Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why I’d Vote for Hillary Before Trump
I just made this point in the comments, then realized I should make it explicitly. I know we have Trump supporters on Ricochet. We also have people who think that he’s not their first choice, but might not be a total disaster. I’ve made it clear that I think he’d be an unparalleled disaster, but perhaps haven’t made my argument as clearly as I could.
So I’ll give it my best. I have more arguments where this came from, but to me, this is definitive.
The moment that most clearly demonstrates that he’s nuts — and nuts in a way different in kind from any previous president in the nuclear era and from any of the other candidates for the presidency — was when he said George W. Bush knowingly misled the world about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. “I will tell you. They lied. And they said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.”
It’s not absolutely clear who “they” are in this sentence, but by any plausible, common-sense reading, he means George W. Bush and his administration.
The assertion that Bush knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, as opposed to having been wrong about it, is extremely implausible and requires a belief in hundreds of conspirators, not just George W. Bush. It’s so implausible that it qualifies, to my mind, as a clinically paranoiac belief. People who hold this kind of belief tend to be people who’d also believe aliens abducted them and probed their orifices with laser beams. They are not capable of forming reasonable judgments about serious things.
It’s not clear to me whether Trump truly believes George W. Bush knowingly lied to the American people about the Iraq war. But if so, how does his mental universe work? What, in his view, motivated Bush and those around him to do this? How does he account for the most obvious objection to this theory, namely, that any administration prepared to go to war on premises they knew to be false would have had both the disposition and the motivation to plant the weapons they had told the world would be found?
What does he imagine motivated all of Bush’s intimates, as well as the House and Senate, to lie like that, but fail to cover up the lie? Why does he think no one has since come forward to offer evidence of this conspiracy? Why does he discount all the evidence that this was a catastrophic intelligence failure?
If he said this cynically, knowing it makes no sense, it’s a different order of malice than a standard political lie or exaggeration. If he believes it, it suggests mental disorder (I use the word “disorder” deliberately — as in, “not orderly, not logical”) of a more disturbing kind than any previous holder of that office in the nuclear era. Not just degree, but kind.
I have many other objections to him, but I think this one is — as George Tenet might say — a slam dunk.* You can’t put people who believe things like that in the White House. It’s too dangerous.
*I also think Tenet’s ultimately responsible for the worst intelligence failure in American history, but that’s another story.
Published in Foreign Policy
This is exactly what we deserve and probably much worse.
The Constitution has very special and specific role in our governance. Once we operate outside the Constitution, which we have for decades, there is no more road map.
Sometimes the road is smooth and pleasant, sometimes pot holes, sometimes unpaved, and even over a cliff.
Trump, Hillary, $20T debt, etc. All 100% man made in the USA by We The People.
Claire, if he’s delusional, he’s delusional only in the sense that Bush’s political opponents were. Which means disingenuously delusional. So he’s not one of a kind.
When faced with a choice between Trump and Clinton, the deciding factor has to be which would be best (less dangerous) on defense.
Exactly! In fact, Dr. Hanson had two articles just this week, including today’s, which put this Code Pink rhetoric (SRSLY? on a purportedly conservative website), to the lie that it is. And once again, who is ultimately responsible for the wasteland left behind … the Democrat Party of HRC and its allies like Code Pink.
Iraq: The Real Story
We need to recall a few facts. Bill Clinton bombed Iraq (Operation Desert Fox) on December 16 to 19, 1998, without prior congressional or U.N. approval. As Clinton put it at the time, our armed forces wanted “to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons.” At the time of Clinton’s warning about Iraq’s WMD capability, George W. Bush was a relatively obscure Texas governor.
