Things to take away from Donald Trump’s statesmanlike performance at the South Carolina Debate Saturday night, where with barely a nod to ISIS he declared former President George W. Bush the bogeyman of the century.
Okay, maybe he didn’t actualy say that, but it was implied.
And didn’t all that bluster about hitting ISIS “very hard,” contrasted with his hyperbolic accusations against W’s actions, strike you as a tad inconsistent?
In trying to sort it out, I realized that his dueling statements afforded the public an educational glimpse of two hypothetical President Trumps: the Ghost of Foreign Policy Future and the Ghost of Foreign Policy Past.
That still doesn’t lend a lot of clarity, though. It seems that Future and Past have very different personalities, as if there’s some kind of a dissociative dynamic in play. Makes you wonder if hypothetical people from the future and past can suffer from multiple personality disorder or something.
Because while we saw Future chomping at the bit to tear into ISIS “very hard,” Past it appears is a placid, diplomatic sort of fellow.
At least that’s what I would assume. I suppose Past might have resorted high-minded not-so-diplomatic techniques on Saddam Hussein, such as calling him “a loser” or “a liar” or a “fat pig” or a “disgusting human being,” or another thing that I’m not going to write because it nauseates me.
But since I’m working under the assumption that Past is the dissociative alter ego of “Fisticuffs Future,” I can only figure that his diplomacy technique might go like this:
“Hello Mr. Hussein? I realize that the no-fly zones must be such an imposition to you, but please try putting yourself in our position. After all you do have this nasty habit of invading your neighbors and dumping chemical weapons on people who cross you. So please be reasonable and stop trying to shoot down our Air Force pilots who only want to protect innocent people from your nastiness by enforcing the U.N. resolutions? Okay?”
Or like this:
“Hello Mr. Hussein? I’m disappointed that you kicked all the U.N. chemical weapons inspectors out of Iraq. Because, you know, all that business about you using chemical warfare to kill thousands in Iran and commit genocide against the Kurds really puts us in a difficult position, since you have never told us where you got those weapons or where you keep them or if there are any left. So, you see, we just don’t know whether you still have them, or whether you can get more, or where you might decide to use them next. Please try to see our side of things here.”
Or like this:
“Mr. Hussein? I really must insist that you stop operating jihadist training camps in Iraq. That’s not neighborly at all. And all that business about sending explosives abroad to Iraqi embassies in diplomatic pouches? That really sends the wrong message. Especially coupled with the fact that you are furnishing all your terrorism school alumni with Iraqi passports to facilitate their ability to travel about the globe as well. Maybe we could talk this over and come to an understanding.”
Okay, to be fair I realize that the jihadist training camps, explosives in diplomatic pouches, and passports for terrorists were not revealed until after the invasion when intelligence sources went through the regime’s documents and letters. But it’s common knowledge now. And Trump either knows about it or should know about it. That’s the information base he’s working from when he blusters as if he’s Madea Benjamin at a Lee Greenwood concert about how W lied to get us into the Iraq war and how W should be impeached for the way he dealt with Hussein.
Wow that led me to imagine another hypothetical Trump… in a vagina costume at a Code Pink protest. Please just stop.
Anyway, that’s why I find it pathologically inconsistent that he excoriates W for hitting Saddam Hussein “very hard” (to borrow his phrase) just minutes after puffing his chest and doing his Dirty Harry routine regarding ISIS.
ISIS could only dream of the capability of exporting bloodshed throughout the world that Hussein was putting into practice at the time that W dispatched him to his spider hole.
Anyone who would know all the facts and still vilify W for making that decision can only be a myopic leftist ideologue who rather eat fried spotted owl than admit W did anything right.
Unless of course, you are a blowhard narcissist who is being challenged in an election by W’s brother.