TRUMP: Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake. All right? Now, you can take it any way you want, and it took — it took Jeb Bush, if you remember at the beginning of his announcement, when he announced for president, it took him five days…..
–at the Republican debate in Greenville, S.C. on February 13, 2016
Jeb Bush did not reply in Greenville to Trump’s pithy dismissal of the Iraq War. But he is on record as defending that war: “I’ll tell you, taking out Saddam Hussein turned out to be a pretty good deal,” he said last August.
Nor did Trump add any details in Greenville to justify his charge of a “big fat mistake.” So perhaps a review of what the war in Iraq was intended to accomplish, and what it did in fact accomplish, will help us decide whether it was “a pretty good deal” or “a big fat mistake.”
Many people at the time the war began were convinced that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and that was enough to justify going to war. But no evidence has yet been found to support that claim. Whatever threat Saddam Hussein posed in 2003 was not to the United States, not even to Kuwait (his clobbering in the Gulf War ended that dream), but only to his immediate neighbor, the hated enemy, with which Iraq had already fought an eight-year-long war, the Shi’a Republic of Iran. And Iran also happens to be America’s most dangerous enemy in the Middle East.
Many people in the Bush Administration felt at the time that Saddam Hussein surely must have had something to do with the 9/11 attacks, that is, with Al Qaeda. They appeared not to realize that Saddam Hussein was a secularizing Baathist, as antipathetic to Al Qaeda as Al Qaeda was to him. And no evidence appeared then, or has appeared since, to link Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks.
Many who supported the war felt that once Saddam was out of the way, Iraq could with Yankee Knowhow be turned into some kind of Peaceable Kingdom, unified and prosperous and democratic, and then become a A Light Unto the Muslim Nations, with others following its example, so as to transform the Middle East and North Africa. These were people who thought that democracy could be transplanted, through purple-thumbed elections, without much fuss and practically overnight, to Iraq. They did not understand that democracy is a sensitive plant that requires a certain kind of ideological soil in which to flourish, from Locke and Montesquieu and many other political theorists. It requires in addition an Enlightenment that never appeared in the Muslim world, and an understanding that what constitutes a government’s legitimacy is whether or not that government reflects, through elections (and often imperfectly) the Will Expressed By the People. But there is no Muslim Locke, no Muslim Montesquieu, no Muslim Enlightenment. There is only the Qur’an, the Hadith, the Sira. And for Muslims, a ruler’s legitimacy is determined by the extent to which his rule reflects not the Will Expressed by the People, but the Will Expressed By Allah in the Qur’an. None of this was given a moment’s thought by those who were gung-ho for “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”
Nor did the Americans understand either the depth or the duration of the hostility between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims, and why it could not be made to disappear (or why that would not be in America’s interest). The American effort to remove Saddam Hussein and his whole top tier of killers (the American military distributed decks of cards depicting the fifty-two most important members of the regime, for a wittily macabre game of Fifty-Two Pickup) was successful, and led to an inevitable transfer of power from the Sunni to the Shi’a Arabs, through those very elections the Americans hailed as an example of democracy at work. Since the Shi’a Arabs outnumbered the Sunni Arabs 3 to 1, voting en bloc ensured a Shi’a ascendancy. Now the Shi’a are solidly installed as the “democratically elected” rulers in Baghdad, and they will never voluntarily cede the power, political and economic (for whoever controls the Iraqi government also controls the oil revenues), that they obtained when Saddam’s regime was overthrown. Similarly, the Sunni Arabs will never reconcile themselves to the loss of their former power, but keep fighting to regain it.
Meanwhile the Kurds, who had suffered from attacks, including mass murder, during Saddam’s rule, had some relief when, from 2001 on, the Americans established a No-Fly-Zone for them in Northern Iraq, thus limiting Saddam’s power to hurt them. The Kurds having tasted, they then acquired a taste for, autonomy. And in Iraq today, the Kurds – who have been the most effective local fighters against the Islamic State in both Syria and Iraq — have no intention of surrendering what autonomy they have gained. They may try to transform their quasi-autonomous region into an independent Kurdistan, possibly with military help from Syrian Kurds who have been battle-hardened by their own combat against the Islamic State. That, too, was never part of the American plan for Iraq.
Finally, there is the story of what happened to the Christians in Iraq as a result of the American invasion. In Iraq, the despotic Saddam Hussein had protected the local Christians from Muslim depredations. For the Christians were never a threat to Saddam Hussein, but were a small minority, threatened by the same “real Muslims” who threatened Saddam Hussein as a secularizing Arab. He knew that he need not worry about the Christians in Iraq, for they had no political power or ambitions; they simply wanted to lie low, to practice their faith, and not to be persecuted. Saddam Hussein did make use of them for his own domestic purposes: Christians, both Assyrians and Armenians, served as his household staff – drivers, cooks, laundresses, tasters. (When the Americans took over the Green Zone, they inherited this same Christian staff, but did not ask themselves why Saddam had relied on Christians). He used them, too, for propaganda purposes: the appointment of Tariq Aziz, a Christian, to such a prominent post as Foreign Minister was a way to signal to the world that Christians could rise high in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. He could trust the Christians, for they knew he was their protector; Iraqi Christians have openly lamented the fall of Saddam Hussein (as, in Syria, the Christians are terrified of the possible toppling of Bashar al-Assad), to the puzzlement of their American “saviors” who assumed Iraqis all shared the American distaste for “despots.”
When Saddam fell, the position of the Christians worsened. Canon Andrew White of the Anglican Church in Baghdad was interviewed by Scott Pelley in 2007:
“You were here during Saddam’s reign. And now after. Which was better? Which was worse?” Pelley asked.
“The situation now is clearly worse” than under Saddam, White replied.
“There’s no comparison between Iraq now and then,” he told Pelley. “Things are the most difficult they have ever been for Christians. Probably ever in history. They’ve never known it like now.”
“Wait a minute, Christians have been here for 2,000 years,” Pelley remarked.
“Yes,” White said.
And this catastrophe for Iraq’s Christians was entirely predictable for those who understood why the Ba’athist Saddam Hussein, whatever he did to the Shi’ite Arabs or the Kurds, had no quarrel with the Christians, but was regarded by them as their Great Protector. With Saddam gone, the “real” Muslims – and not just those of the Islamic State — started to attack Christians with impunity. The Christian population in Iraq went from 1,500,000 in 2003, when the American invasion began, to less than one-third of that, 500,000, today. And it is still falling.
But perhaps, some diehards of democracy might argue, it is always good to get rid of a “despot” and to impose “democracy” (always thought to be a Good Thing, no matter what the mental and moral and historical conditions of the people to whom this “democracy” is to be brought). But in Iraq, what happened when the despot was no longer there? Instead of a Peaceable Kingdom, there has been one long descent into not one civil war, but into many little civil wars, with Sunnis against Shia, Shia against Sunnis, Shia and some Sunnis against other Sunnis of the Islamic State, Muslims against Christians, Sunnis against Yazidis, and tens of thousands of Muslim fanatics flooding into Iraq from outside to join that Islamic State. The city of Ramadi lies in ruins, and so does much of Anbar Province. The Islamic State holds a large part of northeastern Iraq, including Iraq’s second city of Mosul. The Christian population has diminished by 70% since 2003. The unity, prosperity, and Western-style democracy that were all confidently foretold for a Saddam-less Iraq are nowhere to be found. Instead, that Muslim state that poses the greatest danger to the Western world, the Islamic Republic of Iran, has only been strengthened by American intervention. Saddam Hussein, Iran’s greatest enemy, who fought an eight-year war with Iran, is gone, thanks to American intervention. And in Baghdad it is Shia who now rule, supported by Iranian-backed militias.
And what did that exercise in confused geopolitics and misplaced hopes cost us? 4,486 Americans died, and 32,223 were wounded, to bring about that Light Unto the Muslim Nations. The Iraq war cost American taxpayers more than 3 trillion dollars in direct costs, and with other costs, including long-term care for tens of thousands of severely wounded soldiers, and interest payments on amounts borrowed to conduct the war adding at least another 3 trillion — a total of 6 trillion dollars.
And for all this, what have we achieved? Iran has been strengthened. Iraq is no longer safe for Christians; two-thirds of them have left. Ancient monasteries and churches that were in Iraq for millennia, witnesses to one of the earliest Christian presences in the world, have been destroyed up and down the land. The Islamic State got its fanatical start in Baghdad, became ensconced in Iraq’s Anbar Province, from there extended its ferocious power into Syria, and now has branch offices in Libya, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Indonesia, where any day can be bombs away. That was not the “Light Unto the Muslim Nations” that the Bush Administration had in mind when back in 2003 it kicked off its excellent adventure in Iraq with the ballyhoo of Shock and Awe.
So you may have reason to prefer another candidate to Donald Trump. He may exaggerate, he may be wrong, about many things. But when he called the war in Iraq a “big fat mistake,” he was not exaggerating, and he was not wrong.

RichardL says
I understand that Trump is just the rhetoric peg on which to hang this article but I would like to point out the obvious: Trump just wants to win. He has no plan, no philosophy, nothing. He just wants to win. And so he just makes big statements. I bet he would not have any problem at all to totally agree with this article after winning the presidency.
It is a somewhat unfair competition: the others explain details and get nailed to the wall for minor things and Trump can just make jokes. So, when this is over, he will say I meant that I was for the war, but not for the peacekeeping.
Bit like Hitlery: nobody takes her at her word.
Pere LaChaise says
Right, Richard. T Rump and Hillary will say anything and mean none of it. They don’t feel they are required to fulfill any statement, only win. There is no way America could benefit from leedurz with such mindsets. Thy would be following the same philosophy that drove Bush’s Neoconjob, the twisted Platonism of Leo Strauss, who taught that the rubes (we the peepul) MUST be lied to, that we ‘can’t handle the truth’ of governance.
The irony of such high handed crooks running the world and speaking (with utter disingenuity) about dumokrazy in the Ay-rab world is soul-crushing.
T rump serves only his own ego’s massive demands. Hillary also has to serve her ultra rich masters. And she won’t admit that Operayshun Eyeracky Freedumb was a bad idea. Rather, she blasts the only serious candidate Bernie Sanders as having inadequate foreign policy when he stands on his record of opposing this disastrous intervention.
Bernie rightly derides the Neoconjob Bush Docktrin of endless warmongering at the behest of Hillary’s owners in the weapons industry because this method of funneling all the wealth of America into the accounts of the very few may be the single most effective way of killing American democracy.
T rump could never stand up to the massed forced of war industry with only his ego to support. His prime ideology is ‘greed is good’. How far away from this present disaster can we get on that?
Don McKellar says
Nice try and trying disguise yourself with stupid made up spelling. You are simply a disinformation scumbag. Get out. You are dismissed.
Mark Swan says
The people who live in the Middle East Countries need the Strong Man rule and what have We done…helped remove some of them and left what will prove to be the very worst volatile mess.
I remember Saddam Hussein…as doing what it took to keep Iraq under control…keeping Iran in check…His waving the expensive shotgun on the balcony of one of his mansions in His western suit…nostalgic…it beats remembering Him hanging at the end of a Shia rope.
We were warned from many wise friends and enemies in the world…don’t…getting into Iraq will be much easier than getting out of it…We would fail to manage post-Saddam Hussein Iraq successfully…with the result that it would fracture into two or three pieces…to the detriment of the entire Middle East and the benefit of Iran.
They were correct and now Saudi Arabia who has always been a snake in the grass…is influencing what is left of the Arab peoples that we wasted so many years and so much effort courting.
I remember Hussein….Mubarak…Gaddafi…al-Assad…they applied the one thing everyone in that part of the world agrees on…overwhelming force.
America had better focus real hard on rebuilding quickly…our economy…military…
and social values…our True Alliances that are flapping in the wind…or the wolf will be at the door.
We don’t have time for Islamism or Progressivism…Multiculturalism…
just Nationalism and Now…( patriotism: proud loyalty and devotion to a nation )…
No More Hyphenated Americans.
