuckers in charge do anything anymore seriously leads me to realize they are everybody's enemy. Still, I consider, to a degree, the wars as debatable... by some, in certain ways (not by the left because they stopped protesting for the magic negro doing the same thing and worse). I don't mind Trump dumping, if I think he, and you, are (mostly) wrong. At least with you, you are consistent. Though, if either Paul had gotten in, and did exactly what I suggested they would have, which is what every president of late has done, then I would have gauged your reaction more clearly.

Oh, and it's nice to see Trump taking on the pope. That fucker just has it coming. He's neither Christian nor right. Can't be a socialist and a Christian. Love to see Trump doing the work that should have been done long ago.

Blogger CDM February 18, 2016 1:54 PM  

Trump responds to the antiChrist and antiAmerican Pope here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6KuU2zDmts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faqAQTtP0qQ

Blogger Cecil Henry February 18, 2016 1:57 PM  

Laughable, absolutely laughable not to think that Iraq was a disaster and that we were not railroaded into by a neo-con agenda.

911 and Iraq are completely unconnected issue-except for a government cabal pushing the issue.

Its patently clear.
But keep selling the Kool-aid guys. Don't expect to be believed.

Its so idiotic to even make these suggestions he can't fathom how far lost he is.

Just contemptible, these people are.

Anonymous szIlk February 18, 2016 2:03 PM  

@44, so explain to us again how it is that Mr. Trump is poised to take down the globalists....as opposed to, say, simply pushing his way in at the Big Peoples table on the world stage?

Anonymous cincinnatus February 18, 2016 2:04 PM  

In the general election however, I don't know if it would cost him any of the Catholic vote.

@59 #118
The so-called pope has always been spouting SJW drivel. He's as likely to turn off Catholics to Trump as Obama is likely to turn off Americans to Trump, if you catch my drift.

Blogger Anchorman February 18, 2016 2:08 PM  

I did not consider Saddam's Iraq to be any threat whatsoever to the US,

Really?

That statement ignores history and reality.

Do you really think Saddam was going to shrug and forgive and forget when the boot was lifted from his throat?

I'm not here to argue whether we should've kept the boot on his throat after the Persian Gulf War. I'm not even looking to argue whether I thought the US was pushed into a war by a group of well-placed advocates.

Anyone who thinks Saddam was going to live-and-let-live is a fool. He was going to hit the US using any and all covert actions available. The US was losing the sanctions fight (again, I'm setting aside whether the sanctions were justifiable) and Saddam was wrestling free from international constraints. He was going to get one or two free hands. What, in his history, makes anyone think he wasn't going to come after the US once he had a chance?

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 February 18, 2016 2:09 PM  

Trump was merely stating facts. The 9/11 attack happened on Bush's watch. He is the man at the top and therefore he bears the responsibility for it.

It's really that simple. Yes, there was a lot of turnover. Doesn't matter. Because being a leader or in charge of something means you take responsibility for all things that happen under you, even if it wasn't your fault.

Anonymous Ain February 18, 2016 2:25 PM  

Many people that voted for Bush's second term regretted it literally days later when he announced he would be using his "political capital" to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. Pundits that believe he is looked back upon with affection are delusional.

Anonymous 5343 February 18, 2016 2:26 PM  

@85.

Absolutely. It is my experience with Catholic friends that, while doggedly "Catholic for life", they take their "pope" and his pronouncements with a great big grain of salt.

Blogger Dave February 18, 2016 2:29 PM  

Who is this George W. Bush? Wasn't he part owner of the Texas Rangers back when they sucked?

Anonymous Ad Victoriam February 18, 2016 2:35 PM  

@84 It is certainly possible that you are correct and that he is simply "pushing his way in at the Big Peoples table..." to satisfy his own ego or vanity. However, the data we have so far is not inconsistent with the notion that he is attempting to supplant globalism and restore nationalism as the dominant political culture.

Like any other assessment, you work with the data you have and interpolate and extrapolate the best you can. I haven't been keeping explicit track of the data (political analysis is for me a hobby rather than a profession), but one major datum was a throwaway fragment within a sentence during an interview months ago, which went not only unchallenged but unacknowledged by the interviewer: "...some of these people [clearly by context referring to Wall Street hedge fund globalists] are not loyal ..." He delivered it perfectly, qualifying with 'some' and leaving implicit exactly what to which they were not loyal.

Nobody talks about loyalty on the national stage, certainly not about those who must not be named. (the globalist 'investors' in both political parties, not Jews, to be clear for the conspiracy-minded) He has not explicitly pressed this issue in public since (to my knowledge, but I don't watch all the debates and campaign appearances), but he DID say it so he IS thinking about it. Vanity and ego are certainly components of any explanation of Trump's personal motivation, but they are not the only ones.

Blogger Austin Ballast February 18, 2016 2:43 PM  

Bush II was better than AlGore, but that doesn't mean he was that good.

Remember "No Child Left Behind", "We are all big government conservatives now" and other travesties.

Blogger Sam Lively February 18, 2016 2:48 PM  

I attended the Sore/Loserman rallies as a teenager, kept on waiting and hoping for Colin Powell to cite anything compelling in that UN address, crossed my fingers that there must be some WMDs after the invasion, nodded along to the idea of building a pro-American democratic powerhouse in Iraq, and finally rationalized with the "better draw terrorist fire over there than over here."

But when Ron Paul rolled around in the 2008 campaign and I was finally willing to deal honestly with the anti-Bush arguments, I realized how pathetic my rationalization had been and how foolish I had been to defend an indefensible war solely because the GOP and its punditocracy were behind it.

W. and his crowd made me a fool. I think there are many like who are embarrassed that we carried water for him out of mindless party loyalty.

OpenID randkoch February 18, 2016 2:50 PM  

BGKB, #34:

No one is criticizing McCain for being captured, they are criticizing him for being a songbird in jail, and for killing 167 sailors on one of his 3 crashes that if he was not an admirals son would have been discharged before.

Yes, Trump did criticize McCain for getting captured.

I'm not aware of McCain being any more of a "songbird" than any other POW, and wouldn't call him one, even if he talked more than I'm aware.

That's because another thing I disagree with McCain on is that rough interrogation and torture work. The Code of Conduct was even altered with that understanding.

Blogger Sage Klubb February 18, 2016 2:55 PM  

I was all for Trump, especially because he was taking on the GOP establishment, and I think Jeb is a particularly bad candidate. He's the worst of Dubya with none of the good.

However, I almost wanted to throw up during those debates. It was as if Trump morphed into Michael Moore, right in front of my eyes.

