Trump: Middle East Would Be Better Off With Saddam, Gaddafi

[Correll]

More and more people are agreeing with Trump every day. Still think nobody's gonna vote for him?

He is going to lose. Take the hit now and November won't be so hard for you. Must get 40% of Hispanic vote...NOT GONNA HAPPEN!

he also would need for women to stop hating him.

that isn't going to happen either.

he only does well with old white males

LIE.

 

[Clintonista]

Weapons of mass destruction was a total lie! It was a way of attacking Iraq, which Bush thought was going to be easy, and it turned out to be the exact opposite of easy.

 

[Syriusly]

"It's not even a contest."

Donald Trump said Sunday that the Middle East would be more stable if Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and Libyan autocrat Muammar Gaddafi were still in power.

When asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" if he thought the region would be "safer" with Hussein and Gaddafi ruling Iraq and Libya, respectively, the real estate mogul and ersatz Republican presidential candidate replied, "It's not even a contest."

Trump reasoned that had the United States not forced Hussein out of power in Iraq, the Islamic State would not have come into existence.

More: Donald Trump: Middle East Would Be Better Off With Saddam, Gaddafi

Amen! I totally agree! Saddam kept the lid on that cesspool.

I hate to agree with Trump about anything- but he is right- the world in general- and the Middle East in particular- would be better off if Saddam Hussein had been left in power.

Kudos to you for having the intellectual honestly to admit that you agree with Trump on an issue.


But, you're still planning on voting for the candidate that was part of the decision to invade.

I am voting for the candidate who voted in favor of invading like the majority of both parties. I disagreed with her then and I still disagree. But she is the better of the two candidates.

Trump of course couldn't vote because he didn't care enough at the time to participate in politics.

That's a pretty big mistake to give a pass on.

How many people have to die before you consider it a big enough mistake to be relevant? 20k? 150k? 500k? a solid million?



And yes. Trump gets a NA, IE not applicable on this one.

Trump supported the war-and then didn't

Sept. 11, 2002: Howard Stern asks Trump if he supports invading Iraq. Trump answers hesitantly. “Yeah, I guess so. You know, I wish it was, I wish the first time it was done correctly.”

Jan. 28, 2003: Trump appears on Fox Business’ Your World with Neil Cavuto on the night of President Bush’s State of the Union address. Trump says he expects to hear “a lot of talk about Iraq and the problems,” and the economy. He urges Bush to make a decision on Iraq. “Either you attack or you don’t attack,” he says. But he offers no opinion on what Bush should do.


Clinton was instrumental in our mistake in Libya- which of course was not as bad a mistake as Iraq.
But Clinton was just one of hundreds of votes yes for a policy proposed by George Bush.

She made a mistake- Trump of course had made sure he was not in a position to have to vote on the war.

 

[Correll]

More and more people are agreeing with Trump every day. Still think nobody's gonna vote for him?

It's true there are a lot of retards out there. No doubt about it.

Trump is making more shit up. He's saying Hussein was a great guy who killed terrorists, which is the exact opposite of the truth. Hussein was a sponsor of terror. He had terrorist training camps in Iraq.

It's unbelievable how many of you Chumps line up to drink Trump's piss when he is telling gigantic whoppers like that.

It is not a complete whopper- but Trump of course is broadly ignorant about the Middle East.

Saddam Hussein did sponsor terrorism- but in a very limited fashion and he kept it under his own control- what Saddam did was stamp out radical Islamists in Iraq. He wasn't killing 'terrorists'- he was killing anyone who could be a threat to his dictatorship- especially anyone who might be a radical Islamist.

Removing Saddam from power- and removing the entire infrastructure and army that Saddam had built up left a power vacuum that was exploited by Iran, allowed Iraq to become a rallying ground and training area for terrorists, and allowed ISIS to be created.

So, in your opinion, he is right but for the wrong reasons, and you plan to vote for the person who was wrong, for the wrong reasons instead.

So in your opinion, Trump is wrong, for the wrong reason and you plan on voting for the person who was wrong for the wrong reasons.

imo, the lesson to be learned from Iraq is that muslims are not very good at nation building and certainly not at democracy.

IN a war of ideas, a form of government will NOT Trump a religion.

So, voting for the Candidate that doesn't want try that again, is just fine for me.

I personally do NOT hold Hillary responsible for the war and it's aftermath. The case for war was strong based on what we knew at that time.

I dislike HIllary for other reasons.

I support Trump primarily because of his Trade, immigration and Russian policies.

