Donald Trump is getting raked over the coals for an interview he did yesterday where he mused about Liz Cheney being killed: "Let's put her with a rifle standing there, with nine barrels shooting at her, okay? Let's see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face."
By itself this quote is misleading, but it's getting all the attention anyway. That's politics. But it's too bad in a way, because the rest of Trump's long monologue is actually much more interesting.
Trump has long run on a weird combination of being anti-war while constantly threatening massive retaliation against our enemies. But he goes well beyond that in this clip.
Trump portrays himself in the interview as no less than a gung-ho "No Blood for Oil" lefty. The whole point of his Liz Cheney remark was that she was a chickenhawk—a favorite lefty sneer during the runup to the Iraq War. "They're all war hawks when they're sitting in Washington in a nice building," he declared, "saying, 'Oh, gee, well let's send 10,000 troops right into the mouth of the enemy.'"
Trump even says explicitly that he saw little point in invading Iraq if we weren't going to stick around and take all their oil. Check out these other excerpts:
"The reason [Liz Cheney] couldn't stand me is that she always wanted to go to war with people. I don't want to go to war.... Number one, it's very dangerous. Number two, a lot of people get killed. And number three, it's very, very expensive."
"We go in and bomb the hell out of [Iraq]...and then all of a sudden Iran has the whole Middle East to itself. Right now Iran has Iraq; Iraq is like a subsidiary of Iran."
"Anybody that went into the Middle East I thought was stupid."
"We spent $9 trillion bombing the hell out of the Middle East and what the hell did we get other than lots of dead people, including our people? Nothing."
This would fit right into a conversation with Noam Chomsky in the Guardian. And Trump gets cheers for this! From Republicans!
That's inexplicable. And the funny thing is that I don't think Trump is bullshitting about this. He truly is anti-war. When he was in office I always got the impression, in an odd way, that he didn't have the guts to go to war. He was afraid of it. He was afraid of sending soldiers to their death. Even his periodic retaliatory strikes, a staple of US presidents, tended to be small and cautious.
And good for him. War should be a last resort, not a routine part of foreign policy. Joe Biden feels much the same way, though, unlike Trump, probably more on an intellectual level than a gut level.
But I still wonder at the willingness of the Republican rank and file to go along with this. George W. Bush was literally deified as the greatest president in history for going into Iraq to get revenge for 9/11. Now, 20 years later, they cheer when Trump tells them they were all idiots and we should avoid war at all cost—especially war in the Middle East.
It's one thing for the Republican Party to flip on something like free trade at Trump's command. That's not a hot button issue for most people. But being anti-war? That's pretty visceral. Is this change of heart for real? Or is it just something Trump's fans are shrugging at because there's no particular war fever at the moment? It's a mystery.
Trump is isolationist, i.e. acting only in his short term interest.
That has the same outward appearance as anti war in many situations but is obviously different in principle.
+1
isolationist no. acting in his own interests, certainly. he'll meddle where and when it benefits him or his family. prime examples: russia and putin; saudi arabia and the crown prince. jared kushner didn't get $1.8 billion from the saudis because of his sharp diplomatic skills.
Both, and.
We were at war every day Trump was president. Because he was too chicken to withdraw from Afghanistan on his watch.
Instead, he unilaterally surrendered to the Taliban, freed 5,000 of their terrorists, and then dumped the entire shitshow in Biden’s lap.
I don't know what the exact term is but he's also a global oligarchist, in that he sees Europe as Putin's domain, Asia as Xi's, the western hemisphere as America's, with each one tacitly unable to meddle in the other's domain.
Donald Trump, can't get enough microphone,
https://v.redd.it/w5golr7hpeyd1
Haven't seen anyone do that to a microphone since Lux Interior died.
Only been out of bed two minutes and already a spit take.
Nice. I saw them at Hammerjacks in Baltimore, he was dressed in wedding lingerie, white patent spike heels, and a pearl choker.
I saw them on New Year's Eve in Chicago but I cannot remember the year, sometime in the early 80s.
The most memorable of the most blotto nights of my life.
"By itself this quote is misleading, but it's getting all the attention anyway." Meaning it's all over the centrist blogs, or wherever else Kevin happens to live. I'm not convinced it's in the least misleading anyway, and it very much should be shocking. Still, the Times has Harris calling it "disqualifying," but way, way deep in the news section, while it leads with the usual, such as Dems losing the middle class.
