I thought the Iraq War was a terrible idea yet every politician including Hillary Clinton voted to go to War. Trump however was publicly and clearly against the war. It seems much of how Trump said it would play out did, when ISIS and Al-Queda who are worse than Saddam now run rampant. I'm wondering how the Anti-War crowd will feel about that as i'm fiscally conservative but anti-war.
There is not really any pre-war record of where Trump stood. He certainly was critical after the invasion.
Trump claims to believe whatever helps him achieve his goal at the time. It doesn't really matter that he opposed the iraq war because we don't know if his opposition to it is genuine. And that's the big problem with him. Like Hillary, he'll say/do anything to win and then reveal his true intentions. Trump is certainly not anti-war btw, he just disagrees with the choice of country to attack. He won't go to war with Iran because he has significant business relationships with proxies of the current Iranian government. There are no anti-war candidates - including Bernie - in this election.
You're wondering how the anti-war crowd feels about the war not turning out well, or the fact that you're a fiscal conservative? Why does being a fiscal conservative contradict your being against the war, and why would that caused you to be confused about how the anti-war crowd would feel about the war going badly, or about how the anti-war crowd would feel about you being a fiscal conservative?
Clinton voted for the war and frankly her judgement on foreign affairs is suspect. Trump may have been against the war but no candidate in recent history has been as political expedient as this guy. He's tapped into the ugly underbelly of America and if he becomes President then we'll be the laughingstock of the world and I'd be extremely worried about what hideous things he'd try to do as President. So it's an easy choice to go with Clinton, though certainly not a happy choice.
Really? Obama's drone strikes say otherwise...... BTW....Obama was against the war from the get go. He beat Hillary over the head with that in '08 and it had a big effect.
Yeah, those people are the types of wingnuts that don't believe in evolution and use snowballs as proof that climate change doesn't exist so no biggie.
Clinton is probably to the right of Obama on foreign affairs. At least that's what is coming out of her mouth. Trump foreign affairs consists of respect and admiration for Putin and to defeat China, the real US enemy. And something alone the line of I have no ideas what I'm doing but trust me, I got it what it takes.
Trump's foreign policy is nothing more than vague platitudes. It's k though because the GOP base has hard ons for vague platitudes. "JESUS! MAKE AMERICA STRONG AGAIN! DESTROY ISIS!" A 4th grader could run for president in the GOP primaries literally.
I think Trump has a strong case against Hillary on this front. I'm not much of a Trump fan but its interesting how he really called it out on Iraq. He said we take out Saddam and someone more ruthless will come in and make things worse.
Trump would appoint Dennis Rodman as Secretary of State if he thought it was good for ratings. I'm sticking with Clinton on foreign policy. Even if she (and basically everyone else with a vote at the time) got this one wrong.
The problem is that, as is usually the case with him, what he says does not match what actually happened. He just makes stuff up and hopes you believe him. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-to-silence-his-iraq-war-opposition-in-2003/ On several occasions (op-eds he wrote, etc) he appears to think the war started in 2004, and the first evidence of him actually opposing it matches up to that in August 2004. Unfortunately for him, that's nearly 18 months after the actual invasion started and nearly 2 years after the authorization debates. I'm pretty Hillary and lots of others had soured on it by then too.
Horse****. No one outside of Bernie and Ron Paul were openly against invading Iraq. Partly because of the lies, er, spin the Bush administration were pushing as the National Security 'facts' and partly because of the national fervor and confusion following 9/11. Context and perception color everything about this decision. You can't Monday morning quarterback it like it was obvious or irrational. At the time votes were made, voters used the best but wrong information. Americans were rooted in the belief that we could flip the whole Middle East to Jeffersonian democracy if we just took over and taught them because it seems so right and natural to us. We had no concept of how wrong we would be. (and might have even pulled it off if Bremer hadn't disbanded the army) Judging anybody but Bush Rumsfeld and Cheney is a revisionist history. You can't make good decisions on bad information.
Very few politicians had the courage to stand against the war. The Bush/FoX propaganda machine was chugging at full force. Lying about evidence combined with the usual media pressure and accusations of being weak left many politicians (who actually had to make consequential votes on this) too afraid to go against the rabid crowds. Oh how I wish Obama hadn't put a muzzle on Nancy Pelosi and let her hold Congressional investigations into the run up to that war. Letting those folks get away with that crap was a bad precedent. No doubt, those Neocons learned they can just do it again, when the opportunity arises.
I often confess here that even as a lefty lib, I thought at the time that any people freed from the yoke of dictatorship would embrace democracy. Having always lived with a democratic tradition I could not grasp the depth at which tribalism rules human social order. In 2016, it is very apparent even here in the US. The "oneness" of people is a fragile concept beyond the genetic bond and it's always threatened by economic desperation.
The nature of the colonial project in the middle east pretty much doomed the Iraq adventure. One can just look at post-colonial Africa to see how the politics around and within these manufactured borders were gonna play out.
