Why Donald Trump's vicious attack on George W. Bush was so brutally effective — and brilliant

The Week ^ | February 14, 2016 Th | James Poulos

[entropy12]

The World Trade Center came down during the reign of George Bush, Trump growled. He kept us safe? That is not safe. Technically true, but, as is so often the case with Trump, the details came second to theme, and the theme went far beyond 9/11 or the gasps and boos Trumps comments brought. Trump slapped W on Iraq, too. The war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake. They lied, he said of Dubyas administration. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none found.

Trump is saying that, under George W. Bush, the Republican Party allowed its understanding of politics to be corrupted. For whatever reason, under Bush, the GOP became a party that let self-aware rhetorical posturing dictate the way policy was formulated. The result was failure across the board. Worst of all was the ensuing failure of memory as Republicans forgot the winning arts and sciences. In so doing, they enabled America to lose its way in the hall of mirrors — and lose its greatness.

This is a dagger to the heart of the Bush legacy.

[Samwell Tarly]

George W. Bush is the worst President in American history.

If he had any shred of competence and true integrity, we would not have suffered 7 years and counting of Barack Obama.

Bush paved the way for Obama and everything he has done. Some of us knew all along that he would be a disaster. We were called unpatriotic and disloyal, by the fools who practically worshiped the man as sent by God.

We should not have trusted GWB. We wanted someone who would win, but we didn't bother to ask at what cost.

By this time next year America will have endured 16 years of the worst presidencies in the nation's history. 24 if you count Clinton. 28 if we count back to Bush the Elder.

[60Gunner]

I was supportive of any move to eradicate Al Qaeda from the face of the earth, and a move into Afghanistan was a good start. (I personally would have preferred to turn the entire place into a lifeless cinderblock and then move on to Pakistan, but that's me.)

But one thing Dubya always said right at the outset made me feel very uneasy. He never called it a war against Islam. It was a "war on terror," which is the dumbest thing I have ever heard said. Emotions didn't murder our citizens; murderous, craven animals did. And they did it because their belief system demanded it be done.

Now, I don't know about you. But speaking for myself, when a mob of depraved ragheads makes it very clear that they want to kill my family and me because islam decrees it, then my first instinct is not to declare war on an emotion. No; my first instinct is to pick up anything not nailed down and whatever I can pry up, and to declare war on those depraved ragheads, with the unwavering purpose of killing them all and utterly destroying the belief system that breeds them.

But given everything that Dubya said and did- including some very public ass-kissing of terrorist-sponsor nations (in the middle of a freakin' war!)- I think Iraq had nothing to do with the overall prosecution of the war. It didn't make any sense to shift our focus from the cradle of Al Qaeda to a relatively stable region. The timing was off. It did not fit into any 'continuum' of the prosecution of the larger war.

It is like deciding, right as the Normandy invasion is gaining momentum, to funnel off a ton of resources to invade Turkey. Iraq was a historic "wait- what...? moment.

Yes, Saddam and his psychopathic offspring were worthy of being offed. But as evil as they were, subsequent events would prove that Saddam's regime was keeping an even worse evil at bay.

In hindsight, while I don't think Dubya lied about the WMDs, I am also firmly convinced that Dubya really didn't care whether or not the WMDs existed. For the purposes of whatever agenda he was serving, it was as good a pretext as any for going in, and that is all.

I am all the more firmly convinced of this due to Dubya's refusal to vindicate before the world our commitment of blood and treasure to a war in Iraq by relentlessly hunting down, locating, and broadcasting said location of the WMDs. I'll leave his true motives up for others to speculate, but I'm damned sure that it wasn't really about the WMDs.

Now, on the home front- couple Dubya's double-minded prosecution of a 'war on terror' with his open betrayal of the people who worked heart and soul for his 2004 re-election during his second term, and his promotion of a new federal agency that ultimately and solely exists to squelch dissenting American voices against a monstrous federal tyranny.

So let's talk about Dubya's legacy- what it is and what it is not.

Dubya's greatest legacy is not his leadership after the worst attack ever on American soil. Rather, it is the creation of a violative, invasive, anti-citizen, and openly-menacing agency whose sole purpose is to intimidate and silence anyone who speaks out against governmental tyranny. This is coupled with his act of kicking away the stops on a relatively stable Middle East and allowing it to slide into a hell of chaos and genocide.