 

[JimH52]

Weapons of mass destruction was a total lie! It was a way of attacking Iraq, which Bush thought was going to be easy, and it turned out to be the exact opposite of easy.

"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

 

[JimH52]

Donnie would have us in Damascus bt now cause he "loves war!"

 

[Correll]

"It's not even a contest."

Donald Trump said Sunday that the Middle East would be more stable if Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and Libyan autocrat Muammar Gaddafi were still in power.

When asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" if he thought the region would be "safer" with Hussein and Gaddafi ruling Iraq and Libya, respectively, the real estate mogul and ersatz Republican presidential candidate replied, "It's not even a contest."

Trump reasoned that had the United States not forced Hussein out of power in Iraq, the Islamic State would not have come into existence.

More: Donald Trump: Middle East Would Be Better Off With Saddam, Gaddafi

Amen! I totally agree! Saddam kept the lid on that cesspool.

I hate to agree with Trump about anything- but he is right- the world in general- and the Middle East in particular- would be better off if Saddam Hussein had been left in power.

Kudos to you for having the intellectual honestly to admit that you agree with Trump on an issue.


But, you're still planning on voting for the candidate that was part of the decision to invade.

I am voting for the candidate who voted in favor of invading like the majority of both parties. I disagreed with her then and I still disagree. But she is the better of the two candidates.

Trump of course couldn't vote because he didn't care enough at the time to participate in politics.

That's a pretty big mistake to give a pass on.

How many people have to die before you consider it a big enough mistake to be relevant? 20k? 150k? 500k? a solid million?



And yes. Trump gets a NA, IE not applicable on this one.

Trump supported the war-and then didn't

Sept. 11, 2002: Howard Stern asks Trump if he supports invading Iraq. Trump answers hesitantly. “Yeah, I guess so. You know, I wish it was, I wish the first time it was done correctly.”

Jan. 28, 2003: Trump appears on Fox Business’ Your World with Neil Cavuto on the night of President Bush’s State of the Union address. Trump says he expects to hear “a lot of talk about Iraq and the problems,” and the economy. He urges Bush to make a decision on Iraq. “Either you attack or you don’t attack,” he says. But he offers no opinion on what Bush should do.

Obviously a man who had, at that time NOT giving the issue any thought. It would be silly to try to hold him to those comments, or GOD FORBID to equate those off hand quips with Hillary's actual voting for war.

Clinton was instrumental in our mistake in Libya- which of course was not as bad a mistake as Iraq.
But Clinton was just one of hundreds of votes yes for a policy proposed by George Bush.

She made a mistake- Trump of course had made sure he was not in a position to have to vote on the war.

Hillary, as "one of" one hundred Senators, put herself in a position where it was her moral responsibility to keep herself informed on the topic, to seriously consider the topic, to consider such factors as the fallibility of intelligence, and to be one of those who declare War or refuse to declare war.

She voted WAR

 

[Correll]

Really? Trump uses third world labor. That is supporting moron.

We already discussed his crazy tariff ideas and you couldn't come up with any support. History says they are bad.

Trump usED third world labor.

HIs policy platform is about changing the rules to fight that.

HIllary is all about continuing the policy of allowing employers to use Third World Labor to undermine US wages.


There is nothing crazy about tariffs.

Unless you believe those same economists that predicted that Free Trade would make US industry more competitive and lead to a rebound in jobs and wages.

I believe history which shows they are bad. Take your steel tariff. It cost the US more manufacturing jobs than the steel industry employs. Bad idea. But if you have some support for them let's see it.

Your support for that claim was many years after the fact. And yet you used it, and ignored when I pointed that out originally.

Nation after nation has rebuilt themselves or built themselves on the vast wealth we have been fountaining all over the rest of the world, while our working class and middle class have been getting fucked, for generations now.


Somehow having a massive trade surplus benefited them while having a massive trade deficit greatly harmed US.

The natural conclusion is that if we reduce or reverse the trends in trade surplus/deficits, that we will reverse the trends for the working and middle class here.

Of course it was years after the fact. That is how you study the results of economic changes. How dumb are you?

That question was answered long ago.

The answer is VERY

 

[Correll]

Says the man planning to vote for Iraqi War supporter Hillary Clinton.

Yes sadly trump is aweful on everything else.

Oh? REally? YOu support using Third World Labor to undermine US worker wages?

Because HIllary does and Trump does not.

Really?

Trump hires foreign workers for his Florida resorts- instead of American workers.

Doesn't seem like he is working for U.S. worker wages.

