Pages

Sunday, October 18, 2015

Trump is Trolling Jeb Again: I Would Have Prevented 9/11

This is why I'm a Trump Democrat.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/why-im-trump-democrat.html

The guy just keeps me laughing and laughing. Even Hillary says he is very funny. You can't deny it. 

"Donald Trump says he's not blaming George W. Bush for 9/11, but he claims that if he'd been president, the attacks never would have happened."

"In an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," the real estate mogul said that since he's "extremely, extremely tough on immigration" the attackers wouldn't have been in position to commandeer U.S. flights."

"So there's a good chance that those people would not have been in our country," Trump said.

"He took another shot at Jeb Bush for claiming that Bush's brother, the 43rd president, kept the nation safe."

"I'm not blaming George Bush," Trump said. "But I don't want Jeb Bush to say, 'My brother kept us safe,' because September 11 was one of the worst days in the history of this country."

"It wasn't just on the Sunday shows that Trump attacked Bush over his brother's tenure."

"On Twitter, as the "Fox News Sunday" interview aired, Trump tweeted: "Jeb, why did your brother attack and destabalize the Middle East by attacking Iraq when there were no weapons of mass destruction? Bad info?"

"He also tweeted: "Jeb Bush should stop trying to defend his brother and focus on his own shortcomings and how to fix them."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/18/politics/donald-trump-jeb-bush-9-11/

Obviously like everything Trump says there's a lot of hyperbole to unpack but I'm not going to waste time unpacking it.

But despite the hyperbole there is a grain of truth here; just like that old African-American saying: Only the truth hurts.

The last thing that Jeb wants to do is have to defend his brother-politically speaking; emotionally though it's too hard for him to let go, Yet Trump is painting him into this corner again.

As Ezra Klein says, Trump has discovered Jeb's Achilles Heel and it's not his low energy.

"I don't know if Donald Trump will win the Republican nomination. But even if he doesn't, it's increasingly clear he's going to destroy Jeb Bush before he loses."

"Over the past week, Trump and Bush have been in an argument that basically boils down to the question of was George W. Bush president on 9/11/2001?"

"Trump insists that Bush was president both prior to and during the 9/11 attacks, and he was therefore at least partly responsible for the security failures that permitted the tragedy. And to Trump's credit, there is considerable evidence that George W. Bush was president on 9/11/2001."

"Jeb Bush's position is harder to parse: he argues that his brother was only responsible for what happened after 9/11, suggesting, perhaps, that someone else bore the responsibilities of the presidency on 9/11/2001. Or, to be a bit kinder to his position, he argues that the measure of as president isn't whether something like 9/11 happens, but whether it happens again."

"The result is this absolutely brutal interview CNN's Jake Tapper conducted with Bush. "If your brother and his administration bear no responsibility at all," Tapper asks, "how do you then make the jump that President Obama and Secretary Clinton are responsible for what happened at Benghazi?"

"Bush's response is almost physically painful to watch."

"Trump has a bully's instinct for finding someone else's true weaknesses. His continued crack that Bush is a "low-energy" candidate is devastating precisely because it identifies a weakness not just in Bush's campaign style, but in the nature of his campaign."

"Now Trump has pulled Bush into an even more dangerous quagmire: his brother's presidency. Trump is reminding every Republican voter that nominating Jeb Bush will mean running a general election campaign with two disadvantages. First, Republicans will have to answer for George W. Bush's failures in a way they wouldn't if they nominated Marco Rubio or Carly Fiorina or Donald Trump, and second, they'll need to somehow explain why they're holding Hillary Clinton responsible for Obama's presidency even as they don't hold George W. Bush responsible for George W. Bush's presidency."

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/18/9564267/donald-trump-jeb-bush-911

I don't know whether Bill Clinton really did tell Trump to urn or not. If he didn't then clearly God is a Clinton Democrat.

26 comments:

  1. That is funny. ***GREAT*** to hear that Trump drudged up the Iraq invation and the missing WMDs too... that's the REAL Achilles heel (in my book)!

