Game Change: Trump Consults with Sen Jeff Sessions on Immigration Strategy

Breitbart ^ | 08/14/2015 | Julia Hahn

[nathanbedford]

Let me respond with another old and lengthy reply which I think anticipates some of your arguments, this one posted January 2014:

There were essentially two assumptions which provided the rationale for the Iraq war: 1) Iraq was at or near the acquisition of atomic weapons and other weapons of mass destruction which it might pass off to terrorists groups who would use them against Israel and infiltrate them into America causing vast carnage in the homeland; 2) Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who had so oppressed virtually every minority in his country that his removal would clear the way for the human spirit to prevail and democracy under American tutelage, reminiscent of our occupation of Germany and Japan, would bloom.

Both of these assumptions were proved by history to have been misconceived. The first got us into the war and the second kept us in the war. Why did we make war in reaction to a terrorist assault committed by only 19 individuals armed only with box cutters? Because we felt that the next attack would we with weapons of mass destruction generated in Iraq. Because we felt that Iraq shared our basic cultural assumptions, our belief in the yearning of the human spirit for democracy and the rule law. Again, these beliefs were misplaced.

Once it was determined that Iraq did not harbor weapons of mass destruction, the rationale for the war had to be the democratization of the country. We learned that democracy is more than majority rule, it requires as a predicate at least a culture of respect for the rule of law. We were thinking as people who drew upon the heritage of the Judeo-Christian tradition, modified by the enlightenment. The Arab world has nothing to do with these traditions and wants no part of them.

Our efforts at democracy in these lands might be characterized as trying to teach a dog to speak English. It is not in his nature. The problem is not the odd dictator, the dictator is the symptom of the culture of Islam. The culture of Islam is the problem, the dictator is the symptom. Worse, superstition, brutality, victimology, paranoia, mob violence, intolerance, and murder are ingrained deep in this culture which erupts like a virus to attack opportunistically.

It is questionable whether it is more absurd to believe that invading and occupying an Arab country will somehow deter 19 more suicidal maniacs with box cutters, or is it more unrealistic to believe that we can impose Jeffersonian democracy on a medieval culture?

This is a culture with 1.6 billion adherents and we were undone by only 19 of them with box cutters. It led us into the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time, it bled our treasury, it wounded our military and in the process we empowered Iran and lost most of the Middle East. We can go on trying to teach this old dog new tricks, to attempt to teach Islam to think the way we do, we can employee bribery, appeasement, conventional war, drone strikes, national technical means, and a whole series of tactics and strategies but we are up against Islam.

Islam is not a religion but it is religion and politics combined but, more, it is in epistemology, a way of seeing the world which simply does not compute by our lights. It's not just anti-scientific and superstitious, it operates on a whole different set of assumptions about reality. We did not lose Falluja because we pulled our troops out too soon or because of some other tactical error, we lost Falluja in the seventh century. That which is true of Falluja is exponentially more true in Afghanistan. But it is true in places in the Arab/Muslim world that we once thought were relatively enlightened like Turkey and Egypt. There is enough of Islam in these places to affect the culture.

Our policy in Iraq and Afghanistan hit a wall because we were operating in different centuries. Can you imagine preaching toleration between Catholics and Protestants along the Rhine River during The 30 Years War in the 17th century and seeing how far we would get with a message that virtually everyone in America today accepts? It simply would not be heard. The culture was not ready. We would be lucky if we were not murdered on the spot by both sides.

Our job is to find ways to fight this war which will succeed and which we can afford. Some tactics like national technical means have produced more success than conventional land wars but the real problem is a looming internal implosion in America which will bankrupt us and leave us defenseless abroad. Our fiscal profligacy at home threatens to bring down the entire American experiment and render American military power weak. We are hollowing out our economy with pointless excursions against Islam while the threat from China, which requires an entirely different and more expensive response, grows apace.

We must rethink everything.

[LS]

Guys/gals Cruz would be utterly wasted as veep. We need him as atty gen to handle Cankes’ prosecution and to direct the legal undoing of the last admin.

[miss marmelstein]

Wollman Rink. Yeah, he built it in about 2 weeks. My husband says Trump’s press conferences remind him of Koch’s. Same NYC street manner. I can see, I suppose, why some people get turned off by that but I love it, of course.

[jsanders2001]

Yep. GOOD move and strategy. Sessions is the man to go to on immigration’s effects on the U.S. i’d like to see the La Razan Dreamers sent packing. Bet they won’t be giving one finger salutes so quickly now.

[miss marmelstein]

Wardaddy ice skates???

[bert]

that might really be an important meeting

the game has already been changed so the meeting is adding a new running back

[jsanders2001]

> In the unlikely event, Trump will have to bring in Boner and Ditch and spend some time knocking some sense and sence of urgency into them. Or fire them...

I would go down the list to see who voted Yes to anything anti-American and can them: the Iran deal, Obamacare, TPP, etc...Boehner, McConnel, Reid, and many others....clear out your offices, removal of pension plans, investigation into their financial gains the last 7 years, etc...but mainly gind out WHY no one would ever consider filing treason against the current POS in the WH

[jsanders2001]

> In the unlikely event, Trump will have to bring in Boner and Ditch and spend some time knocking some sense and sence of urgency into them. Or fire them...