HIs policy platform is that he will.

Hillary is openly planning to maintain the status quo of using Third World Labor to undermine US wages.


If you are against that policy, you have a choice between someone who might reverse it (trump), and someone who will certainly NOT reverse it (hillary).

Trump's policy has been to hire third world labor for his own benefit.

Why do you believe his words, and not his actions?

As a resort owner his job was to serve the interests of his partners and himself.

As President, his job will be to serve the interests of his supporters, ie the Working and Middle Classes.

 

[Correll]

Oh? REally? YOu support using Third World Labor to undermine US worker wages?

Because HIllary does and Trump does not.

Really?

Trump hires foreign workers for his Florida resorts- instead of American workers.

Doesn't seem like he is working for U.S. worker wages.

HIs policy platform is that he will.

Hillary is openly planning to maintain the status quo of using Third World Labor to undermine US wages.


If you are against that policy, you have a choice between someone who might reverse it (trump), and someone who will certainly NOT reverse it (hillary).

If you want the government dictating wages a min wage increase is a much better option.

Crafting a Trade Policy to protect American jobs from unfair "competition" is hardly "dictating wages".

What is 'fair' competition anyway?

ONe where we don't get constantly fucked.


A few specifics.

ONe, US workers should not have to compete on a "level" playing field with a Chinese factory that is literally using slave labor.


Two. China should not be allowed to violate US intellectual property rights, such as on US films on an industrial scale with the loss of billions in revenue for the US.

Three. US workers should not have to compete on a "level" playing field with products that get large VAT tax rebates when shipped here and our produces get NOT TARIFF, VAT taxs added when shipped there.

ect.

 

[JimH52]

Trump usED third world labor.

HIs policy platform is about changing the rules to fight that.

HIllary is all about continuing the policy of allowing employers to use Third World Labor to undermine US wages.


There is nothing crazy about tariffs.

Unless you believe those same economists that predicted that Free Trade would make US industry more competitive and lead to a rebound in jobs and wages.

I believe history which shows they are bad. Take your steel tariff. It cost the US more manufacturing jobs than the steel industry employs. Bad idea. But if you have some support for them let's see it.

Your support for that claim was many years after the fact. And yet you used it, and ignored when I pointed that out originally.

Nation after nation has rebuilt themselves or built themselves on the vast wealth we have been fountaining all over the rest of the world, while our working class and middle class have been getting fucked, for generations now.


Somehow having a massive trade surplus benefited them while having a massive trade deficit greatly harmed US.

The natural conclusion is that if we reduce or reverse the trends in trade surplus/deficits, that we will reverse the trends for the working and middle class here.

Of course it was years after the fact. That is how you study the results of economic changes. How dumb are you?

That question was answered long ago.

The answer is VERY

Your wife?

 

[Syriusly]

Really?

Trump hires foreign workers for his Florida resorts- instead of American workers.

Doesn't seem like he is working for U.S. worker wages.

HIs policy platform is that he will.

Hillary is openly planning to maintain the status quo of using Third World Labor to undermine US wages.


If you are against that policy, you have a choice between someone who might reverse it (trump), and someone who will certainly NOT reverse it (hillary).

If you want the government dictating wages a min wage increase is a much better option.

Crafting a Trade Policy to protect American jobs from unfair "competition" is hardly "dictating wages".

What is 'fair' competition anyway?

ONe where we don't get constantly fucked.


A few specifics.

ONe, US workers should not have to compete on a "level" playing field with a Chinese factory that is literally using slave labor.


Two. China should not be allowed to violate US intellectual property rights, such as on US films on an industrial scale with the loss of billions in revenue for the US.

Three. US workers should not have to compete on a "level" playing field with products that get large VAT tax rebates when shipped here and our produces get NOT TARIFF, VAT taxs added when shipped there.

ect.

Okay let me review:
Of course U.S. workers should not have to complete with slave labor. That literally is incredibly rare, and most Western companies actually take efforts to prevent the use of slave labor in China and elsewhere.

Perhaps you meant virtually slave labor? Well that is rare now in China also. The labor environment in China has changed in the last 20 years and factories have to compete for labor, and unlike years ago, they can't prevent workers from leaving to go to other companies. Wages are increasing in China and factory owners keep trying to move factories to areas of China with lower labor costs. Ironic isn't it that in Communist China that Capitalism is so prevalent?

Companies are shifting production to lower cost countries such as Bangladesh and Vietnam.
Is it unfair to source from a country where workers are paid really low? Or is it capitalism in action?