As for what Trump believes, hard to say. He's just old, impulsive, and racist, and this week's racism takes him back to pro-fascist isolationism before WWII, so it's not as if it's new. But then next week he could bomb those he deems his enemies, and Republicans will applaud that, too.
" pro-fascist isolationism before WWII, "
Guesing had FDR been T, Japan and Germany would be huge countries, but hey- no WWII. No worries about a Pearl harbor attack. T would have given up Oceania long before.
On a world, foreign policy level, I guess the Felon's feelings about war are the big story. I'm still hung up, though, on the really disgusting and awful image, which turns him on so much, of shooting Lynn Cheney's face to bloody bits.
Her FACE. Not a clean, merciful kill via chest shots. He wants to see her FACE mutilated. He wants to see a non-supporter killed, horrifically. And this also turns on his worshipping minions, men and women both.
I would call that sick.
👍👍👍👍👍
There probably will in fact be fewer conflicts if T wins. Not much democracy but fewer wars. World peace at last- as they now enjoy in Russia, China and NK.
….Until China or Russia decide it would be useful to sink the US into a quagmire, at which point they’ll give him a couple dozen hotel contracts and suddenly the US vitally needs to attack Venezuela…
🎯
As Kurds would testify to, give him a couple of Trump hotels and he’s all yours
At this juncture in human history, *everyone* ought to be anti-war.
There was a time, when the economy was overwhelmingly based on agriculture, when a war to conquer someone else's agricultural land could be very profitable if you won. THOSE DAYS ARE OVER. In modern economies, wars are entirely an economic loser even if you do win. They just destroy people and capital, and land gains aren't worth nearly enough to make that up.
War nowadays is a negative-sum game, massively so, and the only way to win is to not play. It's taken a while for people to realize that (if they'd figured it out sooner there would have been no World Wars) and some fools like Vladimir Putin still haven't figured it out, but as time wears on more and more people are seeing war for what it now is: 100% a bad idea.
I think this is a category error. Trump does not have principles, he has reflexes. He has an anti-war reflex--not because he is afraid of sacrificing other people's lives but because he picked it up during the Bush years. Biden, by contrast is cautious about war as you say on an intellectual level.
Reflexes however can change. If any foreign leader does something he takes personal his reflex will change and he will be as gang-ho as he alleges Liz Cheney to be or rather more so.
To put it another way: Trump is bullshitting on every issue he says something about. He is never not bullshitting. Most of the time it is projection (rule of thumb about Trump: If he accuses you of sleeping with his wife that means he is sleeping with your spouse or at least wanting to).
During the Trump years, I had the impression that he wanted to start wars but the military brass refused to let him, because they were terrified of starting a new conflict with such an unfit and unstable commander in chief. It was one thing to continue wars that started before Trump, because the military could just continue their existing operations without his input. A new conflict would have involved his active engagement and he would have given them a ton of stupid, bad, counterproductive and perhaps even illegal orders. So anytime he started bloviating about attacking somebody, the deep state and the military brass gave him the runaround.
I don't think so. Just about all the wars supported by the US in my lifetime have been the US intervening to protect a vulnerable (possibly democratic) weaker population against a powerful autocrat: Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Kuwait, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq, Ukraine.... (I'm not defending these, just noting the nominal motivation) I don't know that Trump would have taken on any of these, but because he identifies in each case with the oppressor, not the oppressed.
He doesn't stand up for Ukraine, just like he has nothing to say about Tibet or Taiwan, while praising Xi. He is all for bombing Gaza, killing Iranians, Syrians, etc etc. It is easier to win the conflict when you side with the bully.
He sees no reason to stand up for human rights or democracy, which is at the heart of his reasoning, if you can call it that.
Trump called Liz Cheney a war hawk to own the libs, and it is effective because Harris campaigns with this war supporter and austerity proponent. Trump is not against war, as long as that war is not against a peer combatant. Trump threatened to bomb Iran, broke the accord limiting nuclear weapons development, imposed more sanctions, and murdered Soleimani.
You are confusing what used to be a political party with a relatively consistent set of beliefs with a Cult of Personality, which believes whatever its leader chooses to believe on any given day.
Today, because Trump is angry with Liz Cheney, the cult is against war and hates those who send American troops to die. Tomorrow, if Trump decides to send American troops to subdue Ukraine, the cult will be baying for the blood of his new enemy.
let's not forget that trump loosened the constraints for drone strikes put in place by the obama administration and also made secret the number of civilian casualties the strikes caused. the rate of strikes tripled under trump compared with his predecessor. a peacenik he ain't.
