Balkinization  

Friday, July 22, 2016

Donald Trump as anti-conservative (and anti-constitutionalist) authoritarian

Sandy Levinson

There is so much that one could say about last night's fear-filled diatribe.  No FDR there!  If we're not already fearful, we ought to be!  Fortunately, though, there's a would-be authoritarian leader who is volunteering to relieve our fears by doing whatever is necessary (though I was a little surprised that he didn't mention his desire to waterboard at will, given that the central theme of his candidacy is the "triumph of the will"). 

But I want to note only that Donald Trump, who may well have never really discussed the Constitution with anyone competent to do so, has, shall we say, an exaggerated view of presidential power.  Even if one stipulates that we are facing a resurgent crime wave and need much more "law and order," it's not remotely clear that the crimes in question are federal crimes, unless, of course, one believes that everything should be federalized, which I don't recall being a tenet of the old-Republican Party.  (See, e.g., Lopez.)  Indeed, to what I think is their shame, the Kennedy Administration for too long refused to get involved in Alabama or Mississippi on the ground that we are, after all, a federal system and, as Burke Marshall argued, was without jurisdiction to intervene.  I take it that subsequently-passed civil rights laws have changed the situation, at least somewhat, but I also assume that there continue to be some kinds of limits to national power--or so we are constantly told by our conservative friends.  To put it mildly, though, there's no reason to believe that Caudillo Trump would let the metaphysics (or reality) of federalism get in the way of his desire to be an all-powerful savoir of the country. 

I suppose that he does have the unilateral authority to renounce any and all executive agreements and treaties.  Again, though, I wasn't aware that this was a view of presidential power that conservatives are committed to. 

Perhaps he could order the immigration service (or whatever it's called these days) not to let in anyone from a country in which terrorism has occurred (which, of course, includes the UK, France, Spain, and now Germany).  No serious person (which might exclude a sociopath like Trump) believes that the particular threat comes from people who want to come here as immigrants.  I assume that a Trumpeteer should advocate shutting down all tourism unless and until everyone (save, perhaps, for white Christians) proves his or her eligibility for a visa (that would be include an ankle bracelet that would always let the Department of Homeland Security know where the visa holder is at all times).

I don't know how the Trump Hotels would do if the US start interrogating all visitors to the US for hours on end in order to guard against the possibility that one of them might be up to no good.  At the very least, I would assume that no sane international organization, including the International Olympic Committee,would schedule any events int eh US.  I'd also be curious if other countries would have greater "respect" for such a Trumpian policy or, instead, would impose similar inconvenience on all Americans who might want to visit a foreign countries.  Several years ago, I had to pay about $160 for a visa to visit Argentina solely because that was the amount the US imposed on Argentines.  Anyone going to Rio for the Olympics will have paid similar fees to get into that fascinating country.    

But all of this is to pretend that Donald Trump is a serious man with serious policies worth discussing.  He is not, and they are not.  This is a defining moment in American political history.  There are honorable Republicans, including, say, Lindsay Graham, David Brooks, Michael Gerson, John Kasich, Jennifer Rubin, Brent Scowcroft, and, to give the devil his due, Ted Cruz (even though no one seems willing to believe that he acting on the basis of anything other than his perceived self interest), and  no doubt, many others, who I suspect will reveal themselves in coming days.  Some will support Clinton, as is true of Scowcroft and, I think, Rubin.  Incidentally, Rubin has an absolutely terrific column explaining why the Supreme Court does not supply an adequate rationale for conservatives to vote for Trump.  There are a few people who seem genuinely to support Trump, like the pathetic Jeff Sessions and the absolutely contemptible fascist bully Chris Christie.  But the worst circle in political hell should be reserved for craven opportunists like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, whose only recourse, since they can't explain a single redeeming feature about the actual person of Donald Trump, simply pander to a lynch mob the more moderate members of whom simply want to "lock up" Hillary Clinton. 