Spot On says
Pere, I presume you are pushing Bush or Rubio establishment? Maybe you are a Cruz or Hillary guy. Maybe Bernie turns you on.
This country is going down because of Washington stupidity. Every deal Washington makes is not only bad for the US but stupid. Look at the Iran deal…they get the nukes, self inspect for violations, and get $150B from us. What do we get? zero…All with establishment Republican help. Syrian migrant terrorists are given $1.5B to settle in our country courtesy of the Republicans establishment. Once settled, they are free to kill us.
As to Iraq…Bush got thousands of our troops killed and tens of thousand maimed…we spent $2T and what did we get?…zero. (Bush was selling freedom to people who don’t know what freedom is and don’t even have a word for it in their vocabulary. How stupid is that.) Go figure.
I can see Trump, writer of the “Art of the Deal”, going out of his mind at home watching all this stupidity every day ad nausium and watching his country going down as a result. Finally his wife may have said…Donald, you need to do something about all this. Even Trump said it was a hard decision he made to run. All hell broke loose when he said he would build a necessary wall to keep us safe. It has gotten progressively worse. Then he went after the MSM to defend his position and all hell broke loose again. The RNC establishment trolls and perps continue to go after him to save their sorry arses and cash flows. Every lobbyist on K street is apoplectic and out to get him. Why???, because they are worried he will show us how we are getting screwed by the Washington perps because what we see as stupidity is really corruption at work.
underbed cat says
Wow, Spot on, you are spot on.
As far as a nuclear ambition, I don’t doubt Saddam was in possession of related materials, as I do remember it took a year to be allowed to inspect,( it was reported to be seen by the military and was most likely moved or stolen by a nearby country). But, with a minimal understanding of the culture, ideology,influence of a relentless religion, and using Iraq as only a source of which to purchase oil it proved to be a mistake to unseal. Since Osama made his threats and explanation to the world, the west failed due to relationships and deception to follow the lead. I believe Trump may have taken OBL and his words as a clue, which I believe were the reasons for the attack. So in my mind although I don’t care for verbal conflict, I believe Trump is correct. However after the election the ME became a catastrophe, and served up more deception and danger as a cohert slid into position.
Carolyne says
Contrary to Fitzgerald’s assertion, Trump did indeed give a reason for feeling the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. It destabilized the Middle East, the repercussions of that act are growing worse by the day. Perhaps Mr. Fitzgerald did not wait to hear Trump’s entire statement.
I do not believe it is the legitimate responsibility of the United States to invade a country, not at war with us (And Hillary’s invading Libya is the same) and being complicit in assassinating that country’s leader in a most horrible way. The same could happen to us when Muslims are strong enough.
Yes, invading Iraq because, iMO, Iraq threatened George HW Bush when he visited Kuwait, was a “Big fat misstate” and we will reap the whirlwind of doing so for many generations. We are reaping the whirlwind now.
More Ham Ed says
I wasn’t going to say anything but – “Pere LaChaise says February 15, 2016 at 12:30 pm Right, Richard. T Rump…” – with the derogatory wording it’s obvious that “La La Chaise” wants Hillary to win.
mortimer says
RichardL wrote: ‘Trump…has no philosophy’. Too true.
Trump is selling the 1950’s version of the America dream. A lot of people are buying his fantasy.
Near Eastern countries are not nations, but convenient land chunks of the previous Ottoman Empire handed over to sheikhs and emirs who supported the French and British.
Each of these ‘countries’ contain a dozen nationalities mistrustful of each other. Islam contains doctrines of hatred of ‘others’, a revenge doctrine, a misogyny doctrine, a jihad doctrine and a censorship doctrine. Without a tolerant philosophy to support pluralism, democracy has no chance of succeeding in a Muslim country. Bush didn’t get it. Obama doesn’t get it. Trump doesn’t get it. Hitlary doesn’t get it.
Don McKellar says
You don’t get it, mortimer. They were and are nations and function as nations as long as there is an evil dictator calling the shots. They cease to be nations when the evil dictator is removed stupidly. George the Idiot stupidly removed Saddam. Obama the moslem stupidly removed Ghadafi and is now stupidly (and feebily) trying to remove Assad. Donald Trump has no interest in removing dictators who are keeping the moslems under control and contained. If you watched the last debate, you would have noted how important he thought Saddam was not only to keeping the moslems in his country under control, but in containing Iran. And he is right. He really, really gets it. YOU DO NOT. Now get off the stage, retard.
Bukkdem Jizheads says
No need to call names. At the time of the invasion, Saddam was headlining a global crime syndicate called “Oil for Food”. France, Russia, the UN, Marc Rich were just a few participants making billions while laughing at our sanctions. For this, hosting Al Qaida, rewarding Palestinian suicide bombers and many other reasons he had to be stopped. The big fat mistake was destroying Saddam’s Sunni military structure, who knew how to control the jihadists, and then Obama’s hideous betrayal of the thousands of Sunni’s who did work with us and were slaughtered, no doubt, once we left.
This was history repeating itself. Instead of rebuilding Afghanistan after we helped drive out the Russians, the Clintons stopped all aid. Absurdly, Hillary said they didn’t respect human rights so we should not help them. Ten years of tribal warfare ensued, and led to the Taliban and Bin Laden. Mrs. Clinton can be directly tied to 9/11.
Angemon says
Bukkdem Jizheads posted:
“Mrs. Clinton can be directly tied to 9/11.
”
Don’t forget the sex fiend, Slick Will. He could have had Bin Laden killed back in ’98.
rara says
To Bukkdem Jizheads claiming Saddam “hosting Al Qaida”:
so you still believe Bush propaganda? There were 0 Al Qaida in Iraq under Saddam.
Al Qaida ideology was indirectly supported by the US for decades, since Afghanistan, over Bosnia and more, and most recently more directly in Libya.
Even schoolbooks for kids:
https://supportdanielboyd.wordpress.com/usa-printed-textbooks-support-jihad-in-afghanistan-and-pakistan/
eduardo odraude says
The huge sacrifice of blood and treasure involved in nation-building only makes sense if it is possible to install a liberal democracy (as we did in Japan and Germany after World War II). Those of us who did not see that authoritarian sharia law would inevitably get into the new constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan are responsible for the trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives lost in the effort to build free democracies in those two nations. In future, if we are not prepared to enforce a liberal democratic system (no sharia), we have no business doing nation-building. War in such situations should have a much more limited purpose.
Mark Swan says
Carolyne says
February 16, 2016 at 10:27 am
Carolyne You are abslutly Correct in this comment…Thank You for it
Don McKellar says
You sir, are a damned fool.
His plans are philosophy are so crystal clear and strong that anybody who is not blinded by their political philosophy can see and grasp them. He lays out his plans and philosophy every day. It’s all right there in plain sight, unlike virtually every other candidate.
Seeing as we are on Jihad Watch, why don’t talk about his plans and strategy for Islam as it directly affects America. Now, RichardL, do something you obviously very seldom do, and put on your thinking cap. What did Trump say he was going to do about the situation? He presented a strategy of genius. It’s so strong that it’s the only strategy about dealing with Islamic threats to America that anybody is talking about and drove the politically correct tools of Islam into wild fits. Deep down they know where what he proposes leads to. So do those who are now supporting Trump. He said simply, and I quote: “…total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”
Now you try thinking about where this plan leads to. What is the philosophy behind it? LET ME SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU BECAUSE YOU AREN’T TOO SMART. The philosophy is the one which is uniquely Trump’s in this election cycle: We are going to talk about things honestly for once. We are not going to be politically correct anymore. We are going to get down to the ugly, nasty truth so we can take appropriate action. We are going to FORCE dialog on the most important issues of the day. It is the philosophy of ripping away the facade and being honest about how to solve a problem which everybody in public office is too scared to talk about, so that the problem can be SOLVED.
The plan to pull this off is very simple. Ban moslems from entering temporarily. Force the nation’s lawmakers to find out why there is such a problem around the world with violent jihad and such hate towards the United States. Why, for example, would a highly organized group of privilidged Saudi young men kill themselves to murder thousands of innocent Americans on 9/11 and point to Islam inspiring it all? Well, FINALLY, the nation’s lawmakers will be forced to talk about Islam. They will be forced to examine the texts of Islam. What makes it tick.
Let me spell it out for you even further, RichardL. You are on Jihad Watch. What is the stated mission of Jihad Watch? “Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts.” President Donald Trump is going to force the nation’s lawmakers, and therefore engage the American public, to expose that and rip away the who bullshit politically correct facade. If that doesn’t sink in to you, RichardL, then you need to get the hell off this site and hang out at Huffington Post.
Vote Trump 2016. It is a vote against jihad.
balam says
Don Mckellar:Thank youforspeaking thetruthso forcefully
Bee says
Excellent. Spot on in my view.
Bukkdem Jizheads says
I have conservative friends who dislike Trump because he doesn’t pass the purity test on abortion. They are putting his stance on abortion above all else, just as the idiots used Romneycare to stay home last time.
Abortion is not going away just because conservatives want it to. Limiting it is doable. This is about where Climate Change falls in my list of issues.
I totally agree that our 1300 year clash of civilizations has reached a fever pitch and is the most important issue of all, and only one candidate has the courage take it on. How idiotic for women to vote on abortion when The Religion of Gonads is stoning, raping, enslaving and honor-killing innocent women?
Kema says
I support you 100%. If Americans make the mistake of not voting for trump, America is doomed.
Annak says
Me too.
Right now, I see parallels with WW2. Appeasement and false hope never works,will not work, cannot work .
At this moment in time, it is simply a case of first things first, protecting America and the entire free world from the greatest onslaught upon it by a historically consistent enemy whose aims have always been the same, just changes it’s tactics.
Anyone with the wisdom and guts to see this threat head on , to actually be prepared to knuckle down with gritted teeth and determination that will need to surpass that of the enemy MUST be supported
Or indeed Kema, all is lost, maybe forever. It is that bad.
Carolyne says
Ned, Your analysis of Trump’s plans is spot on. I think some could have Trump’s plan tattooed on their foreheads and would still say he has no plan, simply because some TV newsreader says it over and over. Think for yourselves, people. Stop being a flock of sheep, or you will become Islam’s goats.
VRWC member77 says
Richard,
I agree. Trump is great at armchair blowhard armchair quarterbacking, especially when Jeb Bush has an internal poll at the moment showing Cruz to be 2 points behind him: 26 to 24. I didn’t quite understand why Trump went full-on truther with Bush until I found out the S.C. primary is an open primary.
Does Hugh know Trump was for the invasion of Iraq around 2000 before he decided in S.C. that he was against it? ……..also, speaking of Kerry moments, does Hugh know that TRUMP ENDORSED JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT in 2004? Hey, that was so 2004. This time Trump is really gonna do “tremendous things” for this country. Sure thing. I’m also wondering why Hugh decided on “3 trillion” as to opposed to say 4.37 trillion because if you’re going to pull an inflated number from your backside you might as well make it sound kinda sophisticated.
I wish people who don’t live in this country would quit taking up candidates based on sound bites and ignorance.
Lia Wissing says
I’ve read a book by an Iraqi general (Georges Sala; Saddam’s Secrets) who says there were WMD and he explains how they were got out & where they went. Does everybody accept that the general was lying?
homosaps says
Richard, you are dead wrong and intellectually lazy or a liar. Read Trump’s books before you open your ignorant lying pie hole.
nacazo says
Too bad Trump is clueless regarding the importance of Freedom of Speech, as his comments after the attack on the Garland Art Exhibit on Mohammed show.
eduardo odraude says
nacazo,
I’m not sure Trump is clueless about freedom of speech. He was confused about what the Garland Art Exhibit’s purpose.
Some relevant history:
Months before Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, he countermanded emancipation proclamations issued by two of his generals in the military regions they oversaw. He countermanded the generals not because he was clueless about emancipation. Lincoln had to look at the overall strategy and timing of emancipation, and plan it in a way that would not end up losing the civil war to the South. If Lincoln had prematurely forced emancipation, and the war had been lost as a result, a slave state would have been established in the South, and the emancipation proclamation would have failed and made things worse, not better, for the slaves.