2) China should not be able to violate U.S. intellectual property rights. How will Trump stop it?

3) VAT versus Tariff. We don't charge VAT but most countries do- but virtually no countries charge VAT on exports. We choose not to have a VAT tax. Virtually all countries have some form of tariffs- we do choose to have import tariffs- like most countries. I guess we could implement a VAT tax here to level the playing field- is that what you want?

 

[Syriusly]

Yes sadly trump is aweful on everything else.

Oh? REally? YOu support using Third World Labor to undermine US worker wages?

Because HIllary does and Trump does not.

Really?

Trump hires foreign workers for his Florida resorts- instead of American workers.

Doesn't seem like he is working for U.S. worker wages.

HIs policy platform is that he will.

Hillary is openly planning to maintain the status quo of using Third World Labor to undermine US wages.


If you are against that policy, you have a choice between someone who might reverse it (trump), and someone who will certainly NOT reverse it (hillary).

Trump's policy has been to hire third world labor for his own benefit.

Why do you believe his words, and not his actions?

As a resort owner his job was to serve the interests of his partners and himself.

As President, his job will be to serve the interests of his supporters, ie the Working and Middle Classes.

As President- his job is to serve the interests of his supporters?

But not all Americans?

 

[Syriusly]

I hate to agree with Trump about anything- but he is right- the world in general- and the Middle East in particular- would be better off if Saddam Hussein had been left in power.

Kudos to you for having the intellectual honestly to admit that you agree with Trump on an issue.


But, you're still planning on voting for the candidate that was part of the decision to invade.

I am voting for the candidate who voted in favor of invading like the majority of both parties. I disagreed with her then and I still disagree. But she is the better of the two candidates.

Trump of course couldn't vote because he didn't care enough at the time to participate in politics.

That's a pretty big mistake to give a pass on.

How many people have to die before you consider it a big enough mistake to be relevant? 20k? 150k? 500k? a solid million?



And yes. Trump gets a NA, IE not applicable on this one.

Trump supported the war-and then didn't

Sept. 11, 2002: Howard Stern asks Trump if he supports invading Iraq. Trump answers hesitantly. “Yeah, I guess so. You know, I wish it was, I wish the first time it was done correctly.”

Jan. 28, 2003: Trump appears on Fox Business’ Your World with Neil Cavuto on the night of President Bush’s State of the Union address. Trump says he expects to hear “a lot of talk about Iraq and the problems,” and the economy. He urges Bush to make a decision on Iraq. “Either you attack or you don’t attack,” he says. But he offers no opinion on what Bush should do.

Obviously a man who had, at that time NOT giving the issue any thought. It would be silly to try to hold him to those comments, or GOD FORBID to equate those off hand quips with Hillary's actual voting for war.

Clinton was instrumental in our mistake in Libya- which of course was not as bad a mistake as Iraq.
But Clinton was just one of hundreds of votes yes for a policy proposed by George Bush.

She made a mistake- Trump of course had made sure he was not in a position to have to vote on the war.

Hillary, as "one of" one hundred Senators, put herself in a position where it was her moral responsibility to keep herself informed on the topic, to seriously consider the topic, to consider such factors as the fallibility of intelligence, and to be one of those who declare War or refuse to declare war.

She voted WAR

So do you agree with Trump(now)- that we should not have invaded Iraq?

Or do you agree with Clinton(then)- that we should have invaded Iraq?

 

[tinydancer]

Trump supported both actions, Iraq and Libya.

He is now lying about both in typical, pathological fashion.

Carb to have changed positions over the years as we have become more informed is not lying. I was gung ho for us to go into Afghanistan and eradicate the Taliban and start nation building.

I've had my mea culpa moment a few years back when I realized that our NATO forces were allowing men to continue to have their bacha bazi as respecting their "culture" among other issues and that our governments were allowing the leaders to literally steal millions of dollars instead of bettering the Afghan people.

We've not made things better. We've made them worse. To realize one's mistakes is not lying. It's coming to terms with the facts and realizing that the former opinion was freaking out to lunch.

To change positions just because you're a partisan sheep who's trying to follow your flip flopping leader is of no merit.

Fuck off Carb. I changed my position long before Trump appeared on the scene.

Try a different brand of enema because this one isn't working at all because you are seriously full of shit.

 

[Brain357]

Really? Trump uses third world labor. That is supporting moron.

We already discussed his crazy tariff ideas and you couldn't come up with any support. History says they are bad.

Trump usED third world labor.