His claim to have personally known hundreds of the victims doesn't stand up to mathematical scrutiny, and a report shows that he never bothered to attend any funerals. Did he lie about that just to shut up the other side, like a Democrat? It's starting to look that way.

His whoppers are getting out of hand. Now he's threatening to sue over an ad that simply plays a video of him saying, out of his own mouth, that he is "pro-choice".

I don't trust him, now. I've come to realize that he's slicker and slimier than most politicians, and that's saying a lot. I'm starting to think that he doesn't even have any intention of building a wall; as president, he'll just shrug and do the things that are important to him. And if we really thought he'd do what he said, well, we're just "losers".

Sorry for being a bit off the reservation on this. Of course, I guess I'd still have to vote for him over the communist, but that's not saying much.

Anonymous taqiyyologist February 18, 2016 3:00 PM  

@72 Ben Cohen

Now the Pope is picking a fight with Trump.

But is the Pope punching down? Ace would understand the humor in the question.

Anonymous taqiyyologist February 18, 2016 3:04 PM  

Did non-Christians talk about and then build that wall around the Vatican?

One tweet could go BOOM.

And what about Jews? Lots of wall-building and talk about wall-building in the O.T.

Heck, in Nehemiah, lots of wall-RE-building.

OpenID randkoch February 18, 2016 3:11 PM  

#94

Not that this really matters, but for anyone paying attention, please forget what I'd said about the Code of Conduct. I'm not completely wrong on that, but it's arguable, and not worth getting into.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 18, 2016 3:14 PM  

There is still a large number of Republicans that worship at the altar of GWB, think the Iraq war was a Holy Crusade for Democracy, and that Saddam actually had nerve gas weapons hidden all over Iraq, which have somehow remained hidden to this day. Those people will rightly be upset that Trump just called them stupid.

They were never ever ever going to vote for Trump anyway.

Blogger DBSFF February 18, 2016 3:24 PM  

Well, I love Ace, but I agree that it's a bit off to claim that Trump is over. However, Ace just put up a post about The Onion being co-opted by Hillary donors/SJWs that is up VD's alley: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/361606.php

Blogger Were-Puppy February 18, 2016 3:25 PM  

GWB had some real boner moves.

Remember the deal where he was trying to sell control of our ports or some such to muslims?

From what I can gather, these Bushes are in the pockets of the Saudis or some middle eastern types.

Anonymous Instasetting February 18, 2016 3:31 PM  

Since there were WMD in Iraq, no, W was not wrong.

Yes, a lot of Republicans still love W which they should because he's a good man.

Given a choice between W and Trump as a next door neighbour, I'd probably pick W. Given a choice between W and Trump as a President, tho' is a different matter.

W's plans could have worked, if his middle name had been Carrera. But he got pulled over from his Jacksonian impulses to his Wilsonian upbringing. Plus, while he could stand in an arrow storm for a year that would slay an ordinary man in a second, he could not actually stop the arrow storm, which Trump can do.

As to Jeb, I'd say a fair number of GOP think Two Bushes is enough. I think John Ringo said in one of his books that historically speaking it was a danger sign when you kept having people from the same family.

So, Vox is pretty much misreading this. So is Ace.

A personal fondness for the man is not going to change things politically for his brother.

Anonymous taqiyyologist February 18, 2016 3:32 PM  

So glad I don't tweet.

I'd be tweeting the actual Pope.

I don't think that's an arena I need to be in.

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 18, 2016 3:40 PM  

Anyone that read more broadly at the time, concluded that W was lying about WMDs in Iraq.

Of course, idiots like Hannity say that the reason there were no WMDs in Iraq was because Hussein, Saddam not Barack, shipped them to Syria. A rationally Hannity uses to justify these uSA involvement in Syria.

Anonymous taqiyyologist February 18, 2016 3:42 PM  

So, Vox is pretty much misreading this. So is Ace.

A personal fondness for the man is not going to change things politically for his brother.


Ace and Vox are siblings?

:head begins to clear:

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 18, 2016 3:45 PM  

RE. walls

To expand the reference of Nehemiah.

Nehemaiah2

17 But now I said to them, “You know very well what trouble we are in. Jerusalem lies in ruins, and its gates have been destroyed by fire. Let us rebuild the wall of Jerusalem and end this disgrace!” 18 Then I told them about how the gracious hand of God had been on me, and about my conversation with the king.

They replied at once, “Yes, let’s rebuild the wall!” So they began the good work.

Blogger Murray February 18, 2016 3:46 PM  

Ace is OK. He loathes the Establishment, and is currently supporting Cruz then Trump, and has declared that he won't vote for Rubio. He's also a sharp and occasionally very funny writer.

In some ways, he's *this* close from the alt-right, but he's got a huge blind spot that prevents him from thinking forbidden thoughts about (e.g.) the JQ and race realism, among other things. And listening to him and his bloggers engage in ultra-conventional horse-race political analysis on the podcast can be ... trying.

On last week's podcast, they had on Michael Walsh, who's got a new book out about the Frankfurt School, and all the familiar names were trotted out: Adorno, Marcuse, Reich, Horkheimer, etc. And I'm like Ace, Ace, Ace. Come on, man. What do all these names have in common?

On the Iraq War, I believe he's stated that he now thinks the whole thing was a mistake, but yeah, he still clings to that tribal identification with the GOP.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling February 18, 2016 3:46 PM  

@102 Instasetting:

Since there were WMD in Iraq, no, W was not wrong.

Old ones, though. The gravamen of that claim was they Saddam had active WMD programs. Which I remember reading even Saddam thought was the case, the people ostensibly running them were pocketing the limited funds available.

Blogger Mike Wallens February 18, 2016 3:47 PM  

#102

Of course Saddam had WMDs. He used them in the 1980's. Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad to facilitate the technology transfer. We cheered when he gassed Iranians and looked the other way when gassed Kurds.

What was not present was an actively restored WMD program. That active program was one of the pretexts for the war. They actually found fewer old WMDs than I expected. None of old stuff was usable or deployable.

Did Bush lie or was he just too stupid and intellectually lazy and allowed himself to be deceived his advisors? I am not sure. I tend to think he is kind of dumb in his own way.

You won't find many GOPers in my neck of the woods that have any good things to say about him. Iraq was a disaster and as such made the election of Obama a slam dunk.

Blogger Timmy3 February 18, 2016 3:48 PM  

We did find yellow cake in Iraq. Conveniently, we never publicize this.

Anonymous taqiyyologist February 18, 2016 3:52 PM  

Jamie.