My point is not that Trump has the anything like the stature of a Lincoln, but rather that, as Trump seeks power and the presidency, and makes resistance to or containment of Islam a significant part of his candidacy, he may feel a coordinated national strategy is put at risk if “generals” in the field (people like Spencer and Geller) provoke and set the timing of major battles.
Trump should have understood and supported, or at least stayed silent about, the Garland event. Trump instead seemed confused and perplexed about the purpose at Garland. But his response to the event doesn’t by itself demonstrate that he is clueless about the importance of free speech.
Besides, remember that if Trump gets in, and he manages to keep out most of the 100,000 to 200,000 Muslims currently coming into the US each year, that will be around 50,000 to 150,000 fewer enemies of free speech coming into the U.S. each year. I’d say that’s the priority that no other candidate is keeping in mind.
My concern about Trump is that his moratorium on Muslim immigration may provoke massive resistance on the left — there might arise “sanctuary cities” or “underground railroads” helping Muslim immigrants pour the US. The left might do that, in its hatred of Trump, and its belief that the “Other” must always be welcomed even if a particular category of Other, once numerous and strong enough, violently pursues theocracy and pours death threats and violence on the heads of those who say the “wrong things” about Islam.
duh_swami says
‘Pamela Geller is a terrible person…Trump…is he right?
Mark Swan says
He does not know Her anymore than We do…I suspect He may have been made
aware of what She is warning about since that comment…but Her reporting along with
many others besides Her…is circulating and You and I have read it and taken heed…
He might very well do the same…let’s hope.
gravenimage says
Trump’s failure to understand and to defend freedom of speech is indeed profoundly disturbing–and quite dangerous. He may still prove to be the best of the bunch running–but only because the other major candidates would do even less to defend against Islam.
Mark Swan says
Carolyne says
February 16, 2016 at 10:45 am
I agree…Justice Scalia…was a loss…Loretta Lynch…is a product of affirmative action…She may have
learned enough by now to appear to practice as a judge…but the Supreme Court is no place to practice
for Her…maybe the Republicons can hold this off until a new President is in…it would finally show all
that the current Administration is not respected.
quotha raven says
To Mark Swan, who sez “Loretta Lynch…is a product of affirmative action…”
She also proudly bragged about how many cops she prosecuted in Brooklyn. She’d NEVER be approved by the Senate.
Would she?
Cheers!
quotha raven
Mark Swan says
I hope not quatha raven…this seems a pivotal matter doesn’t it…We can only hope.
Cheers!
Ed says
For those who follow Canon Andrew White, who has now been forced to leave Baghdad, he says the situation of Iraq’s Christians now is indescribably worse than in the 2007 interview noted by Hugh.
ICH says
so AGAIN donald was right
he may get some boos from the sheep but nonetheless he was correct
and if he becomes the nominee , Democrats cant hold GWB mistakes against him
PS – my neighbour is Chaldean and agreed with Donald
GuntherL says
Trump is wrong. It wasn’t a mistake. It was a deliberate crime and thoroughly planned by PNAC long before the attack.
Invading a sovereign country for other reasons than self defense, is a war crime.
The idea that Iraq could ever be a threat was just as ridiculous as the military threat of Czechoslovakia against Germany in 1939 or Nicaragua against the US in 1984.
Destroying a country and have it rebuilt by Haliburton and Bechtel, funded with taxpayer money is a wonderful strategy, if you’re among those who is to benefit. Moral it is not.
In a sane world, Cheney; Bush and the rest of the neocon criminals would have been executed.
Pere LaChaisen says
Right on Gunther! T rump is a cowardly blowhard who doesn’t care enough to speak truth if it costs him a sinlge vote, and probably has no real gripe with the extermination of middle eastern Christians.
Whenever the permanent government of the US (the one hiding behind thenpartisan charade) decides it is time for a (profitable) war, they trot out the moral arguments to whip up the yahoos, who according to their delusional Uhmurricun Ecksepshunulizm wax ecstatic over the visions of colorful explosions for the sake of dumokrazy among the towel-heads. It works every time due to the moral decadence of Uhmurrikanz who need big injections of purpose and meaning into their empty, debt-ridden, TV and Internet addicted lives.
I doubt any politician aspiring to the mainstream here could dare to say these things, not yet at least. Bernie is pushing I the right direction. Hillary would aim for more war and T Rump would get us in one accidentally as he would be so easily manipulated by the clever men in the permanent government.
Carolyne says
It is so unbecoming in a political discussion to use descriptions of those with whom you disagree as “Cowardly blowhards.” But then I remember that Bernie Sanders is a Socialist, and it all becomes clear what the agenda is for such trash talk.
Mark Swan says
Carolyne…
Not from a unbecoming Cowardly Blowhard…just oozing with…Uhmurricun Ecksepshunulizm.
Jack Diamond says
Iraq was not a “sovereign” country after the first Gulf War. But regardless of the rational–violation of UN directives, sheer malevolence, or “road to Hell paved with good intentions”–it has proved clearly a disaster. And the lessons have not been learned from that disaster, evidenced by the “shock” over Trump’s blunt assessment and rejection of “Bushism.” As with Muslim immigration, Trump is the only candidate willing to point out the obvious here, the emperor has no clothes. Bush gave us Obama. Obama is giving us Trump.
GuntherL says
I doubt it. I’d be really surprised if Wall Street and the military industrial complex would allow any other candidate but Hillary to win.
I hope I’m wrong. Both sides of the spectrum in the US are screaming for change.
Jack Diamond says
I wasn’t predicting Trump’s election, just observing the phenomenon.
Jack Diamond says
Wall Street and the Military Industrial Complex? Is it always 1968 for you guys?
You sure it’s not the Joooze pulling “the strings”? You know, with the Illuminati and the
Bildebergers? I guess it must be nice to think somebody is secretly running things and knows what they are doing, lol. Besides Beelzebub… So very Muslim-ish of you.
GuntherL says
There’s no conspiracy here. It’s just how things work. The most powerful groups determine the policy and the media is owned by some of these groups who organize it to focus on less relevant stuff.
Do you think it’s a coincidence that the most Wall Street banks were ‘saved’ by the tax payers and only one banker had to go to jail?
Regarding foreign policy, large contractors had a lot to gain by going to war and ‘rebuild’ the country. Shortly after the war, public offering was only available to American companies. This decision was reversed after it was challenged by competitors.
dlbrand says
“Trump is the only candidate willing to point out the obvious here, the emperor has no clothes. Bush gave us Obama. Obama is giving us Trump.”
Amen J.D. Well stated.
Carolyne says
Thank you Obama. That’s the first sensible thing you have done.
Angemon says
Perhaps. But I’m willing to bet he called it a big, fat mistake to attack Jeb Bush, not because he cares about the Christians in Iraq.
Guy Jones says
An honest appraisal of the Iraq War should be a non-political issue. I’m a conservative, but, I opposed the war back in 2003 for three simple reasons: 1) I thought that the main rationale being pushed by the Bush Administration — to wit, that Saddam Hussein was in league with al-Qaeda and represented an imminent threat — was laughable and transparently false on its face. Saddam was a secular dictator to whom jihadism represented a direct threat to his power and control. 2) It was obvious that destablizing Iraq by deposing Saddam would unleash uncontrollable religious and ethnic forces and a maelstrom of chaos which would further infect the region which it has (see “al-Qaeda in Iraq” and “ISIS”). 3) Lastly, deposing Saddam would remove a powerful strategic counterweight to Iran, gifting the Iranian regime with greater regional influence and power and the ability to increase its nefarious meddling and terrorist sponsorship. Which has absolutely been the case
There is no doubt that Obozo didn’t help matters with his premature troop withdrawal in 2012 for the sake of election-year posturing. Then, Obozo doubled down on Bush’s stupidity by deposing Mubarak and Qaddafi and naively postulating that an “Arab Spring” would give birth to democracy. However, the fact remains that the war was a colossal blunder from a strategic standpoint, in terms of long-term harm caused to the U.S. and allied interests and greater instability in the Middle East.
scherado says
Are you one of those people who believes that February 26, 1993 had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein? Do you understand the question?
jewdog says
It was onlya mistake because we did not follow up our military victory by taking the oil, establishing military rule and setting up Sharia-free zones for minorities and non-Islamist Muslims. The reason we didn’t was because our leaders do not understand that Islam itself was at the root of 911 and that therefore Islam as a cultural and political force must be destroyed; and that includes dictatorial regimes in “secular” Muslim countries. Isolationism is not the way to get that done.
John Boland says
Saddam Hussein was an absolutely vicious dictator! He also tried to kill Bush 43’s father, which attempt triggered George Bush 43’s creation of Shock and Awe. I refer you to Debka, a public arm of the best intelligence group in the world, the Mossad. Saddam Hussein was doing everything he could to get the materials to build a nuclear weapon. His generals regularly lied to him, telling them they were quite close to getting nuclear materials for a Nuclear Bomb. if Hussein had found out the truth, he would’ve slaughtered all of his generals, quite terribly as he was regularly wont to do. As it was, he had entire French mirage fighter planes buried in the desert, to be retrieved when appropriate. He had his Republican Elite Guard stationed all along the border between Syria and the Becaa Valley in Lebanon, the home of Osama bin Laden’s first training camps. In the entire week prior to launching Shock and Awe by George Bush, all of Hussein’s Revolutionary Guard, were pulled off of that border, and replaced with Russian Spetznatz special forces. For that entire week, thousands of trucks driven by Russian Spetznatz, were shuttling back and forth between Baghdad, and two specific 300 foot deep sites in the Bacaa Valley, clearly to be retrieved by Hussein when the heat came off. Everything I’ve said here was delivered in a special speech to the UN General Assembly by General Colin Powell. This intelligence was gathered by the United States in conjunction with British Intelligence, and the Israeli Mossad Intelligence Service. Saddam’s generals were lying to him about how close they were to having a nuclear weapon, because they all would die terribly if Saddam found out they were unable to secure nuclear materials for a bomb.
scherado says
Correct.
I was a Debkafile reader for years.
Richard says
“But when he called the war in Iraq a “big fat mistake,” [while attacking Jeb Bush] he [Donald Trump] was not … wrong.”
But when he said last August “I’ll tell you, taking out Saddam Hussein turned out to be a pretty good deal,” he was terribly wrong.
I believe Marco Rubio has said Assad should not be removed. Again he is right for the same reasons Saddam Hussein should not have been removed. We cannot apply western democratic rules, principles or ideology to peoples believing in violent Islamic ideology. They can only be controlled by violence. Democracy is incompatible with Islam. There is no peaceful transfer of power in Islamic countries.
MKG says
The war in Iraq never made sense to me. Even from the very start when Powel was presenting the Bush administations case to the UN. He had the look of a man who just had a shit sandwich for lunch as if to say, “I can’t believe I am actually saying this crap outloud.”
Should have, could have, would have. What is done is done. The question I have for politicians is, “now what?”
I don’t know yet how I will vote, but at least Trump is acknowledging the elephant in the room.
One thing is for certain, if we vote for Hillary, it will confirm we are morally bankrupt. If we vote for Sanders, we will be literally bankrupt.
I’m Ready For Hillary!
To go to prison.
pOOSH says
You fail to point out Iraq was doing very well – for what it was – prior to Obama. Bush’s Surge worked. It was Obama that ruined it.
scherado says
If Trump said, “The Iraq war was a big, fat mistake”, we would be forced to ask, that depends on what the meaning of “was” is–and we would be asking the exact kind of temporal question that Bill Clinton asked and we would be asking a relevant question with respect to the past, the present and the implications for the future which, I don’t have to remind anyone, is not determined (exactly).
Does anyone know what I mean?
There is no doubt that Trump has some difficulty with either understanding or truth. To wit: “How did he keep us safe when the World Trade Center (UNINTEL)? (CHEERING) (APPLAUSE) The World– I lost hundreds of friends. The World Trade Center came down (BOOING) during the reign. He kept us safe? That’s not safe.” (_^_) Everyone knows that the phrase, “Bush kept us safe”, does NOT refer to what occurred on the day of 9-11; it is used and understood to mean that he kept us safe in the years after 9/11 and, even, until the end of his Presidency.