I note that Ilya Somin quite a while ago admirably indicated that he would not be voting for Donald Trump under any circumstances.  I would hope this is generally true of my friends at the Volokh Conspiracy, who seem to have a natural resting place in the Johnson-Weld candidacy.  Indeed, I very much hope that Johnson-Weld demonstrate enough support to participate in the presidential and vice-presidential debates.  This year especially, it would be an absolute scandal if the debate powers-that-be decide to exclude them because, say, they don't reach an arbitrary level of 15% support.  I would hope that Democrats would join with Libertarians and honorable Republicans in supporting their eligibility for the debates.  

Comments:

Supporting Johnson/Weld makes sense if and only if you are certain that they draw votes only from Trump and not Hillary.
 

an all-powerful savoir of the country.

No savoir-faire there, I think. ITYM savior.
 

More accurately, the Johnson/Weld candidacy would need to draw more votes from Trump than from Hillary, not necessarily exclusively from Trump.
 

Does Mark Field think that has to be clear even respecting supporting involvement in debates?
 

That's not the criterion I'd choose. For that, I'd want to see polling for J/W at some reasonable level.
 

Honorable Republicans?
 

Sandy:

Are you honorable Dems going to vote Green or are you playing the concern troll?
 

Bart, the difference is apparent, whatever HRC's faults, Sandy (and many others, myself included), do not think she is, like Trump, an unserious man with unserious policy ideas. Like all extreme partisans you think the other side's candidate is especially nefarious, but you're still talking about a former First Lady, US Senator and Sec. of State. Trump is a buffoon.

I imagine if I had a dinner and HRC were there, I'd disagree with her quite a bit. But it'd be polite and orderly. If Trump were in my home I have little doubt I'd have to throw him out within an hour. You hate elites, we get it, but some modicum of professionalism matters.
 

Here's a headline from Day #3 that I had missed earlier:

"TRUMP FAMILY VALUES CONvention BOOS CRUZ: INTOXICATING!"

Lucifer in the Flesh has a conscience?
 

Regarding the Supreme Court, doubt it would only be "one" justice. Likewise, the lower courts is pretty important too. The courts are only so important all the same, especially since the President has powers that often are not really restrained that much (especially foreign policy) in that area. Plus, Trump has so many negatives, that the courts aren't enough to risk it.

As expected, it was Kaine, who not only has a rather impressive record on a progressive level, but is getting bipartisan bona fides.
 

One more thing .. not sure how useful it would be, but talk is Jeb! is going to endorse the Johnson/Weld ticket.
 

Companaidh earrainnean ann an Hong Dang stèidheachadh bho 2006, às dèidh còrr is 10 bliadhna de leasachadh in giấy khena tha sinn moiteil a bhith a 'in giấy khen lấy ngaymhullach an t-aonad ann an achadh dealbhadh, clò-bhualadh agus a' sanasachd ann an Hanoi. Thairis air na bliadhnaichean a 'chompanaidh againn air a' sìor strì àrdachadh, feumar mòran duilgheadasan bho chruaidh-fharpais a 'mhargaidh, a' meudachadh ann an cur a-steach prìsean airson stuthan amh, .... a 'cumail suas a' phrìs agus càileachd bathair. Tha am bathar ann a 'sìor fhàs nas fheàrr, nas proifeiseanta. A tha follaiseach ann an mẫu giấy khen đẹpdealbhachadh, prepress, clò-bhualadh & obrachadh crìochnaichte bathar. Mar sin tha sinn a 'cruinneachadh barrachd is barrachd eòlas, mar luchd-cleachdaidh a tha an cudromaiche airson soirbheachadh, a' cur fios air ais a 'cuideachadh ar luchd-clin phong bìeachdaidh a' fàs nas coileanta agus fèin ag èirigh suas mar aon de na saothraichean earbsach dachaigheil agus eadar-nàiseanta.thiet ke phong bi