If you tweet, tweet that to the Pope.

He may have forgotten, in his dotage.

How can so many people, in such high positions, be so absolutely stupid?

Blogger Sage Klubb February 18, 2016 3:53 PM  

See, this is just the kind of crap I'm talking about. Now Trump is vowing to defund Planned Parenthood. He just got through defending it at the same debate as an OK outfit doing good work, apart from the abortions.

Now he's going to overturn Roe vs Wade to boot. What does that mean? He found out after the debate that his defense of Planned Parenthood doesn't play well with the rubes he's been targetting, so he's not just correcting his position, but going full slam in the other direction. And if you remind him that he once defended Planned Parenthood, YOU'RE A LIAR!

Once he's running in the general election, his target rube will change, and the roster of promises will get a complete makeover. He won't be so hot for the wall. Maybe Planned Parenthood's OK after all. Roe vs Wade, well, that was a Supreme Court decision, after all, nothing a president can do about that.

I can't convince anyone just by pointing this out. But I have a bad feeling that Trump is now inevitable, just like McCain, if for different reasons. We'll have to get him to the general election before enough people realize they've been had, but then it'll be too late. It'll be eight years of HillaryTrump, one way or another.

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 18, 2016 3:53 PM  

IIRC, two individuals that were witnesses to the snow job called Iraq, and wrote about it, were Karen Kwiatkowski and David Stockman.

Anonymous ta February 18, 2016 3:54 PM  

110 Timmy3

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/

You are correct.

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 18, 2016 3:59 PM  

Timmy3

No yellow cake was found in Iraq. Oh, there was some publicity about it and it was debunked. You now, like the forgery about the yellow cake purchase/transfer fro Nigeria. Does the name Valerie Plame ring a bell?

Anonymous taqiyyologist February 18, 2016 4:03 PM  

@112 Sage

Hopefully Trump wants to defeat the Democrat candidate when he gets the nomination.

Neither McCain nor Romney wanted to win the presidency. They were both just pretending to run for president on the GOP ticket. They both said how great they thought Obama would be as POTUS, and while pretending to run against him.

Ronaldus Magnus was a Hollywood Liberal who woke up, to some small degree.

Sure, he, being historically illiterate like all Hollywood Superstars, never connected the Beiruit bombing of our Marine barracks to a larger scheme, namely the MB, but he woke up.

Trump was a liberal. Quite recently. He hated Bush and wanted him impeached because it was cool to hate Bush and want him impeached, in the Hollywood Liberal circles he was in, TV star that he was. Of COURSE he said he hated Bush. He's not stupid.

I think he's more awake than Reagan was a decade before the Alzheimers kicked in.

Blogger Timmy3 February 18, 2016 4:04 PM  

Who debunked yellow cake in Iraq? CNN?

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 18, 2016 4:06 PM  

Let me expand on the yellow cake sotry:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/world/middleeast/07iraq.html

(snip)
The yellowcake removed from Iraq — which was not the same yellowcake that President Bush claimed, in a now discredited section of his 2003 State of the Union address, that Mr. Hussein was trying to purchase in Africa — is used in an early stage of the nuclear fuel cycle. Only after intensive processing does it become low-enriched uranium, which can fuel reactors producing power. Highly enriched uranium can be used in nuclear bombs.
(snip)

Anonymous taqiyyologist February 18, 2016 4:17 PM  

Dirty Bombs, Jamie.

In '03 that was the threat.

Did you read my CNN link at 114?

Yes it was low-grade, non-MX-Missile grade yellowcake.

Ergo, harmless.

My ass.

We should have left him in, still. Because, secular.

Yeah, he chopped people up with industrial plastic choppers, and left bags of pulp at families' front doors.

Now they just throw gays off buildings, make ten people line up, blindfolded, over buried bombs, to be detonated, and shoot up nightclubs.

It's much better, now.

(Every so often, I think, "My Cynicism has reached it's level cap." I must have bought the DLC and don't remember, because it keeps going up.)

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 18, 2016 4:18 PM  

It was cataloged, sealed and known. It was not found.

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 18, 2016 4:20 PM  

I did not follow the link but I did reread a few articles and that one was probably in the group. I will check it now.

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 18, 2016 4:22 PM  

Yeah. I did read that article.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 18, 2016 4:23 PM  

yellowcake is to nuclear weapons what copper is to a .50 cal

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 18, 2016 4:36 PM  

So far, the quotes are consistent across the board.

http://www.romereports.com/2016/02/18/pope-francis-on-donald-trump-christians-does-not-build-walls-they-build-bridges#.VsY3risPO6s.twitter

Pope Francis on Donald Trump: Christians do not build walls, they build bridges
2016-02-18


Pope Francis returned satisfied with his trip to Mexico. During the press conference with journalists on the plane, he addressed dozens of issues. They ranged from Donald Trump's proposal to stop immigration, to John Paul II close friendship with a philosophy professor; child abuse and the Zika virus.

DONALD TRUMP

POPE FRANCIS
"A person who only thinks about building walls and does not focus on build bridges is not a Christian. This is not the Gospel. Either you vote or you don't vote, do not meddle with it. I'm just saying that this man that is saying this is not a Christian. I want to find out if he has really said all of these things. Until then, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.”

(snip)

Blogger Gaiseric February 18, 2016 4:37 PM  

@116: That's my hope with Trump too—that many of his positions are due to him not really having given much thought to the issue, or understanding the background behind them. Someone here in the comments, Cataline Sergius, I think, once described how that's exactly what you'd expect from a businessman getting into politics. He'd say what he thought. He'd get pushback from his customers, his middle managers, or someone. He'd reassess. He'd then change his mind, and articulate a new policy position, maybe one in direct opposition to what he articulated before.

This isn't because he's a "flip-flopper" because none of his positions are carefully crafted political talking points to begin with. It's the entirely normal process of founding opinions on issues that you previously haven't given a lot of thought to.

OpenID sigbouncer February 18, 2016 4:39 PM  

"In Trumps letter to Putin he said they must never be in Texas at the same time or they would both be assassinated, because of the Bushes
kremlin-in-turmoil-after-trump-letter-to-putin-suggests-us-supreme-court-justice-was-murdered-2474012"

This is very interesting if true. NY mafia vs Tx mafia. Trump is being protected and informed by NY mafia of this.

Tx mafia had three different families running the state when I was last around that area over a couple decades ago. I knew a guy working for one of the families who was running high end sports cars (ferrari's, porsche's etc) from Tx to Miami in exchange for kilo's. They busted him a state over. He had already done time in Huntsville (State prison). His guys had him released within 3 weeks and on a bus back to Tx to put him back to work.