Carolyne says
I don’t think Bush kept us safe. I think he just got lucky. Can anyone ever forget the look on his face when it was whispered to him that America had been attacked. That was truly one for the ages–or Saturday Night Live
Wellington says
Bush had to take out Saddam Hussein. He was a megalomaniac who was daily violating the truce terms of the 1991 War, for instance firing on British and American jets in the two no-fly zones. Moreover, not a single major intelligence agency on the planet thought SH was devoid of WMDs. No President after 9/11 could leave such a person in power in Iraq. Where Bush made a very significant mistake was in thinking that democracy could be implanted in that god-forsaken country. Bush should have kept most of the Iraqi Army in tact, found an authoritarian type along the lines of Mubarak in Egypt to run the country who was pro-American or at least neutral, and perhaps keeps some Special Forces in Iraq for a while. That’s it.
I simply reject the idea that SH didn’t need to go. He did. So did his two ruthless sons. But democracy building in a Muslim country is a waste of time, money and lives.
wildjew says
I voted for Bush in 2000. He also engaged in a lengthy and costly occupation of Iraq, nation building; “winning hearts and minds.” No doubt there were others making recommendations back then. The most sensible I read was from Daniel Pipes who makes this non-existent distinction between Islamism and Islam. Pipes recommended the Bush people install an America-friendly strongman in place of Saddam. That made a whole lot more sense than his Utopian democratization scheme. At any rate, I lost faith and confidence in Mr. Bush days after the September attacks when he unveiled his vision for another jihadi state in the region; this one in Israel’s heartland.
It rendered me agnostic on Bush’s Iraq venture, which along with his other betrayals likely resulted in the election of Barack Hussein Obama, our worst nightmare.
Wellington says
I’ve never understood, wildjew, your objection to Bush’s plan, since it was based on the condition (among others) that the so-called Palestinian Arabs can have their state but only if they agree to live alongside Israel in peace. Staunch Zionists like Ben-Gurion, Begin, Sharon and Netanyahu also indicated many times they were ready for such a state next to Israel if it were truly peaceful. I think Bush threw the ball into the Arab Muslim court and pretty much knew they wouldn’t meet his conditions but did it for form’s sake only. Do you know of any part of Bush’s proposal that was at odds with the four I mentioned above? If you are going to castigate Bush here, I believe, to be fair, you must castigate many, many Israeli Jews, including those I already noted.
wildjew says
Wellington, my objections to Bush’s plan always rested on “religious” grounds, though I do not consider myself a religious man or an Orthodox Jew if that makes any sense. I believe God (if you will) gave all that land to the sons of Jacob by covenant; the same covenant Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush violated; a thing I believe Ariel Sharon paid for with his life and a thing I believe this nation paid for at Bush’s behest. Staunch “Zionists” like David Ben-Gurion, Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu, even Menachem Begin, these are / were all secular-leaning men; not men of faith. There is and was no David among them. I am talking here about Israel’s greatest king who was a man after God’s own heart.
Wellington says
No, wildjew, it indeed doesn’t make sense that your objections to Bush’s plan rests upon religious grounds and yet you are, by your own admittance, not religious. But at least you can’t excoriate Bush anymore than secular Zionists since such Zionists were ready to trade land for peace, for instance the acceptance by such Zionists of the 1947 UN partition plan.
Though I am not Jewish I consider myself a Zionist in the sense that I strongly support Israel’s right to exist (and also the laudatory revival of the Hebrew language). In fact, I have long maintained that Israel made a great mistake after the Six-Day War by not expelling the Arab populations in the West Bank and Gaza and formally annexing them to Israel proper. Anyone who would object to this, I would counter by asking such a person if they think the present situation is better.
BTW, I have met Daniel Pipes. He is a very decent and highly intelligent man but his distinction, which you already mentioned, between Islam and Islamism is a phantom distinction and he just doesn’t get this.
Hope you and yours are doing well. Long live Israel.
wildjew says
Wellington, when I say I do not consider myself a religious or an Orthodox Jew that is because I am not observant enough. If you know Orthodox Judaism, these Jews keep the commandments in their minutest detail. Commandments as Orthodox Jews keep them are very strict. Sabbath observance is very complicated and strict.
That is not to say God isn’t a big part of my life. It is not to say, I do not know God’s word in our Bible, the Hebrew Bible. I am familiar with God’s covenant; the one He made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob concerning the land of Israel.
You say you consider yourself a Zionist. A Zionist believes ALL of Israel belongs to the the people of Israel; to the Jewish people. This is my definition of a Zionist. If a person believes in a 2 state solution or a bi-national state or in any concession of historic Jewish land to Islam, then he or she is NOT a Zionist, in my view. A person who only believes in Israel’s right to exist is not a Zionist. Israel exists because God allows or desires Israel to exist, not because people or nations say Israel has a right to exist.
This once great nation will exist so long as God allows it to exist. That’s the way I see it.
Richard says
“I believe God (if you will) gave all that land to the sons of Jacob by covenant;” Is there any rational reason or evidence to make you believe that?
What’s the difference between that belief and the Muslim belief that Allah gave the world including Israel to the Muslims? And that all non-Muslims are to be subjugated under Islam?
Do you also believe that the Sun and Moon stood still during the battle of Jericho? And all that other rubbish?
Richard says
“Israel exists because God allows or desires Israel to exist, not because people or nations say Israel has a right to exist.”
God has nothing to do with it. You might as well say ISIS exists because “God” desires it to exist. Or Iran, Saudi Arabia etc.
wildjew says
Let me put it to you this way Richard. “The proof is in the pudding.” The children of Israel are back in the land (an continually returning to the land) just as the prophets said they would be.
wildjew says
Sorry, I meant to write “are” continually returning to the land. And yes ISIS exists because “God” desires or allows it to exist, unless or until America and / or the West crushes ISIS. In a few years I believe we will see a nuclear Iran because God desires or allows it to exist, unless America or Israel destroys Iran’s nuclear sites. I do not expect America will destroy Iran’s nuclear sites. I believe America will pressure Israel not to destroy Iran’s nuclear sites as we’ve seen from the past two administrations. I expect one day we will have nuclear weapons aimed at and in our cities. What do you expect to see Richard in the years to come given this country’s track record?
Richard says
” I expect one day we will have nuclear weapons aimed at and in our cities. What do you expect to see Richard in the years to come given this country’s track record?”
By your own assessment- the destruction of Israel in nuclear holocaust. Where would your “proof of the pudding” go then?
If it happens that way it will be because the west would have allowed Iran to go nuclear, but according to you it will be God’s will.
The only will that exists and that can be seen to exist is human will, not this mysterious God. Your argument is absurd. If I did anything it would be me doing it, but according to you it would be God doing it.
wildjew says
“By your own assessment- the destruction of Israel in nuclear holocaust. Where would your “proof of the pudding” go then?”
That would be your hope judging by what you’ve written above.
Richard says
You have a poor understanding of what is written. Not surprising for a person who thinks that he gets his moral authority from God. The same god that “commanded” his believers to slaughter men, women and children and animals (according to his spokesman). In other words commit genocide. Dangerous to have spokesmen of god and then have people believe in it. Remember Muhammad?
Mark Swan says
Anyone Who thinks leaving the Palestinians for Israel to put up with…is the right
thing to do is certainly sadistic and not living in Israel…if they want a Nation let
them go to Jordan…Israel is a Great Nation of Civilized World Citizens…the socialist…communist…progressives…fascist of the world…have tried to hinder
Israel by leaving these pockets of Palestinians inside what should rightfully be
Israel’s borders…everyone with a clean conscience understand this truth.
The only solutions to this is to make them Citizens in Israel or in Jordan.
They are a real threat to the Jordanian Government…Big Time…no Country
Wants them…they are outcasts for a reason…their lawless behavior.
eduardo odraude says
Wellington,
I think you’ve about summed up my own position there.
Carolyne says
Me too. I could never believe in such a cruel God who, if he/she wished could make the earth peaceful by merely speaking it, according to those who believe in the supernatural. Sounds much like the cruel God, Allah. I want to see the survival of Israel, not because I believe they have some kind of legally binding contract with god, but because they are a bulwark against Islam.
Mark Swan says
I do respect Your opinion very much and would never try to convert anyone ever.
So what views do We place any hope in…
Seminaries (cemeteries) places where they bury the Bible…teaching their particular Doctrine of Men Instead of the word of God…is Man’s Progressive Higher Education Working…Offering Answers to Life’s Biggest Problems…The school of hard knocks is open to all interested or not.
Just look at this earth soaked in the blood of mankind…and us still saying We will find the right way soon enough just give Us some more time…but if this same God does not intervene…in a very short time from now We will have completely destroyed all life on this planet…Nightmarish War is coming soon…Thermo Nuclear Weapons will be used…along with every conceivable murderous device known in war…We talk too assuredly of human reasoning…We have been given an allotted amount of time to experiment for ourselves…and in every conceivable endeavor we have discovered that deciding right from wrong eludes us…why…Is Something Missing.
When these things come fast and hard…Maybe We will all consider our absolute priorities.
Mark Swan says
Someone Read This and give me Your take on it !
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7214/electro-magnetic-pulse-emp
If this happens…we will see civil disorder…shortages on major a scale of all creature comforts.
Our nation will be devastated to say the least.
Kepha says
I’m not sure I’m ready to call for Dubya Bush’s head, either. Wellington has pointed out some important facts about Sadam Hussein; pOOSH above (3:27) pointed out that the surge worked–until the O threw away its gaians. One thing that is often overlooked is that the CIA and NSA are omniscient only in the movies, for intelligence, including that which considered all matters about Sadam Hussein’s actions, is a guessing game. It’s a game of connecting the dots, and if there’re noises about yellowcake, whispers from nervous Iraqi officers and scientists, someone needs to notice.
For me, the UN offer to interview Iraqi scientists WITH THEIR FAMILIES in Europe suggests that those scientists were probably telling the boss they were working on WMD, but just missing this, just missing that—and the boss was getting suspicious. I won’t blame those scientists, either. They were living literally on a knife’s edge.
Further, back in the First Gulf War–the one with all the allies and the world’s approval–I was a US diplomat and worth US$45K dead to Sadam Hussein, while my then 7-yr.old son was worth US$10K. I can never see Sadam Hussein as a pillar of stability in the region or as a check on the region’s thuggery. I note as well his regularly paying out US$25K to the families of Falastin Arab suicide bombers and other terrorists.
As for Al-Qaida and its minions, the 9/11 Commission’s report noted that while Osama Bin Laden was holed up in Sudan, his people were in almost daily contact with Sadam Hussein’s embassy in Khartoum. What was said, apparently, is anyone’s guess (unless there’s something that Snowden and Julian Assange didn’t uncover that’s still under safe classification). However, when two known enemies of the USA are busy talking with each other, it would be very remiss of any US administration to fail to take notice.
In the usual 20-20 hindsight, the worst that can be said about the Bush II administration was that it thought it could beat and rebuild Iraq on the cheap. It expected a great Iraqi sigh of relief and cooperation (which, in fairness, it got from the Kurds and some Shi’ites–and I have taught Iraqi Shi’ite students who are of the mind that Bush II could do no wrong; especially after a few uncles and cousins were dug out of mass graves that held far more than the civilian collateral casualties for which our forces were to blame), and did not count on Shi’ite ties to Iran; the fragile, cobbled-together character of the Iraqi state since its inception; and the resonance MB- or Qaida-like messages have across the Sunni world. In hindsight, the US needed an imperialist plan–maybe a benign imperialist plan, but an imperialist plan nonetheless–to stay in Iraq for a long haul (and how well would that go over with our electorate and a political opposition waiting in the wings? Poo to you, Troofers, conspiracists, etc.).