This, exactly.
He seems perfectly willing to deploy troops against American citizens on American soil but he doesn't want to confront other countries.
More than "willing".
For him shooting citizen is "being strong", and that is what he wants to do.
But he probably do it using the "immigrant militia" that they are going to create, because it will be totally Trump-loyal.
Complete bullshit. This Trump statement serves one purpose: to con gullible lefties who are already upset about Gaza to make the jump to Trump.
"OMG, he's anti-war, like ME!"
I too hated the Iraq invasion and thought GWB and Dick Cheney committed war crimes. But this is an obvious con by Trump, who would toss Eric off a building if he felt it would make him richer.
How come I can see it? Is everyone this gullible?
It's almost as if most Rebublican voters were easily-led sheep for the past 40ish years.
So I watched the Tucker 'Demon' admission earlier.
He claims he got scratched in bed by a demon while his wife and dogs slept in the bed with him.
And he expect us to believe this? Did he do this to try and right some wrong with his wife? Maybe he and some of his macho buddies had a little rough fun with some daddy spanking?
Unfuckingbeliveable.
Really what's happening here is simply that taking this position at this time works against American interests.
He causes more harm this way than if he supported almost any war anywhere, and can pretend he's not responsible for it.
He might also think it gives him an angle with defense contractors trying to bid up his bribes, because this way they'll need him more than he needs them.
How many times do I have to say that the Republican Party of Trump is not the Republican Party of Bush?
And yet Kevin (and his sycophants) STILL want to pretend that it's always 2003 and you should analyze things that way.
There's something seriously broken here! This is not even an issue of party politics. I'm not telling you to love Trump or love the New Republicans; I'm simply telling you to fscking update your stereotypes.
None of this is a surprise. Murray Rothbard (who I guess is another demonic figure in Jabberwocking circles) predicted this 30 years ago:
"
And so the proper strategy for the right wing must be what we can call "right-wing populism": exciting, dynamic, tough, and confrontational, rousing and inspiring not only the exploited masses, but the often-shell- shocked right-wing intellectual cadre as well. And in this era where the intellectual and media elites are all establishment liberal-conservatives, all in a deep sense one variety or another of social democrat, all bitterly hostile to a genuine Right, we need a dynamic, charismatic leader who has the ability to short-circuit the media elites, and to reach and rouse the masses directly. We need a leadership that can reach the masses and cut through
the crippling and distorting hermeneutical fog spread by the media elites.
"
As discussed in https://thebaffler.com/latest/the-forgotten-man-ganz
You don't have to like or agree with this! You just have to open your fscking eyes to see that it is what ACTUALLY happened, and that it is not a story of Republican elites as of Rockefeller, or Reagan, or either Bush, still being in control!!!
Trump reflects two trends.
One is the replacement of Aristocracy with Celebrity, which essentially began with Oscar Wilde, but really kicked in after WW1. Bush 1, even Bush II, were conceptually Aristocrats, Trump is clearly Celebrity. This trend has driven the vulgarization of American society, and Trump is just one minor element of that, certainly not a cause. Want to reverse the vulgarization? That means admitting you prioritize Aristocracy over Celebrity, and that's a no-no on all of the left and much of the right...
Second is revolt against the elites. The Dems are clearly NOW the party of the elites, this started happening in the 60s ("Radical Chic" & "Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers") and was obvious by the 90s (hence blue-collar Republicans). But Bush's Republican Party (I and II) only wanted your non-elite vote, it certainly didn't want your opinions and suggestions. This was never going to be stable, and so, inevitably it collapsed. First as the Tea Party movement, secondly as a politician stepped up who actually understood what the Tea Party movement meant, as opposed to viewing it as an irritation.
And so here we are. The CURRENT Republican Party, like all parties, is a coalition. But the most important elements of the coalition are not those elements that were most prominent in 2000, or 2004, and so are not what you pretend them to be.
"The Dems are clearly NOW the party of the elites”
Submits facts not in evidence
As former Ron Paul supporter and someone who believes (and still believes a little bit) in "antiwar" I can tell you whether MAGA Republicans fit this label or not. But before I do, you must understand this paragraph from Austin Bramwell's indictment of the conservative "movement" way back from 2006 (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/good-bye-to-all-that/) and is still very relevant even today, for it explains why the MAGAites went from being George Bush II "flight lieutenant" fans to being pro-Trump "antiwar" supporters.
