Posted on 02/15/2016 12:41:21 PM PST by 11th_VA
Am I the only pundit in journalism today who understands the politics of the Mideast?
Apparently so, after the nonsense I heard from the talking heads on the Sunday morning shows concerning Donald Trump's supposedly shocking assertion that George W. Bush made the biggest military mistake in U.S. history with his bungling of Iraq
What are these people so excited about?
A quick internet search will show that Trump's been saying this for months.
He said long ago that he opposed the Second Gulf War from the moment it became apparent that Bush was engaged not in an effort to attack Islamic fundamentalists but instead to liberate them.
Every genuine conservative in America said the same thing back then.
The most prescient was Pat Buchanan. A month before the war began, Pat Buchanan predicted, "This Wilsonian ambition will end in disaster for this country."
Yet the talking heads were all talking as if Trump's position were somehow left-wing in nature.
Nonsense. It's those who openly promoted Wilsonianism who were the left-wingers.
A little history lesson for the blow-dried set:
Wilson was a Democrat, a liberal Democrat. Ergo, those who follow his views about "making the world safe for democracy" – as the Bushies did – are liberals as well.
The right-wing view was that the U.S. military should be used only in defense of the country, not in adventures to promote the freedom of foreigners.
***
As you'll see, all of their observations were accurate a decade ago. But the Beltway media cabal was filled with so-called "neo" conservatives, knuckleheads like William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer ...
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
Nope. They' re pure fantasists who follow a philosophy descended from the thinking of Leon Trotsky. It's old-time conservatives like Pat Buchanan (see note above) and me who are the realists. We don't believe the U.S. military should be used to perform the social work needed to "liberate" our potential enemies in the Muslim world and help them create functioning democracies.
Don’t you know, everyone who isn’t Ted Cruz or doesn’t rush to the defense of G.W. Bush is a liberal. Get with the program. /sarc
Soon Islamic fundamentalists were running Iraq.
And now Iraq has become "a Harvard for terrorists" as he so colorfully put it. Even worse is what's going on in Syria, where the neocons are more concerned with overthrowing the Assad regime than fighting ISIS.
Or in other words, they are once again trying to liberate America's worst enemies.
All of this was obvious to us right-wingers from the beginning.
A bigger mistake than Vietnam? Ah, but that was Kennedy's and he is sacrosanct especially since the courtship of democrats has begun.
Neo-conservatives are radical liberals, they are supporters of just about everything that “conservatives” say they are against: Abortion, Open borders, Gay rights, you name it, the neo-cons are for it. When the democrat party started becoming more anti-war, the neo-cons shifted to the republican party, to turn them into the war party. But, being in the republican party didn’t change their leftist views on everything else. That’s why you will find the neo-cons supporting US funding of the wall along Israel’s border with the West Bank, and the same neo-cons condemning anyone who proposes a wall along our Southern border as “racists”.
bttt
I don't suppose the fact that most of the "neo-cons" are Jews has much to do with their position on that subject?
His statements on Iraq don’t make him a leftist.
It’s that, along with numerous other statements and support of people like the Clintons.
I have little reason to believe that what he’s said on the campaign trail is any different than McCain repeating ad nauseum that he was a “foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution.”
I’m waiting for something of substance to prove me otherwise.
??
Trump has no “right-wing views”.
1) Iraq: When the case was being made I was torn. "Iraq? Hussein's a jerk but what does that have to do with 9/11? But the case hinged on intel of likely WMD proliferation, intel we couldn't see. I said to myself "Either the intel is real and compelling OR it's fake and Bush is lying. If he's lying to justify a war, he's evil. I don't think he's evil. So I gues the intel is compelling. I'll support it."
2) Financial Crisis: Government caused this problem and banks made it worse. Bush knew it but did nothing. Now their solution is "more government and taxpayer funded bail outs for banks". That's what Japan did and they've had over 10 years (at the time, now more like 20) of total economic stagnation. I'm not buying the threatening "do it our way or the world ends" crap, Bush is full of it. I don't trust him on this. No TARP, no bailouts!
My takeaway: Don't hitch your wagon to defending GW Bush. The highlight of his Presidency was standing on that rubble with a bullhorn with the fireman, after that it was all down hill.
His Presidency excluding the wars: Amnesty, big spending, more amnesty, new government programs, new agencies, more amnesty. Nice man, not a good President.
This is truly one of the very best articles I have ever read on the subject of US Intervention in Iraq. I highly recommend it to all Freepers.
They misconstrue his points? Who would have ever thunk it?/s
I don't think so, in fact that's pure revisionism. Not only did Hussein invite terrorist cadre to his country for training, he also had standing regularly paid compensation (bounties?) to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers to encourage jihad (in another country, of course).
History shows the nation building exercise was a pie-in-the-sky foolishness, as of course as soon as the Democrats got into power they as usual worked diligently to unwind any success of the previous Republican administration. This pattern goes clear back to Lincoln, why do you think the Dems want to cover up Reconstruction and the demise of free black Republicans?
I was never in favor of the war in Iraq. I just couldn’t wrap my head around the fact that we were going into Iraq, when the perps were from Saudi Arabia. It didn’t make sense to me until I remembered that his pop had unfinished business there, and that possibly that was the reason for the invasion to take out Saddam. Don’t get me wrong - Saddam was a thug, but, he kept the terrorists in line - except fot hose he paid to reek havoc on Israel.
Ihate to say this, but one way a government gets the unemployment numbers up = is to declare a war someplace. There is so much information out there now about the bogus war in Iraq, that I now know my instincts were right.
We'll see.
That middle east thing isn't exactly over yet.
True, but Bush hasn’t owned all of it for seven years plus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.