Southern mafia is no joke.

Blogger Frank Brady February 18, 2016 4:39 PM  

Of course Bush lied about the Iraq War.

Despite desperate efforts to avoid responsibility by blaming Obama, the current Middle East crisis did not arise because of Obama's feckless ineptitude (which is no less real). No, today's problem exists because President George W. Bush and his neo-conservative brain trust decided to invade, occupy, and impose "regime change" in Iraq. Not only was the Iraq war planned well in advance of 9-11, but its plotters were brazen and arrogant enough to publish their plan a year earlier and put it on the Internet! If you doubt that charge, by all means google, download and read "Rebuilding America's Defenses", a "report" commissioned by Dick Cheney and delivered in September, 2000, two months before the Presidential Election and one year before the attacks of 9-11.

Repeatedly citing the existence of Saddam Hussein's regime and the entire list of neo-conservative "regime change" targets as justification, the report advocated "transforming" the U.S. military into a force capable of enforcing U.S. mandates around the world, a transformation that would establish a de facto American Empire. Page 63 contains the following provocative and vey interesting sentence.

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event-like a new Pearl Harbor."

The attack of 9-11 provided that "catalyzing event". It was shortly followed by the invasion of Iraq which, as President Bush's inner circle knew full well, had absolutely no involvement in the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.

OpenID sigbouncer February 18, 2016 4:42 PM  

http://www.infowars.com/jeb-fears-trump-knows-who-was-behind-911-attacks/

Blogger Frank Brady February 18, 2016 4:47 PM  

@16. randkoch

You seem to have forgotten that the WMD claim was made late in the game. The justification was "9-11" which, of course, neither Iraq or Saddam had anything to do with whatsoever.

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 18, 2016 4:51 PM  

Has anyone found who asked the question and the actual question asked?

Anonymous taqiyyologist February 18, 2016 4:51 PM  

“Where now are the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing?
Where is the helm and the hauberk, and the bright hair flowing?
Where is the harp on the harpstring, and the red fire glowing?
Where is the spring and the harvest and the tall corn growing?
They have passed like rain on the mountain, like a wind in the meadow;
The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow.
Who shall gather the smoke of the deadwood burning,
Or behold the flowing years from the Sea returning?”

-- JRRT, The Two Towers

Blogger SciVo February 18, 2016 5:02 PM  

DBSFF wrote:Well, I love Ace, but I agree that it's a bit off to claim that Trump is over. However, Ace just put up a post about The Onion being co-opted by Hillary donors/SJWs that is up VD's alley: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/361606.php

He isn't wrong about that, but he's the wrong messenger, since you can't expect a walking punchline to be objective about the Onion. Watch for Bill Kristol to start bashing it too (he's on #12).

Anonymous taqiyyologist February 18, 2016 5:04 PM  

I wonder what Zondervan, Lockman Foundation, and Thomas Nelson Publishers would do to Tolkein?

Would it be a scalpel or a machete? (Or an industrial plastic chipper?)

Blogger SciVo February 18, 2016 5:06 PM  

drnick wrote:As for the Bush family, I think Trump is giving them a warning: keep standing against me, and I'll stand against you. To much greater effect. He's playing a long game, which makes me wonder exactly how far his vision stretches, and to what purpose.

I personally think that he's more of a process guy, and that he is simply employing one of the most effective strategies in all of game theory: tit-for-tat.

Anonymous taqiyyologist February 18, 2016 5:07 PM  

New International Tolkein. New Revised Standard Tolkein. New American Standard Reuel. The Living John Ronald Reuel. Contemporary English Tolkein. New Living JRRT. Darby Young's Literal Hobbit.

Anonymous taqiyyologist February 18, 2016 5:15 PM  

In the NIT, Gandalf is never referred to as He or Him.

Anonymous taqiyyologist February 18, 2016 5:18 PM  

In the NRST, Hobbits produce offspring "of every kind". Including Dunadain. And Eagles.

Anonymous taqiyyologist February 18, 2016 5:32 PM  

Is it logical to assume that there are More, and also Less, accurate translations of the available original MSS of the Bible?

I think it is.

Because I think, I guess.

You folks are more storied, legitimate, and higher than me and that's why I read here.

But I'm right. You can't call thirty five bibles "The Bible".

There is more accurate. And there is less accurate.

Anonymous taqiyyologist February 18, 2016 5:32 PM  

Is it logical to assume that there are More, and also Less, accurate translations of the available original MSS of the Bible?

I think it is.

Because I think, I guess.

You folks are more storied, legitimate, and higher than me and that's why I read here.

But I'm right. You can't call thirty five bibles "The Bible".

There is more accurate. And there is less accurate.

Anonymous taqiyyologist February 18, 2016 5:36 PM  

I hope we never see the NRSAoSHQ.

Anonymous taqiyyologist February 18, 2016 5:37 PM  

I hope we never see the NRSAoSHQ.

OpenID randkoch February 18, 2016 5:40 PM  

#129 -- Frank

It wasn't too late to make into the AUMF. But you're right that WMDs were a minor issue in some ways, but bigger in selling it internationally. This makes the Bush-lied talk weird in that, to be this late, it makes no sense to lie about something that could become verifiable very soon.

9/11 was part of the background chanting by war supporters. The Bush administration phrased it more carefully as being the scale of the dangers.

Both parties were repeating it. Obama didn't, but he was still in local left-wing politics, and the radical left was on Saddam's side.

Anonymous taqiyyologist February 18, 2016 5:42 PM  

I also hope I never double-post, inexplicably, twice in a row, at Vox's site.

Blogger SciVo February 18, 2016 5:43 PM  

Noah B wrote:It should be obvious by now that W either lied about the nature of the threat or was almost unfathomably stupid. It's practically a compliment for Trump to assume that he lied.

It was a rather blatant case of itching for a fight and looking for a pretext, much like Vietnam. In a case like that you can expect the entire gamut of cognitive biases leading to poor judgment, including deceiving themselves and/or us.

Anyone who still thinks we had just cause, that it was a moral war, is a clown and a buffoon. We broke up a functional nation, and for what? To cause untold death, destruction, deprivation, rape, theft, murder, ethnic cleansing, terrorism, religious war, homelessness, trauma, enslavement, despair, displacement, degradation and general misery, in a domino effect extending all around the Mediterranean Sea and beyond. Judging by its fruits, the instigators were not just ignorant naifs or prideful thugs; they were whispered to by demons.