I doubt that either Donald Hairdo Trump or Boynie Sanders have anyone who’d be better at advising how to handle an Islamic country that picked a fight with us, and ended up beaten and occupied than the ones now at work–and they are pretty danged poor. Perhaps Trump has the better common sense in wanting to re-impose a new immigration law or policy that openly discriminates on the basis of area of origin or religion. he at least has learned a lesson that the Islamic world is a treacherous place. But how would that play with so much of the rest of the world?
And watch the saber-rattling, please. Our diplomacy badly needs to come up with a plan for defusing the looming Sunnite-Shi’ite confrontation in the Middle East, not pouring gasoline on the conflagration, especially since Turkey seems to be going Hell-for-Leather to get NATO involved on the side of the wonderful folks who brought us 9/22 and the European rape epidemic. But if we go to war with Iran and its proxies, we have China, Russia, and their Shanghai Groupies in Central Asia lined up with Iran. That is one bad scenario. And considering whom the Democrats are running, the lady whom Erdogan led by the nose and who proved her incomparable incompetence by allying us with Syria’s Jihadist rebels, we are truly living in perilous times.
MKG says
My hat’s off to you sir. You are good in your arena.
rara says
Re al-Qaeda, you’ve slept for almost a decade pal:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/saddam-had-no-links-to-alqaeda/2006/09/09/1157222383981.html
“September 10, 2006
THERE is no evidence of formal links between former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders before the invasion of Iraq by the US in 2003, a long-awaited declassified US Senate report has revealed.”
Wellington says
Perhaps not formal links but Zarqawi was in Iraq as of 2002 and was with an affiliate Islamic terrorist organization of al-Qaeda. Yes, SH and Islamic terrorist organizations may have hated one another but they had a common enemy—–America. And you know the old line, i.e., that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Mazo says
The CIA and conservative Republican and Democrat administrations both supported the Muslim Brotherhood during the Cold War against leftist Arab leaders, and supported the Grey Wolves in Operation Gladio to incite Turkic Muslims in the Soviet Union against Communists. The CIA trained Grey Wolves to massacre leftist Kurds and Alevis.
Western backed Dictator Suharto was supported by the CIA in his massacres, slaughters, and mass rapaes against the peoples of East Timor, West Papua, and Aceh, just because the East Timorese FRETILIN leaders and West Papuan OPM were Marxists and backed by Gaddafi. I didn’t know East Timroese children and babies were Marxists too.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you hold a similar view to the Marxist Kurdish YPG in Syria (affiliated with the Marxist PKK) that you believe they should have bee left to been exterminated by Daish. That is exactly what Erdogan and his fellow racist-fascists Grey Wolves said about the Syrian Kurds- that they were terrorist Marxists, so if Daish took Kobani and massacred all the Kurdish civilians there, they wouldn’t care.
I jnow you are a self proclaimed fan of Suharto but is there some reason you keep disavowing the Muslim Brotherhood and Grey Wolves?
Angemon says
Mazo posted:
“Western backed Dictator Suharto was supported by the CIA in his massacres, slaughters, and mass rapaes against the peoples of East Timor, West Papua, and Aceh, just because the East Timorese FRETILIN leaders and West Papuan OPM were Marxists and backed by Gaddafi.”
Let’s see if I can follow your “logic”: Suharto ordered people in Aceh killed because FRETILIN and OPM were marxists? Nothing to do with islamic insurgents wanting to live by sharia? The “Free Aceh Movement”, whose flag features a crescent moon and a star? Doesn’t ring any bells? Nothing, really?
Anyway, in 1995, when anti-Indonesian riots broke out in East Timor, Indonesian propaganda portrayed them not as a rebellion against Indonesian occupation and savagery, but as a war against islam backed by the West and the Vatican. Pious, devout muslims rallied to Suharto’s side and a jihad against East Timor was called.
“ I didn’t know East Timroese children and babies were Marxists too.”
You’re a muslim – islam teaches that everyone is born muslim, so such a concept can’t be alien to you. The thing is, I don’t see anyone saying that babies are born marxists. I mean, other than you. On the other hand, if the soldiers murdering babies were told not that they were waging war against marxists but that they wereon a jihad for the sake of allah…
Mazo says
The west was suffering from a severe case of flaming butthurt symdrome when Muslims in Mindanao and Aceh didn’t support their Cold War agenda of “lets kill all the godless Marxists” which they used in Turkey, the Middle East, and Afghanistan.
Misuari was a member of a Marxist group at the University of the Philippines.
The butthurt increased when the FRETILIN leader himself was an Arab Muslim whom the west thought was their ally against the godless Marxists.
Angemon says
Again, “Free Aceh Movement”. You know, crescent moon? Star? The guys who who want to live under sharia law and not secular law? The guys who fought for their right to stone adulterers and chop the limbs of thieves for almost 30 years, and only stopped after what could adequately be described as “an act of God” for those with believe in God (the 2004 earthquake and ensuing tsunami)? Are you really claiming that Suharto’s problem with them was that they didn’t want to kill commies? Or do you want to be taken seriously? Because those are two mutually exclusive options.
Champ says
Wellington wrote:
I simply reject the idea that SH didn’t need to go. He did. So did his two ruthless sons. But democracy building in a Muslim country is a waste of time, money and lives.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I *wholly* agree, Wellington!
And I disagree with Donald Trump: that the Iraq War Was “A Big Fat Mistake”?
Carolyne says
Perhaps Sadam Hussein needed to go, but how was it our business to arrange it? No more, by the way, than it is our business to see Assad go.
Mark Swan says
Agree…Absolutely
Champ says
Carolyne wrote:
Perhaps Sadam Hussein needed to go, but how was it our business to arrange it? No more, by the way, than it is our business to see Assad go.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wow, Carolyne, you are grossly misinformed. Seems you are forgetting that Saddam Hussein was *threatening* the United States and the world for more than a decade:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Saddam Hussein: In His Own Words
Quotes from Saddam and Iraq’s regime-controlled media October 18, 2002
For years, Saddam Hussein and his regime have used state-controlled media in Iraq to spread lies, and threaten his neighbors and the world. Below is a sampling of quotes from Saddam and the Iraqi media — keyed to significant events — showing a pattern of threats stretching back more than a decade.
Here: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/iraq/sadquots.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Carolyne, please educate yourself. And stop repeating the false narrative–you wrote above–that you’ve undoubtedly been fed from the MSM.
Wellington says
If SH needed to go (and he did), then who would have “arranged” that other the Americans? When the world gets into trouble it doesn’t call on Canada, Denmark, Russia or China. No, when the world gets into trouble it turns to America.
It happened in WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War in general, with SH invading Kuwait in 1990, etc. It’s the price of being the great power. And just imagine a world without America. As dark as the last hundred years of mankind has been, it would have been far, far darker without America. As Mark Steyn, a Canadian, has said, “A world without America would be a world that was subject to the tyrants of the earth.” One knows or should know that Steyn is overwhelmingly correct here.
Mark Swan says
Wellington and Champ…You Two Seem Intellingent Enough to Explain…Was
What We Did in Iraq…Afganistan…Lybia…Syria…or anywhere in the Middle East
effective in accomplishing our National Interests.
Kepha says
I’ll take a gander at answering Mark’s questions.
Bush II’s was in Afghanistan and Iraq got us some gains. After all, the Seal team that killed Osama Bin Laden was launched from Afghanistan (and my guess is that we got as far as we did in Afghanistan because the CIA was able to cash in a few chips from the anti-Soviet struggle). Further, our taking out Sadam Hussein scared Qaddafi into giving up his nuclear program; and our staying in may have given us a far stronger hand in persuading Iran to stop its nuclear program.
I see a very different matter in play in the O [mal-]administration’s handling of Libya, post-Mubarak Egypt, and Syria. Essentially, without knowing who’s on the ground, the O [mal-]admnistration decided it would make nice with what it perceived as the “wave of the future” and “forces of change” (namely, the Muslim Brotherhood), and ended up handing Libya, Egypt (for a time), and much of the Fertile Crescent over to the wonderful people who brought us 9/11. I see no reason why the tamed Qaddafi had to go when he did (of course, what would have happened to Libya had he met the inevitable natural end is an open question).
The project on which Bush II set out in the Middle East was something that required far more than 8 years. “Nation-building” is a post-modern imperial project, and imperial projects require more long-term commitments than a country that limits its chief executive to two four-year-terms is likely to be able to muster.
My prescription, now that we’ve given up the gains the Bush II administration made in the region, is that we probably should let the area stew in its own juices and frankly recognize that history is going to happen, especially to people determined to have it happen to them. Our diplomacy also should focus on getting the rest of NATO to urge Turkey to stop playing with fire in Syria; especially since we see a lineup of Iran, Russia, China, and a few others which is a recipe for a true world war on a horrific scale–and Turkey’s irresponsible neo-Ottomanism should not be allowed to provoke it.
Should core Islamic lands blow up once again, we need to find a way to throw a cordon sanitaire around such a region of conflict–and from what we’ve seen of Europe’s welcome of refugees, we might even have to be a little hard-hearted (and I, for one, recoil at this, and admit it’s prudence and experience trumping sympathy). If we do get pulled in, I very regretfully believe that we should make it clear we’re going to make sure the erring state or region does not recover for a couple of centuries; for we do not have the staying power to rebuild. Hence, our only other alternative is to do whatever horrible thing it takes to ensure that the enemy will lack the ability to come back in anything like a forseeable future. I.e., make Iran a suitable habitat for any and all endangered species of the southern Palearctic and far western Oriental zoological/ecological zones (i.e., Farsi will be spoken only in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, a few communities in Israel, the suburbs of LA, and Hell), for example. Again, I make neo-Morgenthau plan with a very heavy heart and deep sadness. But if the safety of the American people (and real allies) is our government’s chief responsibility, it may just have to learn to wage a short, swift war as if it were a modernized horde of Hulegu Khan.. And, I add, God save us from coming into such a fearful judgment.
quotha raven says
Kepha – You’ve composed and posted two highly intelligent and compelling contributions here yesterday. They were both thought-provoking and lucid, and this one is also terribly sad. Thank you for them and for all your comments, which I always find to be top shelf.
Cheers!
quotha raven
Wellington says
Kepha’s comment, Mark Swan (actually two of them), as quothat raven has already indicated, is very solid, evidence of a thoughtful, conservative man who spent years in the US Foreign Service. I don’t have much to add except to note a general principle and that is that America must strike often times against the forces of iniquity but it must do so with optimal knowledge and clear goals.
Yes, the “striking part” is not nearly enough. Knowledge and proper strategy must accompany force. As long as America does not see Islam, all of Islam, as an enemy of so much America stands for, then when force is used by America in the Islamic sphere of mankind it may achieve a tactical victory here and there but will fail abysmally time and time again in the overall strategy category.
Knowledge is power. America has enough military power (well, not really under Obama) but it still doesn’t have enough knowledge, especially of the inconvenient truth that Islam is one completely screwed up religion and should be treated as such in all planning manuals, both military and diplomatic.
Champ says
Mark Swan wrote:
Wellington and Champ…You Two Seem Intellingent Enough to Explain…Was
What We Did in Iraq…Afganistan…Lybia…Syria…or anywhere in the Middle East
effective in accomplishing our National Interests.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Mark, your statement suggests that you think our “National Interests” have been compromised due to our involvement in said countries. What makes you state this, and why?
gravenimage says
It is also true, Wellington, that for all his shortcomings in the understanding of Islam that the US was much more respected under George Bush than under his anti-American successor–more respected both by our allies *and* by our enemies.
Mark Swan says
Agree
Mark Swan says
In reply to:
Wellington says
February 17, 2016 at 2:41 pm
You Sir are correct…We have Military Expertise which must be respected appreciated and cooperated with by our civilian leadership…They should be enabled and allowed to do what is asked of them…with no hindering by poor goals and planning…and u-realistic rules of engagement…Big undertakings require Big cooperation and Participation from all Experts…there is evidence that many experts were ignored and needless bad mistakes cost us then and continue to cost us dearly…what’s done is done.
We do need to add badly needed new technology and hardware…now…there is so much that has been cut back on…or ignored…This sequestering along with the unwillingness to prepare for real time attacks is weakening our National security…in very unacceptable ways…tremendous catch up is badly needed now.
