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.
Gotta admit, George looks pretty good in that pic.
Unlike Dukakis who looked really bad, wearing a helmet in a tank? If my memory serves me right.
Let's just say the press reacted very differently between the two photos.
He looked like a cartoon gopher popping out of the ground; like his eyes had to adjust to the light and concerned because he couldn't see what was around him yet.
I fear where Trump's mentality would lead him should he win. I agree he is averse to conventional wars, where lots of US troops get to fight in foreign countries. But he is also a man who believes in using violence to punish enemies. That suggests he would be actively hostile to perceived enemies, but do it in ways that didn't involve the use of US troops. Bombs and missiles, in other words.
Trouble is, the only bombs and missiles that would be an effective deterrent against Trump's bête noire, China, are of the nuclear variety. And I have no trouble imagining him responding to (say) China sinking a US navy ship trying to break a blockade of Taiwan by ordering a nuclear strike on a Chinese navy base.
Unless he backs that strike up with a simultaneous counter-force Hail Mary against China's silos, the US will look like it has a bad case of acne from space.
" But he is also a man who believes in using violence to punish enemies."
And the main enemeies he sees are Americans. He will be too busy "being strong", i.e. using violence against political "enemies" , to bother about China and Taiwan.
I don't agree. He's obsessed with punishing China and Iran. Ordering the murder of Soleimani on Iraqi soil was recklessly irresponsible; it's no surprise Iranian hit squads are reportedly in the US looking to assassinate him and/or members of his administration. Should his economic plans cause the disastrous consequences most people expect, focusing attention on foreign wars would be a predictable move. It's been a popular tactic for governments in trouble for centuries.
You really believe he is not going to go after local "enemies" first?
I'm sure he'd manage to get around to both over four years. He'd be quite incapable of ignoring an action by another country which the media said made him look "weak".
In the case Taiwan he will just reach an agreement with Xi, and tell his supporters that it s the best and most beautiful deal ever.
Anyway, I would expect Americans to worry more about what Trump would do to local "enemies" than how he deals with Taiwan.
Yet one more sign that what once was a political party is now a cult. Identifying with the leader takes precedence over anything else, and that requires assent to whatever the leader says.
"We have always been at war with Eastasia."
All that matters is fealty to the
VolkTribe and theFührerLeader.(Republicans will become VERY UPSET if you remind them of this ...)
I agree. At this point the MAGA crowd will cheer and agree with whatever random thing comes out of Trump's mouth. They are not anti-war, they are pro-Trump, and to them that means mindlessly accepting everything he says.
+1
It went from being like a cult to being a cult. In a fairly short amount of time.
My crazy aunt thinks he talks to god. (That was during the summer, I haven't seen her or heard of her since.)
But now, I'm guessing God talks through him. They worship and adore him.
It really disgusting and creepy.
It's an expression of the natural xenophobia and isolationism of social conservatives.
It's part of the reason he's such a gift for foreign dictatorships and bad actors, they know he'll never react in a way that could really threaten them, and if he starts complaining about something he'll be easily bought off.
He would, though, throw in massively against some helpless victim, like a tiny island nation in the Caribbean, or Panama.
He already did.
He abandoned Puerto Rico. He did the same thing with wildfires out west.
He has already massively hurt helpless victims who are US citizens.
“ Since the 1960s and ’70s, when mushrooms and LSD were considered inseparable from the anti-war movement and hippie culture, psychedelic drugs have been culturally associated with the American left. But in this election cycle, many prominent people who’ve expressed support for or have personally used psychedelics, such as Kennedy and Elon Musk, have rallied behind Trump, the hard-right candidate.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2024/11/psychedelics-maga-kennedy-trump/680479/
I have always suspected that many Trump supporters were old hippies.
In their own way, hippies were classical Libertarians.
Libertine Libertarians. And it was FUN!
It was a very sexist and patriarchal culture. Girlfriends were referred to as “my old lady” and were expected to tend to the home and children. I think the 70’s era feminist movement was a reaction to hippie culture. Distrust of government was also a feature of the times and I remember hearing people talk about what was needed was a really rich person in charge who couldn’t be corrupted by money because he was already rich. When talking about the Middle East I remember people saying “bomb them and take their oil”. But at the same time saying “give peace a chance”. So a lot of Trump stuff feels really familiar to me. And I think a lot of people look back on those times with rose colored glasses.
Trump isn't anti-war. He isn't anti- or for- anything, except himself. He's entirely transactional. If he sees a net benefit to himself, he'll do it. He can't fathom why soldiers would put themselves in harm's way for any purpose other than selfishness. His only other motivation is vindictiveness. That's it. That's who he is.
+1
donnie has been like this since day one. No accountability, so far. I'd be happy to wield a gun focused on his forehead. (Actually, were our justice system to allow it, I would love to take out his knee and let him experience the complications associated with such a handicap).
I do not share this cruel desire, as much as I loathe that empty husk of a human.