Ann an co-theacsa a 'mhargaidh eaconamaidh in cataloguea' sìor fhàs chruaidh-fharpais a thaobh riatanasan càileachd a thuilleadh air an clàr-ama àm, tha e a 'glacadh an co-stoc a' mẫu catalogue đẹpchompanaidh ann an Hong Dang chompanaidh sinn daonnan a 'cur an seilbh air acfhainn coimpiutair innealan oifis, innealraidh agus thogalaichean.địa chỉ in catalogue Coinneachadh ris an iarrtas airson an clò air fad dealbhadh agus crìochnachaidh aig a 'chompanaidh as luaithe bathar.
thiết kế catalogue
Companaidh earrainnean ann an Hong a 'Phuist ag iarraidh a bhith a' chuid as motha de sheirbheisean proifeiseanta in thẻ tích điểmdealbhadh airson clò-bhualadh is sanasachd. Obrachaidh èifeachdais, fàs seasmhach stèidhichte air co-sheirm de chom-pàirtean eadar na pàrtaidhean beachdacmẫu thẻ tích điểmhadh quan.Luon luchd-cleachdaidh a tha an t-ionad na h-obrach, a 'chuspair as cudromaiche seirbheis. Càileachd na h-obrach, luchd-cleachdaidh adhartas riarachail S e prìomhachas 1, cur luach air an dàimh ùine fhada, ùr leasachadh chom-pàirtichean, air a leasachadh stèidhichte air spèis de na pàrtaidhean. Le sluagh-ghairm "Long maireannach leantalachd - chèile"
 

Speaking of unserious, this post qualifies.

Trump is a successful businessman, has been for decades. The sort of business that actually builds things. You might not like his demeanor, but that fundamentally rules out his not being a serious man.

His opponent is a felon who's only not doing time because the justice system has been corrupted. Who has a somewhat smaller fortune, based not on building actual things, but on influence peddling and laundered bribes. She gets elected, 3rd world kleptocracies will be entitled to point at us and laugh!

And, as for his not having serious policies, that's somewhat circular, no? He's "not a serious man", and so you just don't take his policy proposals seriously.

Look, I can see why somebody who badly wants the last 7 years of policy continued, and has zero concern about corruption in government, could find Hillary appealing. Aside from the occasions when she gets big checks to do otherwise, she probably will be a continuation of Obama. Sure, she's already announced her determination to abolish several constitutional rights, sure, she'll probably put US policy up for auction on EBAY, but at least she's not Donald Trump, and that counts for something. For some people.
 

"Trump is a successful businessman, has been for decades. The sort of business that actually builds things."

If you're going to throw around unproven claims of people being felons and corrupt you probably don't want to be doing it in defense of a guy whose business has largely consisted of construction in New Jersey...

" might not like his demeanor"

This is quite an understatement. We're talking about a potential POTUS who spoke of the size of his penis in a nationally televised debate.
 

Mr. W, you are hitting Brett below the belt as he self-admittedly shares a similar handicap to that of The Donald. When I learned of Brett's "cri de coeur," the subject was "hands off" as far as I was concerned.
 

I would say the case for Hillary is about as proven as you can get, given that the justice system is now corruptly political. Ok, so a Democratic administration won't permit a Democrat to be prosecuted, if it's politically inconvenient. We're a banana republic, a kleptocracy. I don't like that, but I've accepted the reality of it.

That doesn't make her innocent, it makes her untouchable.

Very provable claims. Hey, just go back to the cattle futures thing. You genuinely believe that Hillary was a mad genius at cattle futures day trading for exactly ten months, and then just gave it up? That somebody who's so good at day trading that they turn $1k into $100k in under a year wouldn't keep it up for a few more months in order to become independently wealthy?

You seriously believe that was on the up and up?
 

Ok, so a Democratic administration won't permit a Democrat to be prosecuted,

It was actually a Republican who cleared her, but don't let those details bother you.
 

Amazingly, Brett, the criminal justice system doesn't permit a DA to stand in front of a jury -- she does get a jury, right? -- and say "You genuinely believe that Hillary was a mad genius at cattle futures day trading for exactly ten months, and then just gave it up?" I mean, s/he could do that in the closing argument, but it's not, you know, evidence.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

"she does get a jury, right?"

Pair of scales and some ducks for counterbalance seems more the R idea.

 

You're trying to defend the notion that, if someone was never tried for a crime, they're not just entitled to be treated as innocent by the government, (A fine procedural principle, too often violated in this country.) but instead factually innocent, Entitled to have everyone outside the government pretend the evidence of their guilt doesn't exist.