Champ says
February 17, 2016 at 3:13 pm
You Sir are a flaming fire…and sincere in every way I am guessing….I am certainly stating that We Now need that money that was spent there…now…this weakened economy is staggering…yet We Must not allow our enemies to hold onto our debt…which gives them every opportunity to weaken The Dollar…which is exactly what Russia proposed to China in 2008…China declined at the time…
But Now has Opened a World Bank…now what do We think the BRIC countries have planned…
after Desert storm…many countries picked up the bill…Taking Out Saddam…was nothing too expensive…but destabilizing a country and trying to fix it with our resources was mindless…This certainly included Afghanistan.
Gentlemen…We are facing unprecedented threats today…harmful social programs…harmful progressive pushiness…inadequate or no focus on eminent threats from so many directions…are just a few of so many real concerns for Us.
I certainly do not wish to eat up Your time and thank You for responding…I sincerely enjoy this.
Champ You Put Down That Stick…I meant What I said to You as a High Complement.
Please can I get You Two to READ THIS BELOW…I want Your take on this eagerly.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7214/electro-magnetic-pulse-emp
Mark Swan says
Kepha…thank You…You have a very honest way of explaining Your views…they are sound.
Kepha…if You would…please read this…it is short…and get back to me somewhere…
tell me what You think about it…please.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7214/electro-magnetic-pulse-emp
Pong says
Putting Cruz in this company is also “below the bottom of the Barrel”.
I also think that Cruz will be more effective then Trump to combat moslem terrorism. Cruz seems to look deeper into the problem and as a result not as abvious. Trump is a better populist, but Cruz is a better polititian. I still think that Cruz deserves more support as a nominee, but anti-Trump rethorics should be dropped if he wins the primaries.
Champ says
Agreed, Pong!
And Ted Cruz is offering a bill banning Syrian refugees …
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
By Jonathan Swan and Julian Hattem – 11/16/15
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has struck back at President Obama’s implication that his rejection of Syrian refugees is “shameful,” telling CNN he will be introducing legislation banning Muslim Syrian refugees from entering the United States.
“What Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are proposing is that we bring to this country tens of thousands of Syrian Muslim refugees,” Cruz told CNN’s Dana Bash in Charleston, S.C., on Monday.
“I have to say particularly in light of what happened in Paris, that’s nothing short of lunacy.”
Asked what would have happened if his own father — a Cuban refugee who fled the island’s repressive Communist regime — had been told all those years ago by political leaders that there was no place for him because of security risks, Cruz said it was a different situation.
“See that’s why it’s important to define what it is we’re fighting,” Cruz responded.
“If my father were part of a theocratic and political movement like radical Islamism, that promotes murdering anyone who doesn’t share your extreme faith, or forcibly converting them, then it would make perfect sense.”
Bash said that Cruz also told her that this week he plans to introduce legislation that would ban Muslim Syrian refugees from entering the U.S.
Cruz is applauding moves by Republican governors across the country, who are refusing to accept Syrian refugees into their states, Bash added.
The Texas senator, who is running for president, was responding Monday to Obama’s press conference following the Group of 20 meeting in Antalya, Turkey.
Obama insisted that the U.S. would uphold his commitment of accepting refugees from Syria despite rising opposition from conservatives.
“The people who are fleeing Syria are the most harmed by terrorism, they are the most vulnerable as a consequence of civil war and strife,” Obama said.
Obama appeared to be directing his critiques toward presidential candidates Cruz and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R), who over the weekend called for the U.S. to focus on the Christians fleeing the Syrian chaos.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/260317-cruz-to-offer-bill-banning-syrian-refugees
Mark Swan says
Pong Sound satatement…That.
wildjew says
Good piece.
Boston Tea Party says
In my opinion, the Iraq misadventure was predicated on exactly the same logic as the support for mass Muslim migration to Europe. Both were a case of incredible cultural hubris and arrogance on the part of the West. Both Bush and Neocons, as well as the Euro-lefty multiculturalists, felt that they were being magnanimous to the Muslims by bringing liberal democracy to them (or them to liberal democracy). What neither Bush nor the Multiculturalists could wrap their heads around was the idea that majorities of Muslims actually believe in Islam, and prefer it to liberal democracy.
Wellington says
I essentially agree with your assessment, BTP, but I would note that hubris and arrogance are themselves symptoms. The cause of these symptoms is massive ignorance, this being the true genesis of the ongoing mistake by the West where the Islamic world is concerned.
Boston Tea Party says
Yes, exactly. Almost every facet of the West has been infiltrated by cultural relativism, the ideology that says you don’t need to actually learn anything about other cultures or judge them by any objective standards—you just need to FEEL that they’re all of equal worth.
Kepha says
Massive ignorance–partly fueled by misinformation and wishful thinking.
And maybe our policy community needs to hire a few people to whisper in everyone’s ears, “Remember, thou are not only mortal, but fallible as well.” There is a kind of arrogance that gets built into an elite organization.
Back in the early ’90’s, when I was at State, the aptly named Foggy Bottom’s approach to correcting its self-recognized ignorance was to trot out people governed by the Silly ‘Sixties and Sillier ‘Seventies (the era in which the higher-ups were schooled) understandings of how religion works: something textual and doctrinal is bad; something mystical is good. Hence, Sufi’ism is part of the solution. Even back then, with the little I had of Islamic Studies (my are expertise is much more Far East), I could see we were groping, stumbling, and getting lost as we sought to deal with the world after the Iranian Revolution, the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the collapse of Soviet clients everywhere.
Further, in any bureaucratic structure, probably the most valued skills are going along and getting along, creative brown-nosing, and anticipating what your superior wants to hear and telling him exactly that (lest anyone think I’m a sexist, it goes for women, too). Hence, real expertise might go by the wayside. I believe that Robert Spencer would be a valuable asset in Middle East policy for any US administration; so would Daniel Pipes (and for different reasons). But both would probably be unable to please their superiors.
I’ll also add that in building an expertise in something like the ramifications of Jihad theology (or Islamic studies in general, including the important languages) requires years and years of study with little promise of lucrative remuneration. Hence, a smooth lawyer, technocrat, or political fixer will always beat a guy like Robert in climbing State’s hierarchical ladder (and that might go for NSA and CIA. Probably the same works in the civilian hierarchy of DoD.
Infidela says
Yes, absolutely. Non-muslims don’t understand the intense indoctrination that muslims go through. They will always prefer Islam to liberal democracy.
Lesley says
Donald Trump may not be as studied as I would like on the dangers inherent in the texts of Islam. He says things that offend many people. He is not perfect. That said, I think Trump is our best hope for this country, and the entire free world.
For all his ego and other colorful failings, he is the only person from whom I feel sincere and burning love for this country and his intense desire to fix it. Trump is the only one I have heard mention the beheadings that ISIS is performing (and with appropriately horrified affect while speaking about it).
Trump is the guy with the baseball bat in the car who is ready to beat the living snot out of the forces threatening us.
While I was very disappointed that he didn’t understand the point that the Draw Muhammad contest was making, I do believe that he has the best skill set to figure out what is bullsh*t and what is truth in a New York minute. He may have said some nasty things about Pamela Gellar (whom I deeply admire), but I believe that he as Commander in Chief would be very much concerned about her well being and safety, NO MATTER WHAT he says in public… because we are HIS people.
We need the guy with the baseball bat in the car because this is do or die time. We can do the fine tuning of our country later, but we need the maniac with the audacity to turn the whole boat around and call things out for what they are.
Trump as business mogul would cut off the Islamic State’s resources and is the only one who will call out Turkey on doing business with them. Trump hints loudly that he thinks we are aiding ISIS by yelling, ‘we don’t KNOW who these rebels ARE”…
Bush would be a disaster, and Trump is right– the World Trade Center came down during his reign. George Bush said Islam is peace and flew Bin Laden’s family out of the USA for safety -?- George Bush was much better than Obama, but he didn’t do a great job in this respect.
Rubio is a great speaker, but I don’t trust him. Cruz I’m not sure about– Dr. Carson is very smart, but I don’t think he’ll win. I will get behind any republican candidate (except Bush–), but I hope for Trump. We need a crazy egomaniac with a hero complex to fix this, because no one in their right mind would want to fix this mess, and no one who is less crazy will actually be able to fix it like Trump can.
Wellington says
Well, Lesley, be careful what you wish for because you may get it. There is no filter between Trump’s mind and his mouth and this, I think, is dispositive of his narcissism. It’s a narcissism that veers in the direction of doing what’s right for America far more than the narcissism of Hillary’s does, but it’s still narcissism and, as the Founding Fathers emphasized in their writings time and time again, character above all other things is what keeps a democratic republic afloat. Can’t square character with narcissism. Not at all.
If it’s The Donald versus Hillary (OMG, has the American political scene really come to this?), I will vote for Trump, but I will do so knowing that I am voting for my narcissist of choice. BTW, I think you may be too hard on Rubio. I certainly trust him more than Trump and I believe at the center of his being there is a solid and sapient morality. Just my opinion but sometimes opinions are correct.
John Boland says
I soundly endorse Wellington’s mots! John B
Kepha says
Excellent points, Wellington
gravenimage says
Concur entirely, Wellington.
Champ says
Wellington wrote:
If it’s The Donald versus Hillary (OMG, has the American political scene really come to this?), I will vote for Trump, but I will do so knowing that I am voting for my narcissist of choice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Same here, Wellington!
Carolyne says
Lesley, you are correct. I think Americans are so accustomed to sissy boys and Muslims in the White House that they can’t understand someone who will really stand up for this country.
mgoldberg says
i have thought that the problem with the war In Iraq was not the waging but the lack of understanding that this must be for a real purpose- the purpose to end Sharia as well as dictatorship, and to destroy any and all forces in the way. Meaning- a war to destroy that opposition to a bonafide republic. No war since WWII has been fought by the US with that in mind. As with Nazi Germany, the theology had to be destroyed and disavowed, as was Imperial Japan’s governance, and disavowal of all their teachings.
That won a war, and that’s the only way and reason to fight one to begin with. It was’t I think, wrong to take out that mass slaughterer Saddam Hussein. What was wrong was not completely destroying all of his governance, and commanding that Sharia was only for personal use and had no force of law for any non muslims, and that it had no place in the public sphere. And this would have had to be enforced
and commanded with absolute destruction of all the two bit homicidists who did and would have taken revenge- butcher them and slaughter them and all the mosques that supported them, all out, war against the homicidism, and the Jihad. That would have been worthwhile if horrific, but then, it would have been far better than the destruction going on worldwide now….now that we have allowed them to swallow us up and slaughter us.
eduardo odraude says
mgoldberg,
Almost agree with you. But you should distinguish between nation-building and war-fighting. The only justifiable reason for making the great sacrifice in blood and treasure required for nation-building, is if you can establish liberal democracy (or as you put it, a “bonafide republic”). But even when you cannot establish a liberal democracy, and therefore should not make the huge investment in nation-building, you still sometimes must go to war.
mgoldberg says
That is part of the problem: you can only go to war if there is a true determination to destroy the
tyrannic government that stands in some measurable way as being the adversary. Hence, Iraq under sodaminsane, and the rule of sharia yielded all this- the source of the next caliphate, the next iteration of homicidism ( first the mujahedeen, then hamas, then hezbollah, then the taliban, then al queda, then the Islamic state- each one becomes more truly homicidal making the previous one’s ‘appear’ to be more ‘moderate’.
It is the shell game of Islam. It is our own shell game of a self deception disorder we play whilst our ‘progressive’ society and cultures of the west denigrate all the meaning and source of what constitutes Liberty, Individual and national, and Freedom- with it’s individual responsibility and national aspirations for excellence. It is impossible to win a fight without the will to believe in the culture, the foundations of the constitutional democracy, and to fight against the dissimulation of those who ultimately support the socialist and Islamic invasion of our nations.
Kepha says
Generally thoughtful post, mgoldberg.
However, as Bernard Lewis aptly pointed out in several of his works, “secular” law is pretty much a Christian (and, to some extent, Jewish) concept, and quite foreign to the Islamic mind.