I was unconvinced, but kept my tongue (to my regret), since I knew that there was much that I didn't know -- at the time. But anyone who still defends that grossly immoral first step of the Iraq War is at best self-deluded, and at worst evil.

Anonymous BGKB February 18, 2016 5:52 PM  

119 taqiyyologist Now they just throw gays off buildings

You are thinking of places that donated money to HilLIARy. I know its hard to keep different moslems ways of killing gays STR8 but Iraq's apparent favorite method is

"Yanar Mohammad told Alarabiya.net that, “Iraqi militias have deployed an unprecedented form of torture against homosexuals by using a very strong glue that will close their anus.

According to her, the new substance “is known as the Ameri gum, which is an Iranian-manufactured glue that if applied to the skin, sticks to it and can only be removed by surgery. After they glue the anuses of homosexuals, they give them a drink that causes diarrhea. Since the anus is closed, the diarrhea causes death. Videos of this form of torture are being distributed on mobile cellphones in Iraq.” ”

Blogger Joshua Sinistar February 18, 2016 5:57 PM  

Yeah none of you guys are really getting it. Big W didn't lie. He was playing the game. The GOP is the Generals that almost always lose. Its like the WWE. They hate each other on TV, and after the show they all go to clubs and eat and drink with hookers and strippers. Its all fakery.
The Bush League are all old new England Money. George HW Bush isn't even the patriarch. His daddy was, when he was a Navy Pilot during the bad War, WWII. They were grooming him for office then. There are all these color photos from when he was in WWII. Color photos were damn expensive back then, and most War pics are monochrome, but George is al in color. His daddy was grooming him. After the War, he became OSS and CIA. He and all his boys are Skull and Bones Yalies. Big W went to Harvard and Yale, because he was a Skull and Bones Legacy.

Blogger SciVo February 18, 2016 6:20 PM  

mark in orlando wrote:... plus Hillary voted for the war and he can tar her with it as well, he hit multiple targets hard with one shot

Trump's currently polling better against Clinton, but that's arguably because he hasn't really come out swinging hard against Sanders yet, just some mild teasing; but since both wings of the establishment party clearly prefer the former, he can't go wrong by hurting her.

At worst he prepares the battlespace for the general election, and he might even give the Bernshevik enough of an edge over Grandma Mao to give the establishment a headache. Either way, Big Beautiful Wall comes out ahead.

Anonymous tublecane February 18, 2016 7:08 PM  

@31-"they are going to have to do some killing the entire time"

But that's not what Bush did. After "shock and awe" and the collapse of the Baathists they turned directly to nation building and social work, as if all they needed was a sprinkling of democracy and boatloads of cash to bring out their inner American. Then the insurgency hit, and that great military genius and felon Patraeus fought back by buying one set of bandits to turn on another. Bush set the same timeline for withdrawal Obama followed, making sure to set up a paper government that could be shredded the second we left, just like in Vietnam.

You want to know how to fight an insurgency? We've done it before. With the Indians it was Total War: burn their villages, kill them and their families where you find them. In the Philippines it was shoot all enemy combatants on sight. No Guantanamo, just instant death. You want to know how to nation-build? Look at Germany. Everyone knows we collaborated with former Nazis, because we thought they'd be handy against the Russkies. But that was only after the mass executions, with or without trial (not real trials, even, but fakey trials). We also levelled their cities, starved them, beat and cajoled them, and split their country in three. That's right, three. We don't like to talk about the greatest non-Jewish ethnic cleansing in history, which killed about 2 million souls in what was eastern Germany.

None of that has anything to do with the killing Bush didn't tell us about. But it does have to do with what it takes to run a real empire. If you don't want to do it, don't remake the world on your image. You can't have it both ways, victory and clean, little cable tv wars.

Anonymous tublecane February 18, 2016 7:17 PM  

@127-"If you doubt that charge"

I don't, why would I? We all know Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Queda, nor much to do with terrorism in general. We also know Bushites perpetually regretted not "finishing the job" '91.

Blogger Alec Rawls February 18, 2016 8:54 PM  

Whatever one thinks of Iraq war Bush did not lie. (I thought the war was the perfect first step so long as we used it as a platform for knocking the Mullahs out of Iran next, which we could have done with a feather during the green uprising if we hadn't elected an Islamofascist president in the meantime.)

"Bush lied" is actually one of the grandest conspiracies of lying in human history. The week after Joe Wilson claimed that Bush had lied in the SOTU about Saddam having tried to buy Uranium ore in Niger, CIA director George Tenet told the press that it was actually Joe Wilson who had brought that Intel back from Niger. According to Wilson the Prime Minister said he had been approached by an Iraqi trade delegation who he interpreted as trying to buy yellowcake. But the press did not report Tenet's exposure of Wilson as the liar, and the worst offender, the NYT, kept telling the Bush-lied lie even after the 9/11 report proved that Tenet had been telling the truth about Wilson being the liar (the report published Wilson's actual reporting about his Niger trip).

So when Trump tells the Bush-lied lie I find it very annoying, but it's not the deal-breaker Ace thinks it is precisely because every news outlet in the country swore by it for several years. If Trump had not seen Tenet's original exposure of Wilson as the liar (and the press covered that up) he wouldn't have know it was all a lie for at least those couple of years, and unless he was reading conservative media at the time he would have missed the 9/11 report revelations as well.

We all know Trump has only a short and iffy conservative association so I don't assume he is lying when he tells the Bush-lied lie. He may have always thought it was true. Bad but not a deal-breaker.

Blogger Gaiseric February 18, 2016 8:56 PM  

New reports are surfacing that Jeb is out of money and about to drop out.

Blogger Gaiseric February 18, 2016 8:57 PM  

New reports are surfacing that Jeb is out of money and about to drop out.

