I Was For it before I Was Against it; But We Shouldn't Have Ended it

On Iraq, Trump is using his usual strategy. To every question the answer is yes, no, and maybe so. The clear strategy is that people will give up even trying to figure it out and vote Trump because the media keeps overhyping a minor email scandal as even Chris Cillizza's Washington Post is now calling Emailgate.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/09/chris-cillizza-is-not-going-to-like-this.html

It would be funny if we are not close to election a crypto fascist over this overhyped email story. I don't say crypto fascist lightly either. At the very least we see that Trump admires Putin greatly, believes he really does have an 82% approval rating, and Mike Pence is fully on board now. No surprise at all: Corey Lewandowski thinks Putin is pretty keen as well. 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/corey-lewandowski-trump-putin-stronger-227934

As Eli Stokel says, Trump employs a 'cut and paste' policy. 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-policy-portfolio-227919

But for Trump this gives him strategic ambiguity. If he just says yes, no, maybe so, and the media keeps doing false equivalence, maybe he gets a pass. The way the media has covered this race has been malpractice. Particularly the overhyping of the emails. 

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/09/simply-beltway-media-malpractice.html

With Iraq, we see how strategic ambiguity works. Trump claims to have been against Iraq from day one-even though he wasn't-and some thoughtful Bernie or Busters, like HA Goodman baptize him 'non interventionist.'

But Trump has actually had every position on Iraq. He was for it in 2002. Against it in 2004. He says two contradictory things about ISIS:

1. ISIS's rise was caused by the Iraq War. 

2. It's rise was caused by Obama leaving Iraq. 

Get it? Going to Iraq was wrong, but getting out was equally wrong. He is the non interventionist candidate yet he declares 'I love war' and has asked foreign policy advisers repeatedly why he can't use nuclear weapons. 

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html

But he's non interventionist because 'Believe me.' The guy who is truthful or mostly truthful 14% of the time according to Politifacts. 

Now we hear that the Trump camp is trying to clarify Trump's Iraq stance. 

Donald Trump’s campaign manager tried to clarify his stance on opposing the Iraq War, saying the GOP nominee’s past statements are not a contradiction of his position because Trump was “on a radio show” while Hillary Clinton cast an official vote.

“He was a private citizen against the Iraq war,” Kellyanne Conway said Friday on CBS when asked if Trump was for or against the war. “You hear him with Howard Stern saying, yeah, I guess so. If he had been in the United States Senate he would have cast vote against the Iraq war.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-iraq-war-opposition-kellyanne-conway-227932#ixzz4JlhcI6UB

Again, clarity is never what Trump wants. But what Conway is saying here is that since Trump was a private citizen at the time he gets a pass. Only Hillary was in public life so only she is held accountable. 

Let's just elect proto fascist now because he has no experience and there is an overhyped email scandal on the loose. Only then can we start holding Trump accountable: you know, when he has the most powerful chief executive position in the world. 

Then he will act right. Becoming President will do what nothing else has been able to do: make him Presidential.

UPDATE: Zack Beauchamp documents how Trump's Iraq lies are getting even more brazen.

https://twitter.com/zackbeauchamp/status/774236749853757441

No surprise seeing Matt Lauer's performance and Chris Wallace's plan to just let Trump be Trump.