Christianity remained essentially powerless for roughly a century-plus before the Assyrian petty king Abgar of Edessa became a Christian; it lacked real political clout until the early 4th century when first Armenia and then Constantinian Rome became Christian. In its formative stages, Christianity was strictly a spiritual/religious movement rather than a political force. Perhaps it was a political force in the days just prior to Diocletian, when it may have commanded the allegiance of enough of the population of the Roman Empire (especially in its richer eastern provinces) to be too much to successfully persecute. But the fact remains that it did begin as a kingdom “not of this world,” as Jesus said to Pilate in the Gospel of John.
This in itself was also part of Christianity’s Jewish heritage. Ever since the Babylonian exile, Judaism had to figure out a way to survive without a king and political power.
Hence, it’s in the DNA of both Christianity and Judaism to survive without political power or influence–and maybe even prosper as religious communities. But Islam, in which Muhammad was a successful political/military conqueror as well as a “spiritual” figure, and is thoroughly triumphalist in its theology, cannot function without state apparatus. Hence, to remake the Islamic world, you have to have a way to completely undo Islam. And that is a tall order.
John Boland says
I despise Hillard Clinton as much as anyone on the Planet. That said, Trump, the TOTAL ASS, bad-mouthed Hillary because she took a few extra minutes of debate time to go to the bathroom en route to the debate stage. He scurrilously demeaned the crippled thin man with the terribly bent arm and wrist by bending HIS own wrist and bad-mouthing him. Just wait a while until Trump becomes incontinent, or something worse and has to walk a mile in the cripple’s shoes! That said, I firmly believe Trump has always been terminally nasty, and is highly likely to never change.
I don’t want Trump within 50 miles of the White House, EVER!
I can easily see Trump, the former dedicated liberal, pro-abortion, and evidently pro planned parent-hood’s collection of Fetal parts for sale and profit, peeling off a few of his $Billions for more of the same. I don’t want this ethic-less bastard ANYWHERE NEAR THE WHITE HOUSE.
Trump has NO CLASS – Never has, never will.
Champ says
“I don’t want Trump within 50 miles of the White House, EVER!”
“Trump has NO CLASS – Never has, never will.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I *completely* agree, John!
Kepha says
I would have put it a little more diplomatically, sir, but–I agree.
Laura Root says
I agree – and having never been accused of being politically correct, I have also never been accused of having no class – You can be non-PC without hurling invectives and accusations with no backup – Trump “acts” in the same way the progressives have – no facts will get in the way of his bullying. That said, I will never vote for anyone with a (D) promulgated for president.
Mark Swan says
Where’s his plan….Mr. Trump’s Sight is open to the general public…let Him speak for Himself.
Greyhound Fancier says
I have been following the situation of the Iraqi Christians for about a year and have met and spoken with Rev. Canon Andrew White. In one of his books, Canon White explains that there was a great deal of relief when Saddam was ousted, because anyone on his wrong side could be subject to intense torture and have their family included as hostages as well.
Canon White as I understand him believed that the Iraq War accomplished initial good, but that we Americans, not understanding the Middle East, messed up the aftermath.
Remember, our current President and Vice-President hailed Iraq as one of their accomplishments (until they left abruptly and the situation deteriorated into the cauldron of Islamism it is now). In 2010 or so, Iraq looked like it had a possibility to succeed.
Sadly, what we can learn from Iraq now is that due to the influence of Islam, sharia, ISIS, etc., the Middle East is not ready for prime time governance – and it is certainly true that by and large the Christians were persecuted less before the Iraq War than they are now.
If anyone is interested, Canon White’s organization is the Foundation for Relief and Reconciliation in the Middle East. I have been donating monthly and encourage anyone concerned about the Iraqi Christians (who now are in the Amman suburbs, having fled their homes to save their lives) to do the same.
Bezelel says
I have witnessed 2 invasions of Iraq. Both were executed as perfect as humanly possible with very minimal casualties. The lunacy began, as I see it, once we started rebuilding what we purposely destroyed. I know it was part of the “spread democracy” program, but that is where trillions of dollars have gone and the bulk of the soldiers getting killed and wounded. You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Jeb with his “act of love” BS is void of love for people in my position, so F him. I can’t believe Jeb hid behind his mommy’s skirt tails to taunt Trump.We are not going back in time to change anything so what do we do Now? We better get it right this time.
Champ says
Ted Cruz introduces new measure to limit Syrian refugees:
https://youtu.be/KcdXGjB4pR4
gravenimage says
They did not understand that democracy is a sensitive plant that requires a certain kind of ideological soil in which to flourish, from Locke and Montesquieu and many other political theorists. It requires in addition an Enlightenment that never appeared in the Muslim world, and an understanding that what constitutes a government’s legitimacy is whether or not that government reflects, through elections (and often imperfectly) the Will Expressed By the People. But there is no Muslim Locke, no Muslim Montesquieu, no Muslim Enlightenment. There is only the Qur’an, the Hadith, the Sira. And for Muslims, a ruler’s legitimacy is determined by the extent to which his rule reflects not the Will Expressed by the People, but the Will Expressed By Allah in the Qur’an. None of this was given a moment’s thought by those who were gung-ho for “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”
……………………..
Excellent analysis.
All too many Westerners seem to mistake elections alone for democracy–but democracy entails both democratic institutions to provide safeguards as well as a citizenship at least reasonably dedicated to the values of democracy.
Without that, you find such perversions as Mohammedans “democratically” voting in oppressive Shari’ah law.
The first bad sign was that so few seemed to understand that any hope of democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq–slim to none in any case–was over as soon as the “constitutions” there enshrined Shari’ah as trumping all civilized laws.
Bezelel says
Gaza democratically elected hamas.
gravenimage says
Yes–and Germany democratically elected Hitler.
It takes more than the ballot box to make a democracy.
eduardo odraude says
Hitler was not democratically elected. A majority of the people never voted for Hitler. Hitler was appointed.
Mark Swan says
President Hindenburg appointed Hitler to the chancellorship…then He died…
Hitler consolidate his power by merging the presidency and the chancellorship…
A plebiscite vote was held on August 19…1934…Intimidation…and fear of the communists…brought Hitler a 90 percent majority…He was now…for all intents
and purposes…dictator.
WorkingClassPost says
Watching from the UK, we don’t see too much of what goes on around the big headlines that your candidates for the job of leader are saying, but we do see them from the perspective of non-partisan, non-aligned spectators and I guess we’re looking for a statesman, more than Americans who look for someone to deal with their own domestic problems first.
Jihad is one issue that we both share, and is therefore a notable exception.
Although Trump is the main one talking sense on this subject, he does not come across as any kind of statesman, certainly not yet.
He may be a good and tenacious adversary, particularly when he’s losing, but when he won the New Hampshire primary, he seemed almost like a fish out of water. He was neither gracious nor magnanimous, and although that’s not his style, as leader of the ‘Free World’ he would need these and many more qualities, that are also not ‘his style’.
His views on free speech, along with many other things, can and probably will change, because he appears able to adapt to circumstances, as any successful business person does, but will that bring real commitment to any of these causes?
Moth of you know him better than us, outside America, so you’ll need to decide that.
But in fighting Jihad, free speech isn’t just a nice to have, it’s the very essence of what this first stage war is all about, because without it: We the people will not know what the hell is going on, until it’s possibly too late.
WorkingClassPost says
That might even be Most of you…
Carolyne says
The UK does not have free speech. Try to publically criticize Islam and you will find yourself under arrest. One of your countrymen was arrested and prosecuted by reading aloud from the works of Winston Churchill, regarding Muslims, to whom he referred as rabid dogs.
Now, with the death of Justice Scalia, we, too, will lose our First Amendment rights of free speech. Goodbye civilization, hello Islam.
Mark Swan says
Not so quick…Carolyne…I see were Your coming from…but many Americans like us
don’t just speak our views…We live them…the Muslims can’t imagine what trying to
rule Us would mean…Guys like Mr. Trump mouthing off getting so much attention ought
to show there are many millions out here…that are sick of…these progressive bullies…
They can see Mr. trump as at least a fly in the ointment…it seems to have already made
this Progressive movement scramble for special higher ground to stand on.
Mrs. Clinton has called in every help from…Her Husband…Black leaders…Muslim leaders…
and any clique vote She can get…but She fears Mr. Trump’s ability to Win as Very Real now.
There is going to be a lot of dirty fighting for this Presidency…Hope Mr. Trump Is Willing.
He won’t solve all our problems…but it will allow a little breather from the political establishment…predomination…not to mention if the lawmakers prevent any court
Nomination approval…until the next President is in…what a hoot that would be.
moespene says
The author seems to have completely missed sadamns turn to islam and his renewed links with islamist terrorists. (see Fedayeen) He was no longer “secular” in his later years. This is a significant oversight that undermines the authors position that the war was a mistake. The author also conveniently overlooks the very real threats of unrestrained “Oil of Food” money. The bribery was having significant negative impact on sanctions to stop resupply of illicit arms, and sadamn never dropped his goal to rearm and was actually building more “pesticide” factories just like in the Iran war.
The critics today seem to miss the difference between having to fight a war to stop a dangerous enemy from the all-too-true disaster that the military and planners and their so-called budgetary supervisors in Congress created by thinking they needed to focus on building sewers before killing the enemy. More interested in attack “tactics” and the race to Baghdad then old fashioned sweep, take and hold (which is what the eventually had to do)
The biggest mistake of the war was obama throwing away all the progress, abandoning Iraq to ISIS, and refusing the request for helicopters to stop the advance of ISIS into Iraq. obama was so mad at Malaki that he was content to let Mosul and other cities be slaughtered to prove his Alpha role.
Bush may have messed up the tactics, but he did get rid of the threat. obama owns the mess that is ISIS and his partnership with the Iran militias that are committing ethnic cleansing today.
The author makes a big mistake by supporting the shallow thinkers without facts.
dlbrand says
“Was Trump Right that the Iraq War Was “A Big Fat Mistake”?”
Absolutely he was.
For all our cost, facts show, we replaced one dictator with another: switched out a Sunni dictator for a fundamentalist Shiite dictator.
In brief.
Trump is the only candidate with the both the respect for the bottom line and the wisdom to call the horrific all but unforgivable waste that war was just that.
“when he called the war in Iraq a “big fat mistake,” he was not exaggerating, and he was not wrong.”
That is for damn sure.
Oppressaphobe says
Being against something doen’t make you a leader!
We just had 7 years of somebody who was against something.
Barach Obama was against the United States of America.
A leader needs to be FOR something and Bush was FOR democracy. A leader can also be wrong, who can’t be wrong? You have to look at the motive and I don’t see that Bush had a clear, evil motive.
Obama has had a motive though. Who could now deny that his motive is and always has been to transform America into a pansy-nannie state.
Christians were hurt by Bush in Iraq? What about Christians who are being slaughtered as we speak?
Do you actually think that Bush/Cheney would be sitting here watching the genocide of Christians?
Carolyne says
I don’t know if they would watch the genocide, but they caused it by destabilizing of the Middle East.
dlbrand says
dlbrand says
Oppressaphobe, you stated, ” …..A leader needs to be FOR something.”
Indeed.
And Donald J. Trump is for across the board conservative spending.
As in spending wisely, with no or with as little waste as possible; spending with accountability, as in spending only when one is able to clearly explain and justify the cost for the expense.
It is, in brief, for such reasons he is the only Candidate among those running who makes an issue of the waste and the immense unaccounted for cost the Iraq war was.