    I did a little snooping around yesterday and found that the two uber Trumpers in the right wing media-sphere (that I'm aware of) are Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter: the belligerent blondes. Breitbart (the website) is definitely pro-Trump too as a whole. I don't know about Mark Levin. Michael Savage is in there too supposedly (on Trump's side). I think Palin's a fan as well. Rush and Hannity are not as committed, but are generally pro-Trump. Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, Erick Erickson and the a host of others (more establishment types: George Will, WSJ, Jennifer Rubin, etc) are definitely anti-Trump.

    Strange that Malkin hasn't mentioned Trump in months though... almost like she doesn't want to highlight where she diverges from the right wing sister-hood. About three or four month's back she mentioned he was an "ass clown" but nothing since that I'm aware of. Beck and Erickson are more forcefully anti-Trump (RedState was accusing Trump of being a "soft Truther" a day or two ago).

    I'm SOOO looking forward to see how Ingraham, Coulter and Breitbart (especially those three) spin Trump bringing up Iraq and WMDs. That should be GREAT fun! Ann claims she's a "single issue voter" now, so that will be especially sweet. I'm also curious about Rush and Hannity, though less so. I'm pretty sure Erickson, Beck, Rubin, etc, will beat him over the head for that, but we'll see. Definitely Cheney, Krauthammer, Rubin and Kristol will. They will have hissy fits I think. That's neo-con sacrilege!!! To bring up the missing WMDs and blame Bush for a stupid invasion is about as blasphemous as you can get with that crowd! Ha!

    The neo-con party line is that NOBODY could have possibly known that the WMDs weren't there (funny I came to that conclusion very confidently after listening to a debate on NPR about it in 2002... they must not get NPR in the white house)... My gosh, the CIA that Cheney brow beat into lying about BS evidence even said so!!! They were completely blameless for that!!

    Will Coulter and Ingraham now do 180s and kick W hard in the balls for the phony WMD nonsense and disastrous Iraq invasion??? I may get on my knees and pray to White Jesus to make it so! Hahaha

    It'll be fun to see Cheney react as well. I'm sure they'll try to drag HRC into it though... "Well, she voted for it! She was so enthusiastic with her "yes" vote that it confused W into making a wrong move!!"... what do you bet something like that will be asserted?

    I predict Malkin and Palin will keep their mouths shut.... they SOOOO want to (continue to) be a part of the "mean girl's" club. Hahaha.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even if Levin is currently an enthusiastic Trump supporter... I can't imagine him defending Trump on his criticism of Bush over missing WMDs and an unnecessary Iraq invasion disaster. I predict that's where Levin will draw the line... he even tells Coulter she's an idiot when she makes a comment that could be interpreted as anti-Jewish (like she did recently).

      Trump is like a bull in the china shop... setting one rabid right wing diarrhea mouth against another.


      I noticed that Ingraham is so enamored of Trump she even attacks where he treads lightly (on her website): she was making fun of Carson for his book tour for example.

      Britt Hume apparently got in a Twitter war with her some time back, pointing out that she had claimed that Jeb couldn't possible lose a few months back. The cat claws came out for that comment, but Hume pointed out the unambiguous nature of her previous statement... despite her desperate attempt to spin it now.

      Delete
    2. I wanted to know how right wing neocon David Horowitz was seeing Trump (I was guessing he'd hate Trump, especially now), but I could hardly find anything, except this milquetoast assessment of he and Carson:
      http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org/daniel_greenfield_how_republicans_can_win_back_conservatives

      It's not a bad article actually. The author (not Horowitz) brings up the concept an "ideological purity test" vs an "emotional purity test": and that the latter rather than the former is what the candidates are being subjected to by the base now, and that's why Trump and Carson are on top.