That's a very convenient notion for a party that controls the legal system, and is nominating a criminal for President. If it were accepted, they could not just spare any criminal they wanted the legal consequences of their crimes, but the reputatiional consequences, too.

So I can understand why you like the idea. But, screw that, she's a felon, the justice system being corrupt can't change that.
 

The notion I'm defending is that when one doesn't know what one is talking about, they shouldn't cast conclusive judgments on people under that subject. You clearly aren't well acquainted with criminal law at a very basic level and aren't privy to all the relevant facts in these things you talk about. Your arguments behind your conclusions are, at best, of the weak kind Mark points to.

Again, if you want to go the 'do you really think' level of argument, 'do you really think' Trump made a fortune in construction in New Jersey (and freaking Atlantic City more specifically!!!) without bending or breaking more than a few laws?
 

As MW correctly notes, my point had less to do with criminal standards and more to do with the fact that you've provided no evidence whatsoever of any crime committed by Hillary in connection with the commodities trading. Even by the relaxed standards of ordinary life, all you've done is say "that sounds really bad, she must be a felon".
 


Sandy: I note that Ilya Somin quite a while ago admirably indicated that he would not be voting for Donald Trump under any circumstances. I would hope this is generally true of my friends at the Volokh Conspiracy, who seem to have a natural resting place in the Johnson-Weld candidacy. Indeed, I very much hope that Johnson-Weld demonstrate enough support to participate in the presidential and vice-presidential debates. This year especially, it would be an absolute scandal if the debate powers-that-be decide to exclude them because, say, they don't reach an arbitrary level of 15% support. I would hope that Democrats would join with Libertarians and honorable Republicans in supporting their eligibility for the debates.

BD: Sandy: Are you honorable Dems going to vote Green or are you playing the concern troll?

Mr. W: Bart, the difference is apparent, whatever HRC's faults, Sandy (and many others, myself included), do not think she is, like Trump, an unserious man with unserious policy ideas.


I completely agree that Hillary Clinton is a serious woman, who has been seriously engaged in serial lying, influence peddling to amass great wealth, and violating multiple criminal laws. Donald Trump has many, many faults, but his "Crooked Hillary" nickname for the Democrat nominee for President is spot on.

If honorable Republicans should vote libertarian rather that cast a ballot for the fascist Trump, then it stands to reason that honorable Democrats would vote Green (or even Libertarian) rather than vote for the lying felon and influence peddler Clinton. Unfortunately and unsurprisingly, there are no honorable Democrat counterparts to the men and women at the Volokh Conspiracy. You folks not only play to vote for Crooked Hillary, you actually pretend that the woman is not a liar and criminal.

Dishonorable.
 

Indeed, how can any honorable person vote for the organized criminal enterprise known as the Democratic (sic) Party?

Wikileaks just published a raft of DNC emails partly documenting the party's corruption:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/detailed-list-findings-wikileaks-dnc-document-dump/


 

Blankshot, you voted for torturers, you fucking imbecile.
 

SPAM I AM! is becoming even more obviously an enabler for The Donald. They share narcissism but not lucre. Unfortunately, The Donald, unlike SPAM I AM!, has passed on his hate genes.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Shag:

Wikileaks is an enabler of The Donald?

Your paranoia is getting downright Clintonian.
 

The Russians are enablers of The Donald via Paul Manafort and The Donald's admiration for Putin.
 

"Wikileaks is an enabler of The Donald?"

He pretty clearly said you were, not Wikileaks.

The whole Wikileaks thing is a tempest in a teapot imo. You mean to say the national party apparatus thought one candidate was a stronger one in the general than another and preferred that one? Say it isn't so! That's almost always the case (it was clear the RNC wanted Romney in 2012 and wanted to marginalize Paul as much as possible, for example).
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Mr. W:

All I did was provide the links to the wikileaks emails.

If there are any honorable Democrats who give an damn that their candidate is a corrupt, lying felon and their party is a cess pool of corruption, then I hope these emails enable them to vote libertarian, not for the GOP nominee I have been slamming as a fascist.

