Sorry, but I don't have a problem with Trump's comments on Saddam Hussein.

[Dawgs]

Last edited Wed Jul 6, 2016, 09:24 AM - Edit history (1)

It was a stupid thing to say politically, and Saddam Hussein was a terrible human being, but Iraq was contained in 2003 and terrorism was not big problem in Iraq like it was elsewhere. It is a much bigger problem now in Iraq, and for what.

The Iraq war will end up costing the United States 7 TRILLION dollars before everything is paid off. And, hundreds of thousands of innocent people, including thousands of young Americans, died for nothing.

Saddam was a piece of shit and needed to answer for his crimes, but the Iraq war was not the way to do it. Trump is still an idiot, but I don't have a problem with anyone that recognizes that the Iraq war did more to create new terrorists than eliminate them.

I apologize if that's not what he meant, but it seems clear to me that it was.

[trumad]

1. Uhhh---Trump isn't saying that.

[Chemisse]

6. Here is what he said:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-praises-saddam-hussein-s-approach-terrorism-again-n604411

[spud_demon]

2. Trump wants to handle suspected terrorists the way Saddam did

Saddam could just accuse somebody of terrorism, or whatever, and have them killed. That kind of action has no place in America.

I agree with you about the war, but that wasn't what Trump was talking about.

edit to add:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-praise-saddam-hussein-225149

"He was a bad guy — really bad guy," the presumptive Republican nominee told supporters in Raleigh, North Carolina. "But you know what? He did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn't read them the rights. They didn't talk. They were terrorists. Over. Today, Iraq is Harvard for terrorism."

[Dawgs]

19. "Iraq is Harvard for terrorism."

This part is why I wrote the OP.

[spud_demon]

72. I don't have a problem with those last 5 words either

His admiration for Saddam and his disrespect for due process -- big problems.

[muriel_volestrangler]

99. So you're quote-mining Trump to help make him look good?

WTF, man, WTF? That's why you post on DU - take a tiny piece of what Trump says, ignore the pro-torture stuff, dress it up with a pro-Trump "I don't have a problem with Trump's comments on Saddam Hussein" title, and then say "oh, no, I was just agreeing Iraq is an awful place today?", when your OP was actually about what he said about Saddam?

You are writing pro-Trump propaganda. You're putting lipstick on the pig. And then tryign to deny it.

Shape up. Decide if you're on the side of Trump, or of the non-psychopathic, who don't support torture.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. We were right

To support internal efforts to remove Hussein and work with the UN to ensure all of his WMDs were destroyed/useless but the invasion was definitely wrong/mistaken and it made things worse in the ME, not better. Hussein and his sons were monsters and to the extent that they can be "praised" for keeping a lid on terrorism, they still had a lot to answer for in terms of brutalizing innocent people.

[MoonRiver]

4. Trump is a bigger threat to the world than Hussein ever was!

That's why I'm rooting for every stupid statement from his fish mouth to take hold and drag him down.

[Dawgs]

18. I don't disagree with that. nt

[Tal Vez]

5. I don't disagree with what you are saying, but

a lot of people think that Trump was suggesting that we should emulate Saddam's use of torture and murder to control the Iraqi citizenry. I don't think that we should use torture and murder to control the American people. And, it doesn't sound like you believe it, either. But, Trump knows that there are some people out there who do think that our government should use torture and murder to control the "undesirable" elements of our society and those are the people to whom he was not so subtly directing that pitch.

[CJCRANE]

7. President Obama said the Iraq War was a "dumb war" too.

I agree, there's nothing controversial about Trump's statement especially today after Chilcot has released the UK Iraq War Inquiry report.

[NCTraveler]

57. Nothing controversial about this?

“But you know what he did well?” Mr. Trump said. “He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn’t read them the rights. They didn’t talk. They were terrorists. It was over.”

Finding that to be non-controversial shows you really have absolutely no clue who Saddam was killing.

[yellowcanine]

8. Uh no, Trump was praising Saddam for extra-judicial killing.

“But you know what he did well?” Mr. Trump said. “He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn’t read them the rights. They didn’t talk. They were terrorists. It was over.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/donald-trump-saddam-hussein.html?_r=0


If you don't have a problem with it you should. The fact that invading Iraq was a bad decision doesn't mean we should express admiration of Saddam for being a thug. Opposing the former doesn't mean we have to condone the latter. And by the way, Trump's opposition to the Iraq war appears to be Johnny come lately politically convenient revisionist history. http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald-trump-and-the-iraq-war/ So by buying into Trump's statements you are enabling his dishonesty.

[BlueCaliDem]

87. ^^^This!^^^ eom

[Bluenorthwest]

9. Sept. 11, 2002: Howard Stern asks Trump if he supports invading Iraq.

Donald said he did.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald-trump-and-the-iraq-war/


So he favored invasion, now he speaks fondly of the strong arm tactics of Saddam. This is what you are cheering for. For the war, also for the worst aspects of Saddam. Hell of a mix, that.

[Dawgs]

30. I understand. Trump is a piece of shit.

That doesn't mean he's wrong when he says "Iraq is Harvard for terrorism.".