...conservatism has a hierarchical structure. Like Orwell’s “Inner Party,” those at the top of the movement have almost perfect freedom to decide what opinions count as official conservatism. The Iraq War furnishes a telling example. In the run-up to the invasion, leading conservatives announced that conservatism now meant spreading global democratic revolution. This forthright radicalism—this embrace of the sanative powers of violence—became quickly accepted as the ineluctable meaning of conservatism in foreign policy. Those who dissented risked ostracism and harsh rebuke. Had conservative leaders instead argued that global democratic revolution would not cure our woes but increase them, the rest of the movement would have accepted this position no less quickly. Millions of conservative epigones believe nothing less than what the movement's established organs tell them to believe. Rarely does a man recognize, like Winston Smith, his own ideology as such."
In other words if Sean Hannity believes Trump is "antiwar" then so do all his fans and millions of others connected to this network. And if Trump in his second term wants to bomb Mexico as he has talked about doing, then they will support that as well whole-heartily for the very same reasons. Millions of conservative epigones believe nothing less than what the movement's established organs tell them to believe. Rarely does a man recognize, like Winston Smith, his own ideology as such. If Trump says its good, it's good. End of discussion.
The sad thing is back 2016, Trump had adopted much of the rhetoric that Ron Paul had campaign on in 2008 and 2012. He said the war in Iraq was a failure and based on a lie. He attacked John McCain for crying out loud! But he faced none of the blowback, none of the catcalls and boos and attacks from the "movement" organs of opinions and influencers. In the end, Paul created a small movement but could not take over the GOP while Trump did saying the same things. Why?
Part of the reason, I believe, is that Paul's rhetoric probably did have some affect on Republican voters, especially in the wake of continued defeats nationally, and by 2016 they were ready to listen to such a critique of U.S. foreign policy. Unfortunately his son Rand refused to engage in this critique and ultimately ran away from it because he had been convinced he had to join with the establishment to win the nomination instead of fighting it. Thus, instead trying to dump Mitch McConell in 2014 GOP U.S. Primary in Kentucky, he supported him in exchange for his endorsement of his Presidential campaign. This gross miscalculation of political scene basically wrecked Rand's political career nationally and opened the door for Trump, a non-politician (his biggest selling point) selling what had been a subversive thought in the GOP. But because he's selling it, and he's winning GOP primaries, it becomes dogma within the party because he's taken control of it.
Are they "antiwar"? Some want to believe they are and certainly having the Cheney's and other old neocons supporting Harris helps in that regard. But they've not been faced with a 9-11 like situation. When it came to the war with ISIS which they inherited, they were hardly "antiwar" and if some attack was made on U.S. soil or U.S. interests, they would be screaming "bombs away" just like anyone else as Bramwell points out:
"After 9/11, neoconservatives championed any war that we waged in reaction. In this, they were acting opportunistically but not hypocritically: in their view, 9/11 is what happens when the United States suffers any challenges to its authority. The rest of the movement knew only that it wanted a ruthless response. Neoconservatism just happened to provide a convenient ideological infrastructure with which to justify metonymic revenge against some Muslim Arab or other. Before 9/11, the movement was praising modesty in foreign affairs; after 9/11, it did not so much embrace neoconservatism as blunder into it by accident.
The "conservative movement" was basically Orwell's INGSOC well before 9-11 and unfortunately will be long after Trump departs the scene because of its inherent nature. There really is no "movement", not anymore. It's group of people that like a school of fish follows where it wants to go and for the past decade it has gone to Trump. It will go to someone else afterwards for this reason as Bramwell points out:
"To prove his loyalty to the emperor, everyone must compliment him on his new clothes. The most loyal believe that the emperor is wearing clothes to begin with."
As was true with Bush II, so with Trump regardless of what they "believe". That's useless. They believe in the man, in their own tribe who the man protects and leads that tribe, not in ideas. They could care less about ideas as I and many others have discovered and thus no longer partake in it. And once Trump passes, like Bush II, this is what will happen:
"hope in vain (all those) who expect conservatives to take responsibility for the actual consequences of their actions. Conservatives have no use for the ethic of responsibility. They seek only to “see to it that the flame of pure intention is not quelched.”