The Costs of Abandoning Messy Wars
You might first at least wish to wait to see who Hillary and Trump choose as their vice presidential candidates…
If I may be permitted a lengthy excerpt from Sarah Hoyt’s blog:
http://accordingtohoyt.com/2016/01/24/trumped/
I hope all of you will come to reconsider this. For one, there was American political thought before the Constitution: Who made the road map! The same kinds of concern continue afterward. That is why the Constitution has the President swear to protect it, which suggests a source of judgment & action outside the Constitution, obviously, but not exclusively meant for war. Getting back to constitutionalism is possible for America, just as it is for a man to risk his life to save it.
Do not let love of justice turn into ‘we deserve this!’ That replaces seeing sense by doom. , ‘There’s no fate worse than death’ becomes ‘there’s no fate preferable to death.’ I speak in exaggerations, but I know whereof I speak: There is way too much need for punishment beclouding judgment, moralistically ignoring chance…
Electing Trump is handing the country to the Democrats for the next 20 years, or more. Put me in the rather vote for Hillary camp, because while they’ll both be awful, at least it won’t be the Republican brand that becomes radioactive.
Yes, I found this particularly objectionable, especially as it turns out there were WMD found in Iraq. The Bush administration kept the discovery under wraps which I also found highly objectionable.
I still believe Trump represents the least worst choice so if the election were held today, and the options were Trump or Clinton I’d vote Trump.
Props to Claire for coming out and taking a clear stand though. Anyone who sincerely believes Trump would be worse for the country than Clinton should vote for Clinton.
as with many others, I can totally understand not voting Trump, but would never pull the lever for Hillary
Trump and Hillary are both disqualified from my vote in the general. Any pragmatic, teleological ethic I try to nurture in my mind balks at supporting either. I’ll be looking at third party choices for president in that case.
Mr. Trump is not talking about his foreign policy savvy or what’s going on in the world, & his obviously large electorate is ok with that, to say the least. This is not a foreign polic election, if ever there is one. The Commander-in-chief is now the least important presidential job to the public.
I’d like to see anyone reasonable change that, but I fear it’s not going to happen.
This is not going to be about forms or formalities, it’s going to be about brawling. Whoever’s not uglier & stronger will not beat him. People who blush at dishonorable lies have no business in the arena just now. This was foretold…
I don’t think so. That’s what scares me. If I believed, “Oh, he’s just lying like a normal politician,” I’d say, well, we know politicians lie because their mouths are open. But I’ve seen nothing that suggests to me what many here seem to believe — that Trump has a secret plan, and knows more than he lets on. I reckon what you see is what you get.
In a contest between two candidates, a decision not to support one is a decision to support the other, so go the whole hog and vote for the other. That is the situation that confronted me (a Labour Party member) at the last election for Mayor of London. The contest was between Ken Livingstone, who I thought would be a disaster for both London and the Labour Party, and Boris Johnson, a politician I dislike and mistrust. I am not the only Labour Party member who voted for Johnson. So, Claire, you are right to say you’ll vote for Hillary. But what will you do if it’s Trump v. Sanders? I’d say, Trump is so dangerous that you should vote for Sanders, but what a choice to have to make. Has America gone mad?
I am with Claire and Valiuth, both of whom seem to reflect my views in everything they write. I was not convinced that there were WMD in Iraq when Bush made that claim based simply on the fact that when faced with an existential threat Sadam didn’t use them. I was also convinced that Iraq would likely become another Vietnam which it certainly has. It is the best argument the Left now has about any intervention in Iran.
As to Trump, I have made my views clear a number of times in a number of threads. I detest him. I abhor Hillary. Chosing between one I detest and one I abhor will, if the event arises, be a very difficult choice. Not voting seems to me the only real option, something I have never done before. It is truly appalling that an election cycle that started out with the strongest Republican field in my lifetime has come down to this. I can only hope that the two realistic candidates get control of their egos and decide together that the defeat of Trump and Hillary is more important than their personal ambitions.
I understand everything said here, but there is something else going on here. I read the link in Kozak’s comment, and it makes sense.