Try actually reading the DNC emails before you misrepresent them and the RNC. The DNC was coordinating propaganda with their clients in the Democrat media, infiltrating Clinton people into the Sanders campaign to spy on them, paying Clinton operatives to troll Sanders social media, offering to send interns to demonstrate at the RNC, money laundering, etc.

Nixon only dreamed of pulling off this stuff and Romney would not have even considered it.


 

The Democrat propaganda machine (aka the "mainstream" media) is openly questioning whether honesty is really a good thing in a POTUS:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/brad-wilmouth/2016/07/24/cbss-dickerson-obama-honesty-overrated-presidential-quality

After all, Obama had to repeatedly lie to enact Obamacare:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/geoffrey-dickens/2016/05/10/charlie-rose-and-presidents-speechwriters-laugh-about-obamacare




 

"Nixon only dreamed of pulling off this stuff and Romney would not have even considered it."

You should talk to people who were active in Paul's campaign, they'd laugh at that (a lot of fishy stuff was described in lawsuit by them against the RNC). The RNC was plainly working behind the scenes to support Romney and marginalize Paul. This is normal stuff.

"Obama had to repeatedly lie to enact Obamacare"

Maybe he was following the Bush administration's precedent re: Iraq.
 

Mr. W:

Even the Democrat Senate could not find any instance of Bush lying about Iraq.

Politicians lie, but Obama and the Clintons are in their own special elite category of serial lying.
 

It's amusing to have someone who plans to vote for Johnson/Weld and who voted for Buchanan* of all people in the past being such a good trump (pun intended) to the Killer Bs.

---

* "Uncle Pat" (per Rachel Maddow) does have a certain honesty about him, including early on saying that he figured various of his votes in Florida in 2000 came by mistake.
 

"Even the Democrat Senate could not find any instance of Bush lying about Iraq."

From Press Statement of Senator Jay Rockefeller (D), Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, upon release of the phase II report on prewar Iraq intelligence:

"In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intelligence-committee-unveils-final-phase-ii-reports-prewar-iraq-intelligence

 

BD: "Even the Democrat Senate could not find any instance of Bush lying about Iraq."

Mr. W: From Press Statement of Senator Jay Rockefeller (D), Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, upon release of the phase II report on prewar Iraq intelligence: "In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”


Thank you for confirming my statement.

A lie is intentionally making a false statement which you know is not true. Instead, Rockefeller is criticizing the fog of war.

No military intelligence is ever completely substantiated and is often contradictory and wrong. Even today, we have not completed substantiated much of the pre-war military intelligence. We have no idea what was loaded on the convoys we observed drive from Iraq to Syria on the eve of the war, have only inspected about 2% of Iraq's territory and there is no report that the military ever translated the several hundred thousand Iraqi documents we captured.

 

Lol Bart, "presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent" is the professional way of saying 'lied.'

"We have no idea what was loaded on the convoys we observed drive from Iraq to Syria on the eve of the war, have only inspected about 2% of Iraq's territory and there is no report that the military ever translated the several hundred thousand Iraqi documents we captured."

Keep hope alive!

George W. Bush himself: "part of the reason we went into Iraq was — the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t"
 

We have no idea what was loaded on the convoys we observed drive from Iraq to Syria on the eve of the war, have only inspected about 2% of Iraq's territory and there is no report that the military ever translated the several hundred thousand Iraqi documents we captured.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 1:39 PM


Dumbfuck, we captured everyone who would have known about WMD. There was none. Period. The only fog is between your ears.

 

By the way, it's quite humorous to see someone who posts crap like this accuse Hillary Clinton of lying.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

"Q&A with Jean Edward Smith Author Jean Edward Smith talked about his latest book Bush, which examines the presidency of George W. Bush."

https://www.c-span.org/video/?412238-1/qa-jean-edward-smith

Smith said Bush did various things worthwhile of praise (including int'l funding to address fighting of AIDS) but put his involvement in the Iraq invasion on top of the clusterfs of foreign policy in our history. Again, the former only strengthens the force of the latter.

(I enjoyed the author's bio of John Marshall.)
 