"Trump isn't anti-war."
Agree. In 2016 everybody was against the debacle of the Iraq War but Trump tried to claim he was against the war before the invasion and you'll be surprised to learn he lied about that. (Fact check here.)
Trump may be against US support for Ukraine, a war that doesn't involve our troops anyway, but he did think that the invasion was a "genius" and "savvy" move by Putin. The one place Trump seems ready and willing to commit US troops is against people here in the US. That's not very "anti-war" of him at all.
"Putin's puppet" was and still is the best way to understand Trump.
+1
When the Great Leader Kim Jong-il, dammit, Diaper Donnie Trump says something, the awesomeness of his every utterance sweeps over his great people, like a wave in the ocean of greatness, and the people spontaneously burst into cheers from the overwhelming feelings of love and appreciation for his otherworldly magnitude.
I don't see it as a mystery; I see it as one more case of the adage "Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line"
That, indeed, is the problem.
I always got the sense that he knew that dead soldiers would be blamed on him in a way that he couldn't talk his way out of. He also sent in Special Operations to Yemen less than a month into office and at least 1 or 2 died. I always thought he had grasped that it was his fault, even if he wouldn't admit it. Inwardly, he's a coward afraid of responsibility, so he became shy about anything but bombing.
donnie is, indeed, a coward. No ifs, ands or buts about it.
Joe Biden feels much the same way, though, unlike Trump, probably more on an intellectual level than a gut level.
No. That’s not right at all. Joe Biden is a jackass who likes to kill Muslims.
Oct. 30, 2024
U.S. airstrikes hit several Islamic State camps in the Syrian desert on Monday, killing up to 35 of the group’s operatives, the United States Central Command said in a statement on Wednesday. The strikes targeted multiple senior leaders in the early evening, the statement said, and there were no known civilian casualties. U.S. officials did not immediately respond to an inquiry about the identities of the officials targeted.
I despise Muslims too (and all religious whack jobs) but Joe Biden kills them. Every fucking day!
He’s the assassin in chief. I’m Hoping he diverts a bomb to Mara lago next week. Then all is forgiven.
Weird. There have been fewer strikes and drone assaults and zero assassinations under Biden (not to mention fewer soldiers killed) than under Trump.
So what do you do?
Lie about it.
And you were the one cheering the murderer who shot a pedestrian who compained about being threatened by a car in a crosswalk.
Gross.
We Republicans never wanted to go to war with Eastasia.
Most Republicans are authoritarians at heart. They just follow their leader, whatever he does. How they identify the person they support as leader is hard to understand, but if Trump is their leader, they will cheer anything he says and say whatever it takes to rationalize it.
Bush was their leader back then, but Trump is their leader now, and they don't care if he badmouths their former leader. They wouldn't care if he badmouthed Reagan either.
No, Republicans have not become anti-war. Their own allegiance has just shifted from the US to their own White Christian tribe. It's in some ways a resurgence of the Confederacy, and if it came to a replay of the Civil War they would support it.
Trump is not a magician or a hypnotist, he has just made himself leader of this tribe by telling them what they want to hear. People don't follow Trump because they believe what he says - other than reinforcement of their bigotry - they believe what he says, or claim to, because he is the leader of the tribe.
What would Trump do if it really came down to a major clash, with China, say? He has said he would protect Taiwan - how would he do that if not by force? He may not like war himself, but if he needed to go to war to protect his position he would probably do it. What happens would also depend on his advisors and generals.
Not so by the way, what does Vance think about foreign policy and prospects for war? His views and actions may be important before too long if Trump wins - Trump won't live forever.
He wouldn't do much. Especially if China makes him a deal to do exactly that. He'd sell out Ukrain in a similiar fashion. The great negotiator will make himself richer and sacrifice our allies in the process.
Skept, you said:
"His views and actions may be important before too long if Trump wins - Trump won't live forever."
The problem isn't his life expectancy.
It's how long before his brain is completely gone
It's obvious that his brain is not functioning like it was in his previous administration - and he's getting a pass from his followers AND the press
But boy did they use that as a hammer against Biden.
There is something very VERY wrong with Trumps thinking.
"He has said he would protect Taiwan - how would he do that if not by force?"
Mr. Macho Macho Strike-a-Pose would trade any such vow in a New York minute for a name-licensing deal on a hotel in Beijing, preferably in sight of Tienanmen Square. To the cheers and adulation of his partisan followers. Trump Glorious Unity Tower, something like that.
Republicans are pro or anti whatever Trump is pro or anti. This will change like the direction of a weathervane in a thunderstorm based on the whims of an idiot.
Cleek's Law.
Yes, exactly this. There's no principle involved; they just like it when Trump calls other people stupid.
No.
They've become bullies who think nobody will stand up to them and that this, somehow, is antiwar.
Trump's latest round of commercials are effective. Complete BS--but better than Harris's.