Anonymous The Kulak February 18, 2016 9:13 PM  

@ 40 "He, unfortunately, comes across to me as someone who plays the narrative game." John R. Schindler aka @20Committee, the douchey guy who got fired by the US Naval War College for his junk pics ending up on Twitter after massively trolling many people fellow scholars included on that platform after the Snowden leaks, is another example of this phenomenon. He'll rant and rail against Cruz AND Trump like his ex-colleague Tom Nichols, but when you actually look at some of Schindler's blog posts not only are they pretty damn conspiratorial (i.e. Al Qaeda led by Zawahiri secretly works for the FSB, because Russians, no proof needed just a counter to Alex Jones al-CIAeda rants), he also probably lurks on Manosphere and Alt-Right sites like this one. As Schindler's messages to his would be paramour revealed a lot of sexual and masculine frustration over a wife he hinted he may have married for her money rather than good looks, I'm not one to judge, but it wouldn't be surprising that the dude would be desperate for some red pill swagger and thus find it online by berating 'Kremlin trolls', Snowdenistas and 'Trumpkins'. But it's obvious that if it were anyone but his old BFF Schindler writing about the risks of the U.S. turning into a second Yugoslavia or another Brazil (Schindler's code word for becoming more Hispanic and poorer, and thus less concerned with NATO, Ukraine, the Rooskies or some Chinese rocks in the South China Sea)...Nichols would be all over that, sneering about another crazed conspiracy theorist Trumpkin or Alt-Right type who lives in his mom's basement. It's apparently 'conspiracy theory for me, but not for thee...because my conspiracy theories involve Russians dammit' and 'Alt-Right type ranting for me, but not for thee @Ricky_Vaughn99 and Trumpkin peasant'.

That's the kind of bullshit, along with Nichols' (@RadioFreeTom's) general smarminess and inability to admit to not only being wrong but spectacularly wrong about Russian intervention in Syria and what led up to it, that sets people off on him. Especially when he goes on BBC and has the nerve to say, "We're on the verge of a conflagration in Syria because we didn't bomb and invade the country like I wanted us to [after the Turkish/Saudi chemical attack false flag of August 2013]". No Nichols, the only reason there's any risk at all of a wider escalation is because Establishment cucks like you can't find a way to tell the damned neo-Ottoman Turks and 'our friends' the Saudis to stop sponsoring ISIS and threatening to invade Syria where they will get their asses handed to them (Nichols' 'I'm a super duper military affairs expert' act while being woefully ignorant of how the same Sauds who want to invade Syria are getting their asses kicked by Houthi tribesmen in Yemen). The territorial integrity of Ukraine is sacred and every 'vatnik' or 'sovok' who rose up against the right of western and central Ukrainians to bloody insurrection is a traitor who deserves to be killed or have their granny shelled in Donbass, but the rebels fighting Assad are all plucky freedumb fighters who would never dream of beheading POWs, destroying churches and imposing sharia. Well screw that and the cuck Saudi/Qatar and now even 'we hate the YPG even though we used to love them as Kurds fighting ISIS, because Russian air support' liars. And Tuck neo-Ottoman Furkey too.

OpenID sigbouncer February 18, 2016 9:31 PM  

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2003/10/saving-the-saudis-200310

On the morning of September 13, 2001, a 49-year-old private eye named Dan Grossi got an unexpected call from the Tampa Police Department. Grossi had worked with the Tampa force for 20 years before retiring, and it was not particularly unusual for the police to recommend former officers for special security jobs. But Grossi’s new assignment was very much out of the ordinary.

Two days earlier, terrorists had hijacked four airliners and carried out the worst atrocity in American history. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers had been from Saudi Arabia. “The police had been giving Saudi students protection since September 11,” Grossi recalls. “They asked if I was interested in escorting these students from Tampa to Lexington, Kentucky.”

Grossi was told to go to the airport, where a small charter jet would be available to take him and the Saudis on their flight. He was dubious about the prospects of accomplishing his task. “Quite frankly, I knew that everything was grounded,” he says. “I never thought this was going to happen.” Even so, Grossi, who’d been asked to bring a colleague, phoned Mañuel Perez, a former F.B.I. agent, to put him on alert. Perez was equally unconvinced. “I said, ‘Forget about it,’” Perez recalls. “‘Nobody is flying today.’”

The two men had good reason to be skeptical. Within minutes of the attacks on 9/11, the Federal Aviation Administration had sent out a special notification called a NOTAM—a notice to airmen—ordering every airborne plane in the United States to land at the nearest airport as soon as possible, and prohibiting planes on the ground from taking off. For the next two days, commercial and private aviation throughout the entire United States ceased. Former vice president Al Gore was stranded in Austria when his flight to the U.S. was canceled. Bill Clinton postponed travel as well. Major-league baseball games were called off. For the first time in a century, American skies were nearly as empty as they had been when the Wright brothers first flew at Kitty Hawk.

Nevertheless, at 1:30 or 2 p.m. on the 13th, Dan Grossi received his phone call. He was told the Saudis would be delivered to Raytheon Airport Services, a private hangar at Tampa International Airport.

When he and Perez met at the terminal, a woman laughed at Grossi for even thinking he would be flying that day. Commercial flights had slowly begun to resume, but at 10:57 A.M. the F.A.A. had issued another notice to airmen, a reminder that private aviation was still prohibited. Three private planes violated the ban that day, and in each case a pair of jet fighters quickly forced the aircraft down. As far as private planes were concerned, America was still grounded. “I was told it would take White House approval,” says Grossi.

Then one of the pilots arrived. “Here’s your plane,” he told Grossi. “Whenever you’re ready to go.”

OpenID sigbouncer February 18, 2016 9:32 PM  

Most recently, in July, the administration asked Congress to withhold 28 pages of its official report on 9/11. According to news reports, the classified section charges that there were ties between the hijackers and two Saudis, Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Bassnan, who had financial relationships with members of the Saudi government. Saudi officials deny that their government was in any way linked to the attacks. The Saudis have asked that the pages be declassified so they can refute them, but President Bush has refused.

Terrorism experts say that the Saudis who were in the U.S. immediately after the attacks might have been able to shed light on the structure of al-Qaeda and to provide valuable leads for investigating 9/11. And yet, according to sources who participated in the repatriation, they left the U.S. without even being interviewed by the F.B.I.

Officially, the White House declined to comment, and a source inside asserted that the flights never took place. However, former high-level Bush-administration officials have told Vanity Fair otherwise.

How was it possible that, just as President Bush declared a no-holds-barred global war on terror that would send hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, and just as Osama bin Laden became Public Enemy No. 1 and the target of a worldwide manhunt, the White House would expedite the departure of so many potential witnesses, including two dozen relatives of the man behind the attack itself?

The incident is particularly important in light of the special relationship the Saudis have long had with the United States—and the Bush family in particular. For decades, Saudi Arabia has been one of America’s two most powerful allies in the Middle East, not to mention an enormous source of oil. The Bush family and the House of Saud, the two most powerful dynasties in the world, have had close personal, business, and political ties for more than 20 years. In the 80s, when the elder Bush was vice president, he and Prince Bandar became personal friends. Together, they lobbied through massive U.S. arms sales to the Saudis and participated in critical foreign-policy ventures. In the 1991 Gulf War, the Saudis and the elder Bush were allies.