Mr. W: Lol Bart, "presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent" is the professional way of saying 'lied.'

What profession might that be?

You are free to find any instance where George W. Bush intentionally made a statement he knew was false concerning Iraq. The Democrat Senate could not and neither could the British Parliament.

Shall I post the links to the video compilations of Clinton's lies to remind you what lies actually consist of?


 

"You are free to find any instance where George W. Bush intentionally made a statement he knew was false concerning Iraq. "

Any? Here's a few hundred from he and members or his administration.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/06/24/14969/search-935-iraq-war-false-statements
 

A tale of two W's:

In an interview with Polish television on May 29, 2003, President Bush stated: "We found the weapons of mass destruction."

August 21, 2006, President Bush at news conference: "we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t"

Maybe he wasn't lying the first time, maybe he was just incompetent?

 

Mr. W:

Your link does not offer any evidence of any instance where George W. Bush intentionally made a statement he knew was false concerning Iraq.

Once again, using military intelligence which was later discovered to be partly or wholly incorrect is not a lie.

Keep trying.



 

So you're going with the 'he was too stupid to lie' defense. Well, it's certainly plausible given the person in question.
 

Mr. W:

Stupidity is Hillary Clinton's favorite defense to the charge she lies like a rug and is not the defense I am offering on behalf of Mr. Bush.

Military intelligence is staffed by very smart people who have very limited means of peering into enemy police states. At best, MI produces educated guesstimates, a large percentage of which end up being partly or wholly wrong. They call it the fog of war for a reason.

The prewar intelligence for the Iraq War is not nearly the worst performance by our MI. WWII was far worse and thousands of American military men and women died as a result.
 

The prewar intelligence for the Iraq War is not nearly the worst performance by our MI. WWII was far worse and thousands of American military men and women died as a result.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 4:21 PM


That is a big steaming pile. First of all, thousands of Americans died for nothing in this war. So did hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Second of all, Intel was not the problem. The lying scum just decided to ignore the Intel that didn't support what they already believed. They lied a lot. And they were very very stupid.
 

If they're operating with uncertain intel but making assertions confidently on it to the public in selling and justifying the war, that's at the least a reckless disregard for the truth and at most a willful misrepresentation.

If your broker told you 'there is no doubt the market in oil is about to go up' and you relied on that to your detriment, would he saying 'well, I was operating on the best analysis I could when I said that' excuse him?


 

Mr. W:

Yes, the administration was publicly overconfident in their intelligence. However, you do not sell a war to the American people by equivocating. You make a decision based on the information you have and then argue that decision.
 

Right. So they lied. A lot.
 

Overconfidence can be a small sin, in your case it just leads you to periodically look foolish in predictions and stances. But overconfidence when 'selling' a war where thousands die is a major, horrible sin.
 

Mr. W:

The real world problem is that intelligence does not come with a percentage of reliability. You make your best educated guess and act on the information you have.

The film Zero Dark Thirty offers a very good example of the intelligence decision making process.

The intelligence concerning the location of bin Laden in the compound in Pakistan was completely circumstantial. The sum total of the intelligence was that bin Laden's driver lived in the compound and the number of women and children suggested an unidentified male also lived there. That was it.

After being burned by second guessing politicians concerning their Iraq WMD intelligence, the CIA was very reluctant to put themselves on the line again recommending action against the suspected compound. Only the "Maya" character who gathered the intelligence was willing to make the recommendation. As a result, Obama dithered for over 100 days before finally agreeing to order the SEAL raid which eventually killed bin Laden.

You often can only confirm intelligence by sending in the military.
 

Imagine SPAM I AM! as an Intel Officer with this in mind:

"You often can only confirm intelligence by sending in the military."

Consider what might the results might be if not confirmed. OOPS! Keep in mind that intelligence is not the same as intellect.
 

Numbnuts, there was plenty of evidence that Iraq had no WMD. It was ignored by the lying scum who got us into that mess.

In any case, Obama was right. Bush was disastrously wrong.
 

BD: "You often can only confirm intelligence by sending in the military."

Shag: Consider what might the results might be if not confirmed.