They should hit him with the jump in fentanyl under his watch because he didn't secure the border or build the wall--and he's block efforts fixing the border now to make it a campaign issue.
Typical MSM getting it wrong. What Trump actually said:
"Nein barrels shooting at her, okay?"
Der Führer ist nicht gewalttätig.
/S
Reminds me of an old joke. What's Hitlers favorite number? NEIN!
I don't think Trump would have problems using troops at home.
He was also going to invade Venezuela--forgot why he didn't...
https://www.wired.com/story/trump-cia-venezuela-maduro-regime-change-plot/
"I still wonder at the willingness of the Republican rank and file to go along with this."
So do I, and thanks for saying this.
Anyone voting for Trump as the anti-war candidate who opposed John Kerry for not being pro-war enough... well, I guess they owe Kerry an explanation.
If the first casualty of war is truth, Trump might as well already be at war, as the truth is dead in MAGA world.
Well the Hamas Israel war is clearly Trump’s doing as he decided to ignore the Palestinians and they decided not to be ignored.
But I get it that your brain has to be above lizard level to understand that.
As well as directly encouraging Israel to steal more of the occupied West Bank
Adulation of trump is all about the feels in the moment. Memory, and adherence to consistent principles, just get in the way. Hence a memory span longer than a fruit fly's is nothing but a buzzkill, and the cult is self-selected against it.
One of the things dictators do is to make people understand they have no principles by making them turn on a dime.Just let me think for you.
"I don't think Trump is bullshitting about this. He truly is anti-war."
I think this is terribly mistaken. Several points:
1) His animus against Liz Cheney obviously has nothing to do with foreign policy, nor does hers' against him. He wishes to rule as an autocrat and she (whatever her faults may be in other respects) does not wish to cede the presidency to an autocrat. I don't think their rivalry is any more complicated than that.
2) Someone who is actually "anti-war" would not suggest, as Trump again does here and has done many times before, that foreign wars are justified if they result in seizing control of the invaded country's natural resources. On the evidence of his own words, he is not against war, but rather against war that fails to result in straightforward national plunder, on the late 19th century imperial model.
3) When Trump actually makes policy suggestions about what to do in the Middle East, these invariably involve massive escalation of armed conflict, rather than deescalation. He has, for example, happily encouraged Netanyahu to "finish the job" in Gaza. You can say this is technically "anti-war" in the sense that he wants Israel, rather than the US directly, to carry out this ethnic cleansing, but that's stretching the notion of "anti-war" to the point of absurdity. Similarly, he blames Joe Biden for exiting Afghanistan--even he (Trump) set the plan in motion. Which leads to the main point:
4) It is, in general, folly to attribute *any* coherent policy views to Donald Trump. His stance on any actual overseas conflict is likely to depend entirely on the political exigencies of the moment--in particular, alignment with the interests of his key autocratic & kleptocratic allies (good luck Ukraine!). By contrast:
5) The one and only consistent factor in his public persona, since he descended the golden escalator, has been his more-or-less naked vilification of dark skinned immigrants. He presents himself as the only public figure who can save us from these hordes--precisely because he alone is willing to use arbitrary, extra-legal violence against them, and their defenders. You can call this technically "anti-war" as well, in the sense that his expressed blood lust is typically (though not always) confined to the domestic scene. But, here again, the definition tends towards parody.
+1 through 5
It's obvious.
Putin's side is the pro-war side.
Took a while for someone to point out the flaws of assuming Trump was anti-war. Hat's off to Amil Eoj.
You know, the guy also claims the reason why we had peace during his administration was because people think he's crazy and unpredictable. That defeats the purpose of claiming to be anti-war, doncha think?
And seriously, all he's doing is talking out of his ass as the GOAT Monday Morning Quarterback who knew exactly what the opposing team was going to do on defense.
You gotta stop believing his bullshit, KD. He's not anti-war, he's the GOAT Monday Morning Quarterback in history.
Back in the 2000 election, W ran on being anti-war. At the time people were nervous about Clinton's choice to bomb sites (I was studying abroad in Europe in 1998, and there was a lot of fear among fellow travelers a war would start...and a lot if anger among the Eurpean students about it).
In that election W was so perceived as anti-war he was outright asked what past US conflicts he would have not engaged in. Of course he couldn't think of any, but Bush 2 as anti-war was still an advertised position of his. And people believed it.
Remember how long that lasted?
Trump is not anti-war. He just knows voters don't like the idea of war when things are relatively peaceful. The isolationist tendency is strong.
Given Trump's use of drones while in office and his response to wars in Ukraine and Israel, it's clear he's just fine with war.
Trump and his acolytes are very busy throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks. When he notices something that does stick he immediately doubles the amount of crap on the wall, erroneously thinking that it will double the support for that crap.
He's playing his supporters and playing ON their fears and insecurities. His bullying is a farce and people who wield a bit of real power are not cowering to him.
His bravado is dangerously misplaced
I guess we won't have to worry about losing and troops in Lebanon.