Trump was lashing out rhetorically with no thought of background. He was attacking Jeb and the Bush dynasty where it is most vulnerable using shorthand. It’s a blunt instrument he grabbed, nothing more. Akin to Micheal Richards shouting that which cannot be uttered at a loud table of African Americans.
Looking dispassionately, I believe that the most appalling aspect of this primary remains the fact that the Bush’s and their supporters including a pliable establishment encouraged and funded Jeb in an arrogant double-down on Bushism.
This constituted an appalling lack of decorum from a family that considers itself well-bred.
Trump basically said what Colin Powell said, and even though it’s not true, it’s almost deserved at this point. Powell still appears on MTP as a “republican” and I haven’t seen much protestation. The charge wasn’t defended, and those making it were not attacked, so the blunt instrument was lying there still for Trump to pick up.
So before the Bushes want to run another of their descendants, they might want to consider some of these things.
Surely this would all become the debate again had Jeb secured the nomination, and I’m betting the pathetic defense from Jeb would have actually further solidified the false narrative.
Having W come out of virtual hiding for the sole purpose of boosting his brother highlighted for me how venal they are.
Trump was drawing (a very unfair) line in the sand, fully separating himself from the Bushes (signaling) . It’s like saying something vile to your spouse because you want an absolute irreconcilable break.
Jeb should have punched him. But, of course, he didn’t.
Morning Claire,
Hillary, the candidate our enemies would like the most. Michael Hayden, former head of NSA and CIA, was on television yesterday and said that he would be amazed if several foreign governments had not hacked Mrs. Clinton’s server, and that it would have been a the top priority. So not only do our enemies know where and who our assets are, but who we value and will back but also who we will let go even if we publically say we back them. So Russia could pick off more of Ukraine, or Lithuania, or Latvia, or other countries knowing that neither we nor NATO would do anything. Russia and China would know all her tendencies and they would know all the embarrassing and potentially impeachable information on the President Clinton, and would use that information to their advantage and our and the world’s disadvantage.
President Trump would be unpredictable, appears to be a person who does not what to want to look like he got the short end of the deal, likes the military and it proud of this country, and thinks our country’s actions have often benefitted the world; all of those aspects of a Trump candidate are much preferable to a Clinton candidate.
Is there any principle or country which Clinton would not sell out? If so, what principle or country would that be? Does Clinton support the military or even the men and women in the armed forces, or do we have to suspend our disbelief?
That you and our beloved Richard Epstein would pick Hillary of Everest is shocking and as Richard might say, “a mistake of the first order”.
Um…no. Living with the consequences of one’s actions is exactly what an heir to a large fortune never learns to do. And it shows.
Bingo!
He certainly acts the ‘getting away with it all my life’ part!
Who in the world looks at that guy & thinks, It’s Sinatra revivified! I took the blows! I did it my way!
I know I keep saying this, but this was the year—the first in 25 years—I was thinking I would vote for a Republican. The irony…
Interesting article at Townhall.com today from Larry Elder for those who are so distraught over Donald J. Trump that they willingly prefer Hillary Rodham Clinton …….
The Trashing of Bill’s Accusers: What Did Hillary Do — and Why Did She Do It?
From the article …………
Elder: “I’ve interviewed Kathleen Willey, and I’ve said to her, as I’m saying to you, when people came by and made threats and said names and suggested she should ‘watch it,’ you still can’t trace that to Hillary.”
Klayman: “In a court of law, it’s not just direct but circumstantial evidence. I gave you a little bit of it. … If you add it all up … it creates a pattern where she’s capable of almost anything.”
Hillary Clinton once said that when women allege sexual assault, they “have the right to be believed.” Let’s leave it at this — for now.
“The assertion that Bush knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, as opposed to having been wrong about it, is extremely implausible and requires a belief in hundreds of conspirators, not just George W. Bush. It’s so implausible that it qualifies, to my mind, as a clinically paranoiac belief. People who hold this kind of belief tend to be people who’d also believe aliens abducted them and probed their orifices with laser beams. They are not capable of forming reasonable judgments about serious things.”