9/11 and Benghazi come to mind.
 

BB: there was plenty of evidence that Iraq had no WMD.

What precisely was that evidence?

Even you are not stupid enough to believe that you can prove a negative.
 

The bullshit about the aluminum tubes is a great example. We were told they were for enriching uranium. They already knew that that was bullshit. The fact that UN inspectors found nothing is another example. It's impossible to prove a negative, but the fact that all your "evidence" is crap should be a good indication that you're wrong.
 

bb:

The UN found both WMD manufacturing equipment and WMD during their post-ceasefire inspection regime. The Iraqis broke the ceasefire terms by constantly interfering with the UN teams.

Just before the war, Saddam shipped out much of the WMD equipment tagged by the UN. Mossad said he also shipped out WMD.

After the war, we found over 500 artillery shells with mustard and sarin gas in the 2% of the country we inspected, evidence of ongoing WMD programs and later an Iraqi nuclear weapon primer the DoD accidentally released for crowd translation from the arabic.
 

Just before the war, Saddam shipped out much of the WMD equipment tagged by the UN. Mossad said he also shipped out WMD.

After the war, we found over 500 artillery shells with mustard and sarin gas in the 2% of the country we inspected, evidence of ongoing WMD programs and later an Iraqi nuclear weapon primer the DoD accidentally released for crowd translation from the arabic.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 6:23 PM


You lying sack of shit. There was no WMD. Even war criminals like George W Bush had to admit it.

 

After the war, we found over 500 artillery shells with mustard and sarin gas
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 6:23 PM


You should post some photographs of those "weapons" so we can all see how "deadly" they were.
 

bb:

I have given you the facts before:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2005/isg-addendums_mar2005.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html
 

I'm familiar with the facts, you fuckwit. There was no WMD. Post some photographs of what they found so we can see how "deadly" it was.
 

Here is a quote from one of your links:

However, ISG believes that any remaining chemical
munitions in Iraq do not pose a militarily signifi cant
threat to Coalition Forces because the agent and
munitions are degraded and there are not enough
extant weapons to cause mass casualties. H


That is why Bush had to admit that there was no WMD, you lying sack of shit.
 

bb:

You mean these "depleted" weapons that ISG never found because they only inspected 2% of Iraq?

From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.





 

You mean these "depleted" weapons that ISG never found because they only inspected 2% of Iraq?

From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.




# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 9:53 PM


None of which contradicts the fact that no WMD was found. Discarded rubbish from the war with Iran is not WMD. In any case, you are free to post photographs of those "weapons" any time you want.

 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Bart DePalma said...
bb:

You mean these "depleted" weapons that ISG never found because they only inspected 2% of Iraq?


By the way, I would definitely encourage you to get your lying ass over there to search the remaining 98%. Unfortunately for you, the people responsible for trying to save you from humiliation have come to realize that there is nothing to find.
 

bb: Discarded rubbish from the war with Iran is not WMD.

Tell it to the injured.

These were ongoing operations to destroy weapons caches to keep them from falling into the hands of AQI.


 

Tell it to the injured.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 8:35 AM


That still doesn't make it WMD, dumbfuck. YOUR link made that quite clear.

 

BB:

Tell it to the Kurds against whom ISIS had used mustard gas.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/497453/isis-daesh-chemical-weapon-chlorine-gas-iraq-syria-saddam-hussein-wmd-stash

ISIS does not have independent means of manufacturing mustard gas. They got it from Iraqi stockpiles.

This is what the US Army was trying to prevent in the operations reported by the NYT article to which I linked.
 

Dumbfuck, you should read the article. It doesn't support the headline. Get your lying ass to Iraq to find that WND!
 

Anyone can read the Senate or House reports detailing how the intel was much more uncertain and mixed than was represented. Of course, that Bush himself concedes it was wrong is all that needs said.
 

Twitter reaction to Obama's speech to the convention from actual conservatives underlines the heading. To me, part of being a conservative is doing your duty even if it's somewhat distasteful for you. In that respect -- speaking in the mode of a conservative, it would be to support Hillary Clinton. And, some are, which is nice on a basic human level.
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home