Thanks a lot, Dubya. I wouldn't hoist a beer with ya, but I'd gladly punch yer ever-lovin' lights out for what you did to American citizens, and for paving the road for the SOB we've been stuck with since 2008.

[enumerated]

But the mistakes of the Iraq war are beside the point right now. If it comes down to Trump vs. Clinton in the general, she will try to make it about she the Democrat vs him the Republican. Bush was the last Republican president, and the Iraq war is the symbol of his failure. Obama was the last Democrat president and he is perceived as being against the Iraq war. The only way Trump can escape this narrative is by coming out strongly against the Bush war and pointing out Clinton voted for it.

That is why Trump is attacking Jeb who is no real threat to him. He is setting it up for later. Conservatives should let him do his thing. I don’t like hearing the Bush bashing, but Trump knows what he’s doing.

[Political Junkie Too]

The region is obviously Iraq and Afghanistan, since that is where our troops were, and by extension the border nations where materiel and people were flowing into and out of. That would be Turkey and the Kurdish territories, Syria, and Iran.

Ready to stand on its own means that Iraq had a functioning government, economy, and the ability to defend itself. They had several free elections, and threw out one leader. I'm not sure that they had a stable workforce and industrial infrastructure yet, or long-term contracts for their oil to give the government enough cash for a national reconstruction project. And there were certainly insurgents leaking across Iraq's borders to undermine any military training or civil social rebuilding.

As for delusions, you would have to review my whole posting history, as I am too close to render a credible opinion.

-PJ

[King Hawk]

I felt sad for Trump Saturday night. He’s not a man of internal peace and I felt pity for him.

[fr_freak]

...my rule of thumb is that I don't give any credibility to "armchair quarterbacks" who support a military campaign where someone else's lives are at risk, but not their own.

Sure, sure, but this pretty much applies to almost every war, ever. The ones sending guys to war are not the ones going. Most of the ones supporting the war morally and materially are also not going. So your argument appears to be against war in general based on a condition that can never be met. For my part, I was in Iraq in 1991 and only health issues prevented me from going back in 2003. If those who have not been in war cannot send men to war, then I would also say those who have not been to war should also not keep men from war, because neither judgment would be based on experience or risk to self.

[bankwalker]

With 20-20 hindsight,

Well OK. Where do you buy that?

[BobL]

“I confess, I supported Iraq invasion by GWB.”

I too supported the Iraq invasion. Iraq agreed to US inspections as long as Saddam was in power (as part of the agreement that ended the 1991 war). THEY RENEGED. They deserved what they got and Saddam deserved what he got.

What I DO NOT APPRECIATE was having TOTAL IDIOTS working for Bush thinking thinking that they could turn Iraq into a Jeffersonian Democracy. At some point Bush needs to admit the mistake.

[bankwalker]

I wonder if Trump will go after Hillary’s vote for approval of the Iraq invasion? Or Kerry’s, or any of the other Democrats who overwhelmingly approved?

I remember the 'Rats begging for a vote. They didn't want to be left out of the effort.

[DiogenesLamp]

So my question becomes does everyone deserve freedom?

I think everyone deserves freedom, but in some social structures, our conception of freedom is incomprehensible. It simply does not fit with the structure of their social foundations.

People don't realize that our nation was founded on this concept of "natural law". A lot more people don't understand that there is more than one version of it dependent upon the societal assumptions.

For example, the Monarchy's argument to rule is that the King was put in place because it is God's will, and he therefore rules by divine right.

If you accept this societal foundation, then it is obvious that you have a duty to shed your blood for him and fight for whatever cause the King designates.

The US was founded on the "natural law" principle that individuals have inherent self evident rights, and they may choose their rulers through consent of the governed.

We prize this concept called "equality", which is really a manifestation of Christian doctrine. (All are equal in the eyes of God. We are all his children.)

This "equality" stuff, is not Islamic. It is anathema to Islam. In Islam, those closer to Allah are of higher worth, and those further away are of lesser worth.

Islam is one giant pecking order from the lowliest slave up to the highest Sultan, and all should know their station and remain in their place.

Their social foundation cannot comprehend western concepts of "freedom" because western concepts are based on Christian doctrine, not Islamic doctrine.

So in other words, they may deserve freedom, but until they can free themselves (or someone frees them by force) from their own ideology, they will never be "free" in the sense that we understand the concept.

[atomic_dog]

Hey look what I found in my image library:

Maybe it will be time to recycle it.

If I could find an old "Gringo de Mexico" bill my collection would be compelete

[DiogenesLamp]

You cannot simply go into a country, break it, then walk away and say, 'Hey guys, you’re on your own.'

Uh, yeah you can.

Imagine if we'd done that in Germany in 1945, the Red Army would have swept all through Europe.

Iran is comparable to the "Red Army" and they are sweeping through anyway. A large part of their success is due to the fact that we chose sides in Iraqi politics instead of letting the Sunnis reassert their dominance.

Iran has become the single largest beneficiary of US Tampering in Iraq. It is now virtually a satellite state of Iran. Once again, this is because we empowered the Shia majority by undermining and killing the Sunni minority that was running things when we came and screwed everything up.

Another Iraqi Sunni dictator would have prevented Iran from making so many inroads into Iraq.

We have made about as big a mess of that nation as it was possible to make of it. All our meddling has produced the worst possible outcome.

How could it have turned out any worse than it has?

[entropy12]

You can not. That is why we need strategic thinkers and not knee jerk neocons.

[dfwgator]

Well in the end we pretty much did walk away...after spending billions.

[entropy12]

Great post. Thank you.

[DiogenesLamp]

Good. Saddam's army could have saved us a lot of trouble.

As if a Europe United under Hitler would have been a good thing.

Next after Saudi Arabia would have been Libya, Jordon, Egypt, Iran, and so on. With many more billions from Kuwaiti and Saudi oil, Iraq could have bought more Russian planes, tanks, ships, and technology.

Saddam would not have stayed in his little pond. With control of Saudi and Kuwait oil, he would have even had those Euroweenies on his side.

[DiogenesLamp]

Well in the end we pretty much did walk away...after spending billions.

Timing is everything. Had we walked away sooner, we would not have made such a muck of things.

Had we made it known that we had no intention of staying long term, much resistance would have disappeared. Much bloodshed would not have occurred.

[RightGuy]

You Cruz, you luz.

[huldah1776]

“Disbanding the Iraqi army, and banning Bathe party members from their jobs was probably the stupidest political decision of this century until Barack Odumbo came along and exceeded it.”

I think Petraeus’ COIN strategy and rules of disengagement were probably second, but no arguments, just additional points.

[Defiant]

I supported the war, too, but only to use Iraq as a springboard to eliminate threat no. 1, the mullas in Iran. I thought that was going to be Bush's next step in the grand design of eliminating islamic terror as a threat to the United States and the civilized world. The mullahs thought we were coming for them, too, and they were on their best behavior for a few years.

Instead, he stopped when the US was at the height of its power, winning the war in a few weeks with very few (relative) casualties. He set about building Iraq as a democracy, an example to the Arab world that the others would magically emulate. And even within that plan, noble but flawed as it was, he failed to respond when the inevitable guerrila attacks came from Iran and its ally Syria. In a vacuum, Iraq might have been made a peaceful authoritarian land on the way to democracy. Not when you have Iran to the east and Syria to the south, and both working to do all they could to destabilize. No amount of training of a free Iraq force that did not terrorize its own citizens could keep that nation stable.

Had I known that was the plan all along, I would have said it was stupid, and would never have supported it. It wasn't worth the amount of money and the loss of lives. Getting rid of Saddam is nothing unless you know what you are replacing him with. We replaced him with jihadis. Getting rid of Saddam, and the Iranians and the Syrian regime in 2003/2004, and replacing them with authoritarians along the lines of Mubarak in Egypt, now that would have been a way to bring about peace and let us get the hell out of that s&*t hole.

The other thing that needed to be done, which I and many here were screaming about beginning on 9/12/2001, was to deal with the Saudis. They funded the hijackers, and they funded the spread of radical islam through the world, where previously it had been confined to the Arabian peninsula. They needed to be told what's what, had their oil threatened and their ability to spread their hatred completely curtailed, on threat of takeover. They would have complied. Instead Bush and his arab-loving oil men treated them with kid gloves.

There is a lot to be pissed off about in connection with Bush the Younger, and Trump is tapping into it, although I don't agree that there were no WMDs. However, Bush hissef just agreed on the campaign trail that there were no WMDs, so even he is confirming what Trump is saying. He's still stupid.