HIs policy platform is about changing the rules to fight that.

HIllary is all about continuing the policy of allowing employers to use Third World Labor to undermine US wages.


There is nothing crazy about tariffs.

Unless you believe those same economists that predicted that Free Trade would make US industry more competitive and lead to a rebound in jobs and wages.

I believe history which shows they are bad. Take your steel tariff. It cost the US more manufacturing jobs than the steel industry employs. Bad idea. But if you have some support for them let's see it.

Your support for that claim was many years after the fact. And yet you used it, and ignored when I pointed that out originally.

Nation after nation has rebuilt themselves or built themselves on the vast wealth we have been fountaining all over the rest of the world, while our working class and middle class have been getting fucked, for generations now.


Somehow having a massive trade surplus benefited them while having a massive trade deficit greatly harmed US.

The natural conclusion is that if we reduce or reverse the trends in trade surplus/deficits, that we will reverse the trends for the working and middle class here.

Of course it was years after the fact. That is how you study the results of economic changes. How dumb are you?

Do you have any links supporting your crazy?

THe link I posted showed that the steel companies in question survived and thus the jobs of those factories were saved.


A study, was it 7 years later? will be influenced by other factors that might not have anything to do with a certain policy.


BTW, calling me names is not actually supporting your argument. lt is just you being a dick.

FYI.

Yes seven years later we have accurate data and can study the effects of the tariff. That's how studies work...

 

[Correll]

HIs policy platform is that he will.

Hillary is openly planning to maintain the status quo of using Third World Labor to undermine US wages.


If you are against that policy, you have a choice between someone who might reverse it (trump), and someone who will certainly NOT reverse it (hillary).

If you want the government dictating wages a min wage increase is a much better option.

Crafting a Trade Policy to protect American jobs from unfair "competition" is hardly "dictating wages".

What is 'fair' competition anyway?

ONe where we don't get constantly fucked.


A few specifics.

ONe, US workers should not have to compete on a "level" playing field with a Chinese factory that is literally using slave labor.


Two. China should not be allowed to violate US intellectual property rights, such as on US films on an industrial scale with the loss of billions in revenue for the US.

Three. US workers should not have to compete on a "level" playing field with products that get large VAT tax rebates when shipped here and our produces get NOT TARIFF, VAT taxs added when shipped there.

ect.

Okay let me review:
Of course U.S. workers should not have to complete with slave labor. That literally is incredibly rare, and most Western companies actually take efforts to prevent the use of slave labor in China and elsewhere.

Slave labor might be rare. Slave wages, less so. Very low wages are the whole POINT.

Perhaps you meant virtually slave labor? Well that is rare now in China also. The labor environment in China has changed in the last 20 years and factories have to compete for labor, and unlike years ago, they can't prevent workers from leaving to go to other companies. Wages are increasing in China and factory owners keep trying to move factories to areas of China with lower labor costs. Ironic isn't it that in Communist China that Capitalism is so prevalent?

Crony, Mercantilistic Capitalism does NOT seem an odd next step for a Communist Nation.

Companies are shifting production to lower cost countries such as Bangladesh and Vietnam.
Is it unfair to source from a country where workers are paid really low? Or is it capitalism in action?

It is unfair to source froma country where workers are paid really low. That the companies are shifting to lower cost regions in china or vietnam does not alter the fact that we are getting fucked.

2) China should not be able to violate U.S. intellectual property rights. How will Trump stop it?

Good spin there, stating it as though this would be a personal battle between one of the largest nations in the world and one man.


As the most powerful nation in the world, and the largest single market, and the nation China built it's world around, we have tremendous potential leverage on China.

Our leaders have just had no interest in using such leverage to advance the interests of America and Americans for the last couple of generations.

3) VAT versus Tariff. We don't charge VAT but most countries do- but virtually no countries charge VAT on exports. We choose not to have a VAT tax. Virtually all countries have some form of tariffs- we do choose to have import tariffs- like most countries. I guess we could implement a VAT tax here to level the playing field- is that what you want?

I see you are unaware that nations that charge VAT taxes often give VAT rebates on exports, to encourage them and the jobs and the wealth that they bring back to them, AND put "VAT" on imports.




These are THREE examples of how our Trade is not "Fair" and that our massive trade deficits are not the result of Fair Competition and capitalism, but of Government policy.

And as we are discussing an enormously complex issue where we, the US, ALWAYS GET FUCKED, I assume that there are hundreds of other ways in which our rivals, who seem to think that Trade Surpluses are great for them, take advantage of US.