      Delete
    3. I guess Horowitz doesn't twitter much anymore:
      https://twitter.com/horowitz39

      Delete
    4. This is Great... Ben Carson is now saying the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War too were not necessary! Lol! His argument sounds idiotic (even though I agree with him... at least on the Iraq part of it), but he's laid down a marker now

      The neo-cons must be pooping their pants right now: the #1 and #2 GOP candidates are saying the war they lied us into wasn't necessary. Carson is saying that Saddam wasn't a threat!!! ... I LOVE it!

      Delete
    5. Actually just a few days ago Coulter was defending the Iraq invasion in her "debate" with TYT host (Cenk is it?). She was saying "But Sadam's regime was ***RAPING*** women, in front of their husbands!!! We HAD to invade... but never again (because someone like Obama could get elected and f*ck up all the great stuff Bush did). In the same situation in the future, no boots on the ground: we should only nuke them." Yes, in the future we need to nuke the women before they get raped!

      Will she defend Trump on this??? That would mean a 180 degree reversal for her in less than 1 week.

      And of course I'm SUPER curious where Ted Cruz will come down on this.

      Rubio too. What if the top 5 candidates all shit on Bush's disaster in Iraq? The neocons will doubly or triply shit themselves. Jennifer Rubin will go ape shit. I really really hope that happens.

      Then the press needs to ask each one: "So Obama was right about the Iraq War vote then???"

      Delete
    6. Not a peep about Trump's quip about missing WMDs and Bush's Iraq War disaster in Mark Levin's twitter feed!!

      WTF? (lots of pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian stuff, but nothing on that? I'm surprised)

      Delete
    7. Regarding Breitbart they already are very supportive of Trump's 9/11 comments.

      http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/18/flashback-jeb-bush-admitted-leaky-immigration-led-911/

      Trump has the out with the base as making W's failure about being soft on immigration-which is also his big knock on Jeb.

      I saw that RS piece about him being a 'Soft Truther'-even the comments though were mixed. Some agreed but a lot just saw it as more of the establishment desire to bring down Trump.

      I think this is great politically for Trump and terrible for Jeb. The longer he has to defend his brother the worst it gets for him.

      Delete
    8. I don't think Trump loses Coulter or anyone else. As you said her single issue now is immigration-and Trump is claiming that W being soft on immigration is what made 9/11 happen.

      It's a win-win for him and a lose-lose for Jeb.

      If I were an anti Jeb Super PAC-if I had the money I'd already be one-I'd actually have an ad that just kept repeating Jeb's words over and over again 'He kept us safe' , 'He kept us safe' 'He kept us safe'

      With the emphasis on the word safe. Then you'd synchronize Jeb's own words with some images. I guess footage of the buildings being hit on 9/11 would be ovedone-maybe some would feel that is disrespectful to the victims and their families-though I could see Trump doing an ad like that.

      But you could have other images of the lost soldiers in Iraq after no WMDs are found and even footage of Katrina and Kayne West declaring 'W cares nothing for black people'

      We could discuss the best images but you have to replay that 'He kept us safe' line as often as possible. It is political gold for the opposition.

      See if Trump uses it. Maybe he'll go over that line on using the actual 9/11 attacks!

      Delete
    9. "Trump has the out with the base as making W's failure about being soft on immigration-which is also his big knock on Jeb. "

      Yes, that's why I want somebody to keep bringing up the WMD comments. That's not about 9/11 so much as the Iraq invasion. I want to see the base experience some cognitive dissonance about that... either admit the war was a stupid idea based on incompetence or a lie (and implicitly admit that years of Bush admin apologetics by the right wing media were just so much BS), or have to part ways with Trump on that. I really hope it's the former, ... or rather that it's a mixed bag: some doing one thing and some doing another. Maximum strife and chaos is the best outcome I think.

      Delete
    10. See I never expect the base to learn anything. LOL. They won't notice their own dissonance.

      I agree WMD is more substantive but my point here is more political effects than anything. For Jeb to be pushed into saying 'He kept us safe' is a disaster for him.

      The specifics of 9/11 and WMD are less important for me here than simply making him defend a guy who most Americans still remember as a disastrous President.