In the private sector, the Saudis supported Harken Energy, a struggling oil company in which George W. Bush was an investor. Most recently, former president George H. W. Bush and former secretary of state James A. Baker III, his longtime ally, have appeared before Saudis at fund-raisers for the Carlyle Group, arguably the biggest private equity firm in the world. Today, former president Bush continues to serve as a senior adviser to the firm, whose investors allegedly include a Saudi accused of ties to terrorist support groups.

“It’s always been very clear that there are deep ties between the Bush family and the Saudis,” says Charles Lewis, head of the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington, D.C., foundation that examines issues of ethics in government. “It creates a credibility problem. When it comes to the war on terror, a lot of people have to be wondering why we are concerned about some countries and not others. Why does Saudi Arabia get a pass?”

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2003/10/saving-the-saudis-200310

Blogger Nick S February 18, 2016 9:37 PM  

Cruz isn't as good, but he is looking better and better.

The seething hatred for Cruz that is coming from both sides of the establishment aisle as well as from the media is helping tremendously with my decision.

Blogger Anchorman February 18, 2016 10:43 PM  

To cause untold death, destruction, deprivation, rape, theft, murder, ethnic cleansing, terrorism, religious war, homelessness, trauma, enslavement, despair, displacement, degradation and general misery.

I'm glad I never went to war with a pussy like you.

As if that wasn't going on centuries before...current time...and for the future in that area and they weren't going to visit upon us with time and opportunity.

It was a hornet's nest, but that hornet's nest was going to need to be stomped on eventually.

Y'all need to stop pretending Saddam had things locked tight, wouldn't dare engage in religious warfare provocation (oh, but he was "secular" big effin whoop, he knew how to stir the pot), and was some poor caged lamb.

He was a colossal dickhead.

He had no issues targeting the US in the first WTC bombing, harboring Abu Nidal et. al., paying for horrific crimes committed in Islam's name, blah, blah, blah. He grew up hours' drive from different tribes and didn't lose a wink of sleep over gassing non-combatants. And it wasn't going to end with Papa. He had two rabid dog sons ready to tkae the reins if he mysteriously died at their hands.

FFS, some of you act like he was beset by an international cabal and not a gigantic asshole prone to asshole moves. He earned his status as international pariah. Earned it.

We were going to have to fight that region eventually. There was always going to be a clash of cultures and a religious war.

Were we drawn into it prematurely? Absolutely. Were the Neocons more than willing to lie to get us into the fight? I don't doubt it, because the DC establishment is full of pogues who pull that type of thing all the time.

Was Saddam ever going to play nice? No way. He was going to hit us because we humiliated him for over a decade. You're an idiot to think otherwise.

Was Iran ever going to play nice? No way.

Was Saudi Arabia ever going to play nice? No way. Fill in the blank with any nation in the region.

You act like the clash of civilizations was solely the fault of the West and ultra-scary "neocons." The West bears responsibility for a good bit, but the vein of blame extends hundreds of years.

Their culture was always going to be brutal, bloody, expansionist. The West was going to invite them in with generous immigration policies and expose our jugulars because we lost the pop vote fight when we gave the vote to anyone with a pulse.

The worst thing the West did was arm the barbarians decades ago and continue arming them. Regardless, they'd still fight us with crude, impossible to screen, implements to kill.

Blogger SciVo February 18, 2016 10:58 PM  

1992: Well, GHWB isn't charismatic but he's competent, and that's what matters. Right? Hello? America? WTF DID YOU DO

1996: You have got to be kidding me. You're actually making me choose between a skeezy perv and an elderly cripple. For real? This is not just an allegedly comedic movie? A pox on both your houses!

2000: Well I don't know about Little Bush, but Lockbox has been marinating in the sleaze of the Bimbo Eruption administration for eight long years. Anyone else would have to be better.

2004: I stand corrected! Thanks to Daddy Issues and his sidekick Crocodile Eyes, we broke Iraq so now we have to pay for it. And I'm not going to take a chance on Grey Poupon, when at least I know how Fake Cowboy will screw us.

2008: I stand corrected! I can't believe that rich, privileged mofo actually went after our social insurance programs, which are not welfare, and none of his business. And... what's this? An elderly cripple... who wants to bomb Iran? Oh, hell no! I'm voting for the nigger.

2012: Well, well, well. Turns out that Indie Nutter was right, and there really isn't any meaningful difference between the parties, except slightly more dedication to Moloch on the left, and slightly more dedication to Mammon on the right. I have some Mormon cousins, so I hope Job Cutter doesn't get elected; he wouldn't do much different, and I wouldn't want them taking heat for the inevitable fallout of the bipartisan bad policies.

2016: Wait. You mean, after all this time, I can take out 20+ years of anger at our sociopathic, anti-American ruling class by voting for Wrecking Ball? Oh, hell yeah! Burn. It. Down.

Blogger Nate February 18, 2016 11:12 PM  

If you people think the average republican doesn't still think dubya was a great guy dealing with hard times... you're god damn delusional. The vast majority of Republicans are still very sympathetic to dubya

Blogger SciVo February 19, 2016 12:19 AM  

Sage Klubb wrote:See, this is just the kind of crap I'm talking about. Now Trump is vowing to defund Planned Parenthood. He just got through defending it at the same debate as an OK outfit doing good work, apart from the abortions.

Now he's going to overturn Roe vs Wade to boot. What does that mean? He found out after the debate that his defense of Planned Parenthood doesn't play well with the rubes he's been targetting, so he's not just correcting his position, but going full slam in the other direction. And if you remind him that he once defended Planned Parenthood, YOU'RE A LIAR!


Now, think this through Sage. Which is more plausible:

1. Trump is an Evil Clown who is out to deceive everyone, but didn't realize until now that Republicans hate Planned Parenthood.

2a. Trump is a Big-Picture Guy who honestly didn't know that PP uses fudged statistics to make it look like abortion is just a tiny amount of what they do, even though it's the bulk of their income. Then people brought it to his attention, but

2b. "I was wrong" and "I'm sorry" are not in the alpha phrasebook, while at the same time

2c. Trump is free to just go in a different direction without comment, because unlike those other guys, he doesn't have to be consistent (to the point of foolishness) to inspire trust.

Anonymous Instasetting February 19, 2016 12:23 AM  

One way for the Alt-right to put the arguement is thus....

1. W was a decent guy. He was polite, strong, and caring.
2. In fact, he took strong and enduring up to Epic Demigod Levels what with Soros bellowing 'Release the Puppets!', and a book about his assasination, and a continual hailstorm of assaults for eight long years.
3. And at the end, unbowed, he's still pretty much the same guy.