I would go down the list to see who voted Yes to anything anti-American and can them: the Iran deal, Obamacare, TPP, etc...Boehner, McConnel, Reid, and many others....clear out your offices, removal of pension plans, investigation into their financial gains the last 7 years, etc...but mainly gind out WHY no one would ever consider filing treason against the current POS in the WH

[Guenevere]

Great news!!!!....encouraging news!......Jeff Sessions is the GO TO guy on illegals......and now Trump is ‘going to’ him for his words of wisdom!!!!!!

Love it!

[Seattle Conservative]

I think it was in his speech in NH yesterday that he said he won’t take money from lobbyists, but if regular folks wanted to donate he’d be honored to accept their donations (paraphrasing). And, something to the effect of it shows everyday people support him and that’s great.

[Tonytitan]

These are the anti-establishment candidates. They are not out to make friends, they are out to make waves.

And could end up making history!

[eartick]

I want them both at the top. Trump for eight, then Cruz for another eight.

---

I too believe this would go a long way to fix America.

I like the way Trump is playing this. Very savvy.

Get the best for the immigration part.

To ALL

Now get the best for the enforcement part of the ILLEGAL invaders that are breaching our borders. Who would that be, military or civil?

Who is he going to talk to about rounding up the illegal invaders and shipping them back across the borders?

Who is he going to talk to about posting bounties country wide for the illegal invaders and what the price will be and if it will be paid by the head or pound of flesh.

He cannot leave these important details out.

Of, course he cannot call it Immigration.

[eartick]

I do not know what everyone is so all fired up about on these posts.

The LIV will never see this and will walk with outstretched hands to the polls like zombies to a live buffet and pull the lever for who the MSM has drilled into their dead heads.

BUUUUUUSSSSSSSSH WAAAAALLLLLKKKKER RUUUUBBBBBBBBIIIIOOOOOO

[silverleaf]

Whatever folks say about Trump I don’t believe they can honestly say the man won’t seek out top talent for advisors

Now he needs to put together a team of military and foreign policy adivisors

Anyone heard from john Bolton lately?

[Seattle Conservative]

I like that!

I’d add Col West for head of DOD, John Bolton for SoS, Dr. Carson as head of HHS, and Gov Palin as head of EPA and Interior (combine them, get rid of regs, decrease the number of employees, and Drill Baby Drill!). If not Gowdy for AG then how about Mark Levin or Victoria Toensing or her husband, Joe DiGenova (libs heads spinning now)?

For those not familiar with Victoria, here’s a little about her: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Toensing

[odawg]

“His incoherence on all the issues is hardly reassuring.”

What is incoherent about building a wall, what is incoherent about building up the military, about deporting illegals, about getting better trade deals, about rebuilding American pride in their country, about actually wanting to stop ISIS?

[nathanbedford]

What is incoherent about building a wall,

Building a great big beautiful gate in the wall through which you readmit all the people you expelled and keeping the ones Donald Trump likes.

what is incoherent about building up the military

DU H? Every Republican candidate wants to build up the military, even Rand Paul. How is he going to do it, what part of the military, supporting what strategy? At what expense? How paid for? When he answers those questions intelligently we might have a coherent policy respecting the military.

about deporting illegals,

See what is incoherent about building a wall. Where the hell does he stand on amnesty?

About getting better trade deals DU H? Because he is a better negotiator? Please! Anybody would be better than either Bush, Clinton or Obama. Which domestic interest is he going to screw in order to put the screws to the Chinese? How is he going to get Congress to screw constituents' concerns in their own districts? How was he going to abrogate treaties? When Trump provides coherent answers to these kinds of questions we can say that he has a coherent trade policy until he does we have only a wish list.

American pride

DU H? This is been a mantra since Ronald Reagan. How? How? How?

about actually wanting to stop ISIS

every American with the possible exception of Barack Obama wants to stop Isis. The question is how, the question is how much blood and treasure are you going to expend doing it? Are you going to put boots on the ground? What is your strategy? Again, no specifics from Trump.

Stentorian tones do not make for coherent policy any more than a comb-over does.

[MARKUSPRIME]

The Germans don’t like him because he called them freeloaders on defense hiding behind the US umbrella in NATO, and being enslaved to Russian petrol, all the while being a rich country. Let them take over more defense of the EU they hate us anyhow, and build the USA defense up and let them shoulder their own burdens. Trump is right.

[odawg]

You are trying to dodge your contention. You stated that his policies are incoherent. I gave you a few that are not. I did not state that he was ALONE in believing those policies, or that they were ORIGINAL. I have always believed in those policies. Millions of us have for generations. Remember, you said he was INCOHERENT.

Amnesty? I heard him say the other day he would deport the illegals. Beautiful door? You have got to learn to separate political chatter from principle. We have always had a “door” for seasonal workers.

Also, this “specific” mantra is getting tedious. Can anyone get specific in a one-minute time slot in a debate, while having first to fend off personal attacks/accusations? Has ANY OTHER candidate come out with minute specifics, including your candidate, Cruz? How on earth can he “get specific” over trade negotiations that are usually ongoing and that the eyes of the general population would glaze over in three seconds if he were to get “specific”? He released a book the day of the debate that is replete with the specifics you yearn for. And, this “specifics” complaint is merely group-think that comforts certain people.

[samtheman]

He’s not serious about winning, his campaign is only reality TV and not a real campaign, he has a low ceiling of support, none of his supporters are eligible to vote...

What am I leaving out here? C’mon people. Help me.