      Delete
    11. Re: base not learning anything: That gets to the idea of an "emotional purity test" rather than an "ideological purity test" in that Horowitz post.

      Bleeding heart reactionaries: We have to nuke the women before they are raped.

      I agree with Paul Bloom: I'm against empathy too. It has a dark side: a tool for demagogues and sadists.

      I remember when Rush (decades ago) used to spout off about how the Dems and Libs were all about feelings instead of rationality. There's no immunity from that crap on the right though, as the emoactionaries are demonstrating.

      Delete
  2. O/T: OK, this one surprised me. I left a snarky comment on Sumner's blog, and all I got from him as a response was "touche." I thought you might enjoy:
    http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=30920#comment-403899

    ReplyDelete
  3. Erick Erickson himself sounds like he's warming up slightly to a Trump nomination, but there's still plenty of Trump criticism on RedState. One commenter accused Trump of contracting the liberal disease "Bush derangement syndrome." Lol.

    Does Trump have Bush Derangement Syndrome or do Bush's supporters? Sounds like a post. ;^D

    That sounds like a good question to ask Hannity, Rush, Coulter, etc, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In fact Erick himself wrote a piece asking in the title "What if Jeb just walked away?"

      Rather than address Trump's 9/11 comments. Your can alsomost hear how this pains him. He's almost pleading "just walk away Jeb, please. Then we won't have Trump attack your brand. Then we won't have to suffer cognitive dissonance. Then we won't be put in this awkward position... The position of a squish trying to defuse the Lynch mob, rather than the bold leader spurring the angry mob forward!"

      When Erickson did invited Trump he was amazed at the outpouring of anger from the mob directed at him. He wrote a piece bemoaning this anger, and showcasing examples of the worst of it. I think he felt like a squish whining about anger. He and his ilk aren't naturally in that position. They see the angry mob and they do their best to run to get out in front of it. They didn't get in this business to talk people out of their anger and delusions!

      Delete
    2. "disinvited" not "did invited"

      Delete
    3. Levin won''t agree about WMD but he may agree about soft immigration policy bringing along 9/11

      Delete
  4. Rubin, on queue, attacks Carson (over whom she'd prefer HRC), Trump (she'd prefer Obama), and Cruz this morning on foreign policy. She's never been shy about such attacks though. Who will follow her? Will Erickson keep his lips sealed and continue to wish this all away? Can ingraham just ignore it?

    If the press wants ratings they won't let this bone go anytime soon.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am writing a post right now that talks about your point about the reactions of the establishment vs. the Tea Party on this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As per my new comment above, the ideal outcome (IMO) is to split the far right into two camps. And I mean the anti-establishment far right. We know who the establishment is going to support.

      Delete
    2. Here's a post at Limbaugh's site a month ago... looks like he'll have to modify the title now:
      http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/09/11/college_students_blame_bush_for_9_11

      Delete
    3. Here's some of that sweet sweet strife and chaos I'm looking for:

      "But when Graham told Bush that his brother “did keep us safe, no matter what anybody says” — a reference to Trump recently blaming George W. Bush for 9/11 happening on his watch — it received perhaps the loudest standing ovation of the day."

      Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/republicans-cruz-carson-texas-baptist-church-2016-214912#ixzz3p26y5SOJ

      Republicans defended Bush's bad decision to invade Iraq for six+ years... I doubt they can all turn on a dime now and get behind Trump on this.

      But some definitely WILL get behind trump and end up trashing W and his supporters. What could be better?

      I think you're right: Coulter, Ingraham and Breibart will stick w/ Trump on this.

      Delete
    4. What I care about most is splitting is the establishment and the base. Splitting the base might even help the establishment which is not what is needed to bring down the party.

      I don't think anyone is mad at Trump except the establishment.

      Delete
    5. I don't think either side of a split base will want to associate with the establishment. The more pieces the better I say.

      Delete
  6. I just saw a Coulter tweet where she said Trump was right-those people shouldnt have been in the country.

    ReplyDelete