Admirable, eh? But what did this superhuman effort achieve?

The Left fed him face first into a wood chipper, and he broke the wood chipper. Did that convince them to back off, out of respect?

He was a kindly father to the Iraqis, and they repaid him how?

Perhaps he would have done better to listen to the advice of Conan the Barbarian than that of Miss Manners.

OpenID sigbouncer February 19, 2016 12:42 AM  

According to a 2009 Wall Street Journal report, under George W. Bush’s presidency, the U.S. created three million new jobs. Yet at the same time, under Bush’s presidency, 10.5 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) settled in the United States — meaning that Bush brought in three immigrants for every one job he created. During that time, the number of working-age, native-born Americans not working exploded. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ current population survey, the number of working-age Americans without a job increased by 10.6 million between the fourth quarter of 2000, right before Bush took office, compared to the fourth quarter of 2008, right before he left office.

Trump’s success is a repudiation of a Bush ‘free-trade’ policy that allowed China to run up $4 trillion in trade surpluses against us since George H. W. Bush took office, and to cart off what was once the greatest manufacturing base the world had ever seen. Compare Detroit and Shanghai today — to see the fruits of ‘free trade’.

Bush trade policy brought down the curtain on America’s economic independence. We now depend on foreign and sometimes hostile nations for the necessities of our national life.

Indeed, the number of American manufacturing jobs decreased by 3.4 million under George W. Bush’s presidency as he continued to push for more global trade agreements and opposed efforts to crack down on illicit trading practices. As Bush said at the time, “I believe that the entry of China… into the WTO will strengthen the global trading system and expand world economic growth.”

Under President Bush, the trade deficit nearly doubled, the trade deficit with China tripled, and the national debt of the United States also nearly doubled.

Trump has distinguished himself from Bush Republicanism with his vociferous opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership — a pact which both Cruz and Rubio cast a vote to fast-track and have previously praised. Rubio has not retracted his prior support of TPP, whereas Cruz has straddled the line by saying he opposes “in its current form” the pact he once described as “historic” and said would “mean greater access to a billion customers for American manufacturers, farmers and ranchers.”

Cruz and Rubio also opposed efforts to combat foreign currency manipulation, something Trump has warned is being used by foreign countries to put American factories out of business.

By a margin of nearly five-to-one, the American people believe these so-called free trade deals lower wages rather than raise them, according to Pew polling data.

Buchanan continues: “Trump’s success also represents a repudiation of a reflexively interventionist foreign policy that produced the longest wars in our history, cost us 6,000 dead, 40,000 wounded, and trillions of dollars. And the price tag rises monthly. We are now mired down in five wars — Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen — for what?”

“Contrast where we were when Ronald Reagan went home, with where we are, and it is easy to understand the revolutions raging in both parties, Buchanan concludes. “America’s establishment has failed America. The single clearest message in the presidential campaign of 2015-2016 is that the American people would like to cleanse our capital city of its ruling class.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/18/exclusive-pat-buchanan-donald-trumps-rise-is-rejection-of-a-quarter-century-of-bush-republicanism/

Blogger SciVo February 19, 2016 12:48 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger SciVo February 19, 2016 12:51 AM  

Anchorman wrote:You act like the clash of civilizations was solely the fault of the West and ultra-scary "neocons." The West bears responsibility for a good bit, but the vein of blame extends hundreds of years.

No, you incredible moron. We blame them for doing it wrong. In one breath you defend them, in the next you admit they did it wrong, and then you defend them again. Stop arguing against yourself. Stop defending the indefensible.

Anonymous Discard February 19, 2016 2:14 AM  

It's Obama's war. He's been President for seven years. Hilary is a longtime supporter of the war. How is knocking the war losing votes for Trump?

Blogger Shimshon February 19, 2016 2:20 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Discard February 19, 2016 3:01 AM  

One way for a leader to get people on his side is to give them an out, an excuse, absolution if you like. If the GOP nominee, Trump, can say the war was a bad thing, so can the GOP masses. Look up Solomon Asch on conformity. We are awash in sanctimonious B.S. Trump speaking truth allows others to speak truth too. His lies don't matter nearly as much as his truths.

Blogger Anchorman February 19, 2016 8:03 AM  


No, you incredible moron. We blame them for doing it wrong. In one breath you defend them, in the next you admit they did it wrong, and then you defend them again. Stop arguing against yourself. Stop defending the indefensible.


So, you got nothing.

Back to the kiddie table.

Anonymous Viking February 19, 2016 9:58 AM  

Hello, my name is Viking and I was a Rube and a Fool and a Bush supporter but I have been sober now for 10 years.

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 19, 2016 10:31 AM  

157. Anchorman

Who gives a crap that Saddam Hussein was a bad guy or whether he had all under control or not. The Saudis are every bit as bad, except the are allied with these uSA. These uSA have no business in their internal affairs.

Iraq and Afghanistan has been a sad loss of time and treasure ... a waste.

Thailand, Mayanmar, Uzbekistan, etc. Why not invade to stop all the atrocities there? I am not suggesting we do, BTW. Only asking why you are not volunteering to correct all the evils in all those place, as a start.

Blogger JaimeInTexas February 19, 2016 10:33 AM  

162. sigbouncer

Currency manipulation for me but not for thee?

Blogger Timmy3 February 19, 2016 10:42 AM  

Trump once supported the Iraq intervention. Just thought I should put that out. He evolved.

Blogger Dr. Mabuse February 19, 2016 11:23 AM  

The Pope going after trump is more likely to HELP Trump in a place like SC. In the general election however, I don't know if it would cost him any of the Catholic vote.

Oh, don't worry about that. By November, Pope Fool will have said so many more idiotic things, nobody will even remember this comment.

OpenID sigbouncer February 19, 2016 12:16 PM  

"162. sigbouncer

Currency manipulation for me but not for thee?"

I'm not sure I follow what you are saying?

Blogger David Power February 19, 2016 3:35 PM  


Cui Bono?


Of course we now know that Saddam didn't have any WMDs.

But he did have Scud Rockets. Rockets that he was using to attack a certain 'non-Arab' middle eastern country!

The very same country who's, notoriously devious, secret service was responsible for much of the intelligence alleging Saddam had WMDs.

This intelligence was, in all likelihood, deliberately falsified as a cynical ploy to persuade its powerful allies to invade its enemy, while they sat back and watched.

The question is.... Was G. W. Bush aware of this plan or was he merely duped like the rest of us?

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts