For It Before Against It

[Kathianne]

I don't remember the context or topic, but someone was talking about sounding/walking like a duck:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/226742/

FEBRUARY 15, 2016



DONALD TRUMP’S PIVOT ON IRAQ:

[In] his 2000 book, The America We Deserve Trump noted Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction and targeted Iraq strikes had little impact on their overall capabilities. The Donald said the best course might be against Iraq to “carry the mission to its conclusion.”



Wrote Trump:

Consider Iraq. After each pounding from U.S. warplanes, Iraq has dusted itself off and gone right back to work developing a nuclear arsenal. Six years of tough talk and U.S. fireworks in Baghdad have done little to slow Iraq’s crash program to become a nuclear power. They’ve got missiles capable of flying nine hundred kilometers—more than enough to reach Tel Aviv. They’ve got enriched uranium. All they need is the material for nuclear fission to complete the job, and, according to the Rumsfeld report, we don’t even know for sure if they’ve laid their hands on that yet. That’s what our last aerial assault on Iraq in 1999 was about. Saddam Hussein wouldn’t let UN weapons inspectors examine certain sites where that material might be stored. The result when our bombing was over? We still don’t know what Iraq is up to or whether it has the material to build nuclear weapons. I’m no warmonger. But the fact is, if we decide a strike against Iraq is necessary, it is madness not to carry the mission to its conclusion. When we don’t, we have the worst of all worlds: Iraq remains a threat, and now has more incentive than ever to attack us.

In August 2004 Trump turned loud and vocally against the war in an interview with Esquire, more than a year after it started and it was clear after the initial successes an insurgency was developing.

Huh — Trump’s for-gainst it pivot on Iraq from 2000 to 2004 is a 180° performed very much like those of many prominent Democrats during that period:




Or as Tennessee state Senator Frank Niceley tweets: “So, the question for Mr. Trump would be: was George Bush lying about WMD or following Trump’s advice?”





Not to mention Bill Clinton’s advice, Al Gore’s advice, Joe Biden’s advice, Hillary’s advice, Howard Dean’s advice,Madeleine Albright’s advice, etc.

[jimnyc]

What's going to matter more, I believe, to the voters, is what his plans are should he get elected. While we have an administration that prefers to walk on egg shells while a group like ISIS gets bigger and bigger, with a desired goal to hit the USA, Trump has stated he would like to bomb the shit out of them. I simply don't believe he would get elected (if of course) and then immediately become a democrat and become a tree hugger afraid of being tough on other countries and/or terrorist groups.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I don't remember the context or topic, but someone was talking about sounding/walking like a duck:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/226742/

FEBRUARY 15, 2016



DONALD TRUMP’S PIVOT ON IRAQ:

[In] his 2000 book, The America We Deserve Trump noted Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction and targeted Iraq strikes had little impact on their overall capabilities. The Donald said the best course might be against Iraq to “carry the mission to its conclusion.”



Wrote Trump:

Consider Iraq. After each pounding from U.S. warplanes, Iraq has dusted itself off and gone right back to work developing a nuclear arsenal. Six years of tough talk and U.S. fireworks in Baghdad have done little to slow Iraq’s crash program to become a nuclear power. They’ve got missiles capable of flying nine hundred kilometers—more than enough to reach Tel Aviv. They’ve got enriched uranium. All they need is the material for nuclear fission to complete the job, and, according to the Rumsfeld report, we don’t even know for sure if they’ve laid their hands on that yet. That’s what our last aerial assault on Iraq in 1999 was about. Saddam Hussein wouldn’t let UN weapons inspectors examine certain sites where that material might be stored. The result when our bombing was over? We still don’t know what Iraq is up to or whether it has the material to build nuclear weapons. I’m no warmonger. But the fact is, if we decide a strike against Iraq is necessary, it is madness not to carry the mission to its conclusion. When we don’t, we have the worst of all worlds: Iraq remains a threat, and now has more incentive than ever to attack us.

In August 2004 Trump turned loud and vocally against the war in an interview with Esquire, more than a year after it started and it was clear after the initial successes an insurgency was developing.

Huh — Trump’s for-gainst it pivot on Iraq from 2000 to 2004 is a 180° performed very much like those of many prominent Democrats during that period:




Or as Tennessee state Senator Frank Niceley tweets: “So, the question for Mr. Trump would be: was George Bush lying about WMD or following Trump’s advice?”





Not to mention Bill Clinton’s advice, Al Gore’s advice, Joe Biden’s advice, Hillary’s advice, Howard Dean’s advice,Madeleine Albright’s advice, etc.

To me it sure seems to be a great shame that every candidate on both sides are not examined so intensively and not hounded by every known means available........
I guess, what with Trump being so very, very special, that honor belongs to him.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, but why?
If he is not special, not leading, not gathering more support than all the other candidates combined, then
why is all the world ,seeming to be, chasing him with an hatchet in one hand and a shovel in the other?
Surely, such extra special attention and dogged following is one of the very deep costs of his genius and his greatness, no?- --Tyr

[Kathianne]

What's going to matter more, I believe, to the voters, is what his plans are should he get elected. While we have an administration that prefers to walk on egg shells while a group like ISIS gets bigger and bigger, with a desired goal to hit the USA, Trump has stated he would like to bomb the shit out of them. I simply don't believe he would get elected (if of course) and then immediately become a democrat and become a tree hugger afraid of being tough on other countries and/or terrorist groups.

As I've said, IF he wins and fulfills all the hopes of his supporters, I'll be glad to say you were right, thank G I was wrong!

I guess my problem in this election is that I do look at what they've said and done in the past. For some reason, Trump has many instances of being strongly liberal, (NY values if we may use that term), yet he says something to the effect, "I've changed my stand..." Ok.

Rubio says that on previous immigration stand, "I realized the American people do not trust the government to secure the border, they will not support reform until they 'see' the border secured. Reform cannot happen until that happens.'

He's a 'liar.' Go figure.

One guy has lots of history on many issues-he's 'truth.' Another has one 'issue' and he can't be trusted.

[Kathianne]

To me it sure seems to be a great shame that every candidate on both sides are not examined so intensively and not hounded by every known means available........
I guess, what with Trump being so very, very special, that honor belongs to him.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, but why?
If he is not special, not leading, not gathering more support than all the other candidates combined, then
why is all the world ,seeming to be, chasing him with an hatchet in one hand and a shovel in the other?
Surely, such extra special attention and dogged following is one of the very deep costs of his genius and his greatness, no?- --Tyr

Or a Gary Hart moment? I'd put my money on that.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Or a Gary Hart moment? I'd put my money on that.

Well, if that happens its squarely on him. I'll not shed a single tear, I will go and board the Cruz train...
What I will not do, is pray that it does happen .....
Why would I? He has garnered more support than all his Republican opponents combined!
I've never been one for shooting the winning race horse or praying it breaks a leg.
Well that is, unless I'd bet a large amount against it... -Tyr

[jimnyc]

As I've said, IF he wins and fulfills all the hopes of his supporters, I'll be glad to say you were right, thank G I was wrong!

I guess my problem in this election is that I do look at what they've said and done in the past. For some reason, Trump has many instances of being strongly liberal, (NY values if we may use that term), yet he says something to the effect, "I've changed my stand..." Ok.

Rubio says that on previous immigration stand, "I realized the American people do not trust the government to secure the border, they will not support reform until they 'see' the border secured. Reform cannot happen until that happens.'

He's a 'liar.' Go figure.

One guy has lots of history on many issues-he's 'truth.' Another has one 'issue' and he can't be trusted.

I can't speak for others, I never called Rubio a liar. I believe I am consistent.