–Disagree strongly here. I know plenty of people who believe this to be true, or are serious sensible people. They are just ignorant about the facts or don’t understand how hard it is to be a conspiracy.
–I think he was just ticked off and spouted something off in anger.
–I could never vote for Hillary over Trump. HRC created a private server, breaking the law and putting national security at risk. She had not just classified data on her server but Satellite Recon photos, that if you showed them to me (a Canadian Citizen), you would be committing Treason.
–For all the crazy things that Trump has said, I stack it up against violating national security and it’s a no brainer for anyone.
Claire, I don’t know how much traction you’ll get pointing out the insanity that is believing Bush intentionally lied about WMD.
I’m a college professor, and I bet the majority of my colleagues believe the same.
Maybe if you confronted them with the impossibility of the belief as you’ve done here some might pause. But only to shift their belief to say if it wasn’t intensional, then it was because Bush was hostage to a wicked neo-con ideology (so mentally deranged himself).
I once heard a job candidate–during his job talk, the most important part of an academic interview–say the reason Bush invaded Afghanistan was to steal their mineral resources. No one called him on it. I was a temporary faculty, so in no position to go against the grain. He didn’t get the job, but I doubt that was the reason.
Hillary would mean status quo from what we have now. What we have now is crap, yes. But she’s not potentially very dangerous.
Yes, of course, there would of course by dictator-level graft by her, her husband, the Clinton Foundation, her aides, her family.
But policy itself wouldn’t change so much. Which I don’t think is good but better than whatever Trump might do.
Vote early, vote often…but don’t vote for that guy.
THIS! (I was just too lazy to come up with a list). Thank you TWW for your PSA.
Fwiw, I was leaning more Green Party but I am open to The Pantsuit. A third party is throwing your vote away but some demonstration. Is Trump so much worse than her that it’s worth not even risking him and voting for HRH?
Can you elaborate on what you mean here? Not sure what you are trying to say..
Adhering to principle—or even maintaining one’s grasp on long-held, rationally-arrived-at understandings—must be harder than it looks, especially in the face of actual or perceived self-interest, because boy, do we fail!
Bill Clinton: he was the feminist’s guy. Credible evidence surfaced (again and again) that he was sexually aggressive and abusive towards women. Suddenly, sisterhood wasn’t so powerful. (Ditto for Hillary, who stayed with him). Suddenly social class was the determinant of whether a woman’s claim of rape was credible. Had Billary been Republican, the feminists would have been howling for Bill’s blood, and Hillary would have been pilloried for her betrayal.
Sarah Palin: Working mother of five young children including an infant with special needs, takes on the unbelievably demanding job of running for VP. Suddenly, maternal presence and attention didn’t seem so crucial after all. Quality time beats quantity time—little Trig will do just fine in daycare! Unmarried, teenaged Bristol turned up pregnant—had Palin been a democrat, would conservatives not have said (with considerable justification?) that a little more maternal attention might have helped Bristol stay on track?
Trump is…well, Trump is Trump. All the sins and peccadilloes, any one of which might be expected to make a social conservative’s hair stand on end. Suddenly, all sorts of family values litmus tests are waived, because he fights.
I’m sure y’all can come up with more examples—I’ve really only picked the low-hanging fruit, here. It’s very odd. And kind of embarrassing.
I can’t go there. Mainly because Trump and Hillary have so much in common. They will both lie without hesitation if it works for them. They are both extremely paranoid (and probably have reason to be–does that mean they’re not paranoid?). They can’t be nailed down on their positions because everything is about getting elected. This was a great post, Claire, because I now realize I simply can’t vote for either of them. I’m seriously wishing someone would start a third party. I’m sick and tired of having to throw reasonable, conservative principles out the window or hold my nose in order to vote!