Jack Diamond says
The result speaks for itself and all the revisionism in the world won’t change it. I remember Oriana Fallaci’s foreboding about the war in Iraq, that it was going to be another Vietnam for America and one that would spread through the Middle East (let Iraq stew in its own juices, I think was her advice). I also remember Al Qaeda’s theorist Abu Musab Al-Suri writing that their jihad was essential dead & defeated (one thing Bush did mostly right) until the “gift” of Iraq enabled them to revitalize it for a new generation. It’s easy to say the war was fine if only we had done things differently, as if our premises would be different too. As if with a do-over Iraq as we know it wouldn’t come to an end, as if it would not have empowered Iran and the Shi’a as well as the Sunni jihadis, as if open-season on Christians would not have happened. As if we would have been savvy about Islam. It isn’t that Sadaam wasn’t a bloody tyrant and Caligula who deserved his end, it is whether it was smart and in the interests of America and the Camp of Infidels (as Hugh might put it) to pursue that course. Was the threat from Sadaam sufficient to justify the loss of life and treasure and the unintended consequences that came from the war? How would it have been different if we had been “smarter”, better Machiavellians, paid more bribes to more tribesmen, hand-picked better dictators? Keep in mind Sadaam’s officer corps are now the inner circle of ISIS in Iraq. Get in, get out? What about the Powell doctrine, if you break it you own it? I don’t buy (as in the Vietnam narrative) this is a war where we rescued defeat from the jaws of victory. Initial victory, yes, smashing an army in battle. We do that very well. It’s what comes after that…Hugh, at least, is consistent. He always argued the war in Iraq was folly and that our strategies should be guided by what weakens the Camp of Islam and what strengthens the Camp of Infidels, that Iraq did neither, and that the epicenter was elsewhere, such as the Islamic invasion of Europe, not Iraq. Yes, Iraq and Afghanistan should have been handled far differently but they weren’t and there’s no reason to think they would have been given the premises from which we are operating.
Jack Diamond says
“I have written about this hundreds of times. We have our Victory in Iraq. The Bush Administration just fails to recognize it, because that Victory is not the “victory” that the Bush Administration has set out, and never swerved, from wishing to achieve — a “victory” that makes no sense. The real Victory, the one that makes perfect sense, was achieved long ago, and was made certain at the end of 2003 when Saddam Hussein was seized. The time to start removing troops was at the beginning of 2004, and to have them all about by the end of that spring. No dreams of American bases safely tucked here and there into the comforting fabric of Iraq, no fabulous xanadu of a $595 million dollar Embassy (let’s see what they thought they were going to build in their sheer craziness — can we have a picture please?), no Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations, no bringing “democracy” to “ordinary moms and dads” in the Middle East, none of it. Just a sober understanding that the instruments of Jihad are many, that the threat is worldwide (and most dangerously shown in the accelerating islamization of the advanced societies, the cultural heart of our civilization, without which the United States cannot survive in more than a physical sense, the lands of Western Europe). We must therefore exploit, wherever and whenever we can, the fissures within Islam or the Camp of Islam.”
–Hugh Fitzgerald, 2007
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/04/fitzgerald-victory-stands-shining-before-us
WorkingClassPost says
Moespene, that’s an interesting point about the Fedayeen, not sure how devout they were in islamic terms, but they certainly showed how people, of any race or creed, will unite to defend and fight against what they see as unjust aggression.
It’s the same with politicians, when they see secular, and relatively inclusive, governments overthrown and invaded, wtf incentive is there for them to remain secular and inclusive?
BC says
The Iraq war was a resounding success, the problem was the incompetence of Bush/Cheney and their administration in having no plan for the aftermath. The military was not trained to be an occupying force as they were in post Nazi Germany, so they just stood by and watched while the looting of property, art treasures and weapons went unchecked.
Tons of US money was also sent to Iraq with little or no accountability.
Why the GOP think Bush was such a great president is baffling.
Baucent says
The Gulf War in 1991 was necessary and justified in crushing Saddam Hussein’s expansionist plans. That said, the Gulf War under Bush Mk 2, was a mistake. Saddam was a useful foil against the equally expansionist Iranians. The failure to understand this basic piece of middle east geopolitics was a monumental blunder by the Bush Administration as was the expectation that removing a dictator would naturally lead to democracy. It didn’t and it wouldn’t as everyone now knows.
Baucent says
Should read; “the Iraq war under Bush Mk 2”
Mark swan says
BC and Baucent…Agree
Oppressaphobe says
Even a stopped watch is right once a day.
This propping up of Trump is a dangerous game. Thankfully Rush stopped playing it but Hannity goes on and on.
Trump has no political experience, he has no wisdom (not the same as sneaky or tactical).
Hating Bush gave us Obama! Thanks a lot guys!!
Don’t let Hating Obama gives us TRUMP!
Who doubts that Trump will be making deals for 8 years? He may turn the whitehouse into a resort–eminent domain don’t you know.
Bush may have been misguided but how easy is that to say NOW.
And wait just a minute here, did congress, by wihich I mean my congressmen and yours as well, not APPROVE of this? Even the more liberal?
He was castigated for breaking ranks with the UNITED NATIONS.
THANK GOD SOMEBODY HAD THE GUTS TO DO THAT. That was actually far-sighted. The United Nations needs to e challenged and right now it is at a tipping point where it poised to overtake our freedom.
I watch ol’ “W” yesterday and I smiled the whole time. One thing I’ll say for George and Laura and Co., I didn’t think they were EVIL.
Barach Obama will go down in history as the most evil leader ever. Just the fact that people thought he would be capable of killing off a judge tells you how hated the man is
And oh, by the way, I will take the security I felt under BUSH any day after 7 years of wondering where the next shooting, mass murder, terror attack, burning city, BLM or those filthy squatting occupiers were going to cause yet another disturbance in my daily life.
People are depressed as hell from all the trauma unleashed by Obama, and as I said, those that hated Bush gave us OBAMA. That is my biggest gripe against Bush.
Oh, poor Saddam Hussein. Poor little innocent man just minding his own business. Sure we may have hoped that democracy would take root there. So what? We weren’t killing our own people!! And if we had been killing our own, we deserved whatever we got.
When you need a surgeon you don’t call a plumber and TRUMP is a plumber.
Mark Swan says
All True…But…Mr.Trump says He will Surround Himself with Experienced People.
Oppressaphobe says
It’s tempting to support Trump and I wish he could get a consolation prize, like Hillary got.
Then, he could learn the ropes and he would be a tremendous asset but we can’t have somebody who does not comport himself in a mature way.
He is such an ego that people want to support him so he doesn’t get his feelings hurt. But that’s not healthy and it is manipulative–spoiled children act like this.
Mark Swan says
Your right…He’s a Ass…Yet an attention getter might be just the ticket…remember L.B.J.
El Cid says
Trump did make a substantive comment on the situation. He pointed out that at the time we attacked Iraq, Iran was STILL the biggest threat and that security depended on the balance of power between Shia and Sunni. This was ALWAYS evident.
I believe we were right to bring the war to Islam, rather than let them invade us like they did in 2001. The choice of tactics and targets were unfortunate. And, the “War on Terror” was undermined by “Islam is a religion of Peace”.
The biggest winner in the war was Iran because the balance of power was disturbed.
In fact, Obama continued the Bush doctrine of believing that the Arabs would embrace democracy like the Eastern Europeans did. Witness Egypt and Yemen. Obama added to this error the dimension of embracing the Muslim Brotherhood as some kind of democratic reformers. It was precisely this reactive force that Saddam and the other dictators were keeping in check.
The Muslim Brotherhood and their ilk do not believe in the International Order that includes the UN, defined borders, legal system, etc. The invasion of Europe is exactly the result of creating a security vacuum over there.
Kepha says
Perhaps the O [mal-]administration’s embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood is something like Henry Wallace Democrats in the 1940’s thinking that Communists were just, “liberals in a hurry”.
quotha raven says
Excellent, clear article, Hugh Fitzgerald. I learned quite a bit I didn’t know before, especially about Saddam’s relationship with Christians and the repercussions to Christians that resulted from his ouster.
Thank you.
Cheers!
quotha raven
Geppetto says
With regard to the contention that no WMDs were found in Iraq please read the following:
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-new-york-times-reports-wmds-found-iraq/
As for the war in Iraq being a big mistake, that’s an indisputable argument and is related to a major misconception that continues to this day as a result of the west’s determination to ignore the role that religion plays in the politics, governance and the hegemonic, global ambitions of Islam, the predominant religion in the Middle East. The west does not understand or refuses to consider the theological underpinnings and machinations that motivate this enemy nor is it willing to name its tactics Islamic terrorism.
No effort to develop an effective strategy to defeat an enemy that cannot be defined, named and understood will succeed.
Oppressaphobe says
And isn’t it interesting that we are STILL making the same mistake, by denying that islam is the problem, we are still not grasping the totality of the situation.
Champ says
Geppetto, thank you for providing this important information from “The Political Insider” regarding WMDs–that were in fact found in Iraq!
Of special note, from the above link, is this excerpt:
“When Saddam said he destroyed all his WMDs from the Gulf War, we knew he was lying and still had stockpiles, and we were proven right when we found the thousands The New York Times reported. The left has now conveniently changed to saying that no NEW WMDs were found. As if the “old” chemical weapons that were found couldn’t have been put into the wrong hands by Saddam and used in a terrorist attack!”
Lee says
JW does a terrific job of keeping readers informed of the absurdity of Islamic thought, practice, and outlook. However in this instance they aren’t presenting all the evidence. Here is another viewpoint:
http://politistick.com/trump-now-flip-flopping-on-calling-george-w-bush-a-liar/
And another from that noted leftist and establishment guy Mark Levin:
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Mark-Levin-Trump-Code-Pink-Radical-Kook/2016/02/16/id/714510
And another from Politistick:
Armchair Quarterbacks Forget the Realities of Post-9/11 America and the Threat of WMDs http://politistick.com/?p=18850 via @thepolitistick
moespene says
Thanks dlbrand: a key quote rom your cited article by lee Walker: sadly true to this day.
“the leaders of the USA and United Kingdom are indifferent at best, or at worse, they simply do not care about their plight. Instead both nations focused on introducing Islamic Sharia law and no special zones were created to protect the Christian community and other neglected minorities, like the Mandaeans, Shabaks, Turkmens (who are Muslim), and Yazidis. This policy led to alienation and Christians and other minorities became easy targets because they had no military forces to protect them.”
A few sources to consider…
sadamn and islam have a long relationship.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/the-hidden-hand-behind-the-islamic-state-militants-saddam-husseins/2015/04/04/aa97676c-cc32-11e4-8730-4f473416e759_story.html
But how can this be? and in the WA Post? wut??? Well, doesn’t quit fit the operative narrative does it…
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/iraq-fedayeen-saddam/p7698 These were the Shock Troops, depraved, but moralistic.
And geppetto is right: iraq was a threat for many reasons, DOCUMENTED reasons.
The Duelfer Report is full of numerous examples of material violations of UN sanctions, and self- admittedly incomplete due to inability to inspect all sites and lack of cooperation in inspections. Stuff was hidden to be used later, and lied about. Somehow nobody talks about illegal precursors, ‘pesticide’ factories under construction, bioweapons experiments on humans, Oil for Food thievery and bribes for illicit weapon materials, and the planned assassination campaign scheduled for Europe that summer. small, facts, but persistent nonetheless… no WMD stockpiles, but active pursuit of pesticide factories, easily converted to WMD production with just a few changes – that is exactly what they bought from the Germans for theIran-Iraq War, and they were looking to but even move flexible conversions into the plant and mixing designs. Our experts just could not get past the legal uses of pesticides to understand all that stared them in the faces, even as they documented conversion capabilities.
One article (Sadamm Plays the Faith Card, seems to be blown up on the interwebs)
dlbrand says
Thank you, moespene
Take care my Friend.
Max payne says
The Bush Administration probably never understood the politics of the Middle East,hence they went to war with Iraq for good reason.
I do remember analyzing the then impending pre-war situation and concurring with him that worse things were going with Saddam Hussein out of the way,now this is it.
The Arab world requires a “Strong Man Autocratic rule”,because naturally they are not a democracy people,the behave like wild monkeys with a very strong desire to see blood being shed all the time.
When Saddam was in power,he pulled the strings to keep the Iranians as well as any potential trouble-maker in check and that was a very good trend.
It’s a pity that he is gone,now that region is so volatile,so what did this war achieve in the long run.
Smart or stupid,Donald Trump has a strong point,that war was a big fat mistake.