After all, why would they not? Indeed, if those governments can advance their citizens interests and quality of life at the expense of a bunch of fools, it is their moral responsibility to their citizens to do so.

 

[Skull Pilot]

"It's not even a contest."

Donald Trump said Sunday that the Middle East would be more stable if Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and Libyan autocrat Muammar Gaddafi were still in power.

When asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" if he thought the region would be "safer" with Hussein and Gaddafi ruling Iraq and Libya, respectively, the real estate mogul and ersatz Republican presidential candidate replied, "It's not even a contest."

Trump reasoned that had the United States not forced Hussein out of power in Iraq, the Islamic State would not have come into existence.

More: Donald Trump: Middle East Would Be Better Off With Saddam, Gaddafi

Amen! I totally agree! Saddam kept the lid on that cesspool.

It's actually true that removing Sadam destabilized iraq

do you refute that?

 

[Correll]

Oh? REally? YOu support using Third World Labor to undermine US worker wages?

Because HIllary does and Trump does not.

Really?

Trump hires foreign workers for his Florida resorts- instead of American workers.

Doesn't seem like he is working for U.S. worker wages.

HIs policy platform is that he will.

Hillary is openly planning to maintain the status quo of using Third World Labor to undermine US wages.


If you are against that policy, you have a choice between someone who might reverse it (trump), and someone who will certainly NOT reverse it (hillary).

Trump's policy has been to hire third world labor for his own benefit.

Why do you believe his words, and not his actions?

As a resort owner his job was to serve the interests of his partners and himself.

As President, his job will be to serve the interests of his supporters, ie the Working and Middle Classes.

As President- his job is to serve the interests of his supporters?

But not all Americans?

In this there is a conflict of interests between the rich and the working and middle classes.


It is the working and middle classes turn.

That being said, I have answered your question on why I expect different behavior with the man after he switches jobs.

Are you going to respond to that, or was it more of a "gotcha" than a serious question?

 

[Correll]

Kudos to you for having the intellectual honestly to admit that you agree with Trump on an issue.


But, you're still planning on voting for the candidate that was part of the decision to invade.

I am voting for the candidate who voted in favor of invading like the majority of both parties. I disagreed with her then and I still disagree. But she is the better of the two candidates.

Trump of course couldn't vote because he didn't care enough at the time to participate in politics.

That's a pretty big mistake to give a pass on.

How many people have to die before you consider it a big enough mistake to be relevant? 20k? 150k? 500k? a solid million?



And yes. Trump gets a NA, IE not applicable on this one.

Trump supported the war-and then didn't

Sept. 11, 2002: Howard Stern asks Trump if he supports invading Iraq. Trump answers hesitantly. “Yeah, I guess so. You know, I wish it was, I wish the first time it was done correctly.”

Jan. 28, 2003: Trump appears on Fox Business’ Your World with Neil Cavuto on the night of President Bush’s State of the Union address. Trump says he expects to hear “a lot of talk about Iraq and the problems,” and the economy. He urges Bush to make a decision on Iraq. “Either you attack or you don’t attack,” he says. But he offers no opinion on what Bush should do.

Obviously a man who had, at that time NOT giving the issue any thought. It would be silly to try to hold him to those comments, or GOD FORBID to equate those off hand quips with Hillary's actual voting for war.

Clinton was instrumental in our mistake in Libya- which of course was not as bad a mistake as Iraq.
But Clinton was just one of hundreds of votes yes for a policy proposed by George Bush.

She made a mistake- Trump of course had made sure he was not in a position to have to vote on the war.

Hillary, as "one of" one hundred Senators, put herself in a position where it was her moral responsibility to keep herself informed on the topic, to seriously consider the topic, to consider such factors as the fallibility of intelligence, and to be one of those who declare War or refuse to declare war.

She voted WAR

So do you agree with Trump(now)- that we should not have invaded Iraq?

Or do you agree with Clinton(then)- that we should have invaded Iraq?

Note how you didn't address any of my points?

But I will address yours.


The case made at the time was strong.

IMO, our biggest mistake at that time was overestimating the desire and ability of the Iraq People to support a Liberal Democratic form of Government.

The long term results of the invasion remain to be seen.

It was certainly far more costly for the US than we expected based on the fact that we were liberating them from a Genocidal Madman.

On the other hand,

In the War of Ideas, we have to find an answer to Radical Islam.

Democracy was always going to be our first choice. That is who we are. We were never going to give consideration about what else we could try until we tried that.