[PJMcK]

45. It's a nice turn of phrase

Donald Trump is correct that radicals in Iraq get hands-on training of terror tactics and weaponry. Because of the social, political and legal instabilities, Iraq has devolved into a quagmire that allows and even encourages mostly young people to embrace terroristic dogma.

But so what? If the training wasn't in Iraq, it would be in the desert camps where terrorists have been trained for decades. It's not as if any of the tactics are new: car bombs, suicide belts, IED's and the like use hundred-year old chemistry and mechanics. With the internet, radicals don't even have to go to the training camps to get information about terrorism tactics, training and logistics.

Dawgs, I do understand your singular point in your OP. I'm also certain that you know how dangerous and stupid Donald Trump is. Perhaps we could agree that this is one of those "even a broken clock is right twice a day" things.

[Dawgs]

55. We agree.

[Bluenorthwest]

58. But it does mean he supported the invasion he now says he did not support, which some here are

claiming along with him. He was wrong when he supported the invasion prior to that invasion which was the only time opposing it mattered for anything at all.

[Dawgs]

73. Don't disagree unless you're saying that I claimed that he was always against it. nt

[Gabi Hayes]

94. what does that make Pakighanistan....Oxford?

[jzodda]

10. His point was that WE should torture like Saddam

Most rational people now accept that war as a foolish mistake but his point is far more sinister.

The day we implement the types of things he wants to do is the day we are no longer the same country.

Trump also misses other basic lessons. It wasn't just terrorists that were tortured. He tortured and killed anybody who disagreed with him.

[Dawgs]

48. Not sure I agree. nt

[leftofcool]

11. Well good for you.

Personally, I think people who give a shout out to someone like Hussein needs to have their head examined. But hell, this is DU and I have seen lots of Trump defenders today.

[runaway hero]

24. You're a neoliberal.

[leftofcool]

33. Hey newbie, you don't know anything about me so shut up.

And please stop defending Trump.

[runaway hero]

35. I can see it.

You're coming off as an entitled third wayer who doesn't have any political positions except what Tony the B-Liar and his ilk say.


You're not a progressive, and supporting war, like you do, is not a party of the Democratic party. Stop lying to me and tell me the the truth, are you progressive or not?

[leftofcool]

38. I am a Democrat and have been for 62 years.

[runaway hero]

43. LOL

So you supported the invasion then?


Why? It was the worst blunder of the 21st century so far.

[leftofcool]

44. Stalker alert!

[Dawgs]

63. Hillary supported the invansion, so NO CHANCE that they will disagree with it. nt

[runaway hero]

74. Amen.

[BlueCaliDem]

86. She did NOT - hence the 2002 AUMF Against Iraq. Jeezus, but I thought self-proclaimed Liberals

were smarter than that and can see farther than the length of their noses! Apparently not.

The 2002 AUMF Against Iraq effectively postponed the invasion of Iraq for nearly a year. It was a way to stop Cheney and Bush from invading Iraq willy-nilly by setting hurdles in front of them before they could, hoping that the American people would turn against them and stop them indefinitely by that time. Granted, they should've known better. Cheney and Bush were fixated on invading Iraq no matter what. 9/11 just gave them the golden excuse they needed.

Don't forget that the 2001 AUMF Against Terrorists - the bill Sanders voted YEA for, too - was a blank check for war wherever and whenever Cheney and Bush wanted simply by stating that a country was "harboring, supporting, funding, and/or a part of the 9/11 attacks".

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Bush was beating the drums of war starting with his SOTU address at the end of January 2002. If you can recall, Bush's 2002 SOTU address used that horrible "Axis of Evil" term (it included Iraq, Iran, and North Korea) for the very first time, with the intention to use that blank-check law (the 2001 AUMF Against Terrorists) to invade Iraq and Iran as soon as possible.

The 2002 AUMF Against Iraq (popularly but wrongfully referred to as the Iraq War Resolution by many) stopped Cheney and Bush from launching war against Iraq for an entire year, and forced the Bush Admin to seek out support at the UN, our allies, and allow inspectors the time they needed to go through Iraq to see if there were any WMD - something that the 2001 AUMF, the blank-check bill, didn't require. Also note, that the 2001 AUMF Against Terrorists is the law that President Obama is currently using for the drone strikes against ISIS today.

Tom Harkin, an FDR Democrat, and one of the oldest most outspoken Liberals and anti-war Senators in Congress, voted YEA for the 2002 AUMF Against Iraq. If you're saying that Hillary Clinton supported the invasion of Iraq then you're saying that Tom Harkin did, too. And that's just idiocy.

[treestar]

96. now you are bringing in facts, nuances, details

and that is not allowed in this forum!

[Dawgs]

47. Looks like you got your answer.

They are a Democrat.

Not clear that they support war or are a progressive though.

[DLCWIdem]

64. welll I guess if supporting Trump and Sadam Hussein is considered progressive and not supporting

Them is neoliberal count me as a neoliberal.

[Dawgs]

67. Who's supporting Trump and Hussein? nt

[DLCWIdem]

79. well you and run away hero were

Dawg you and run started calling leftofcool, a Hill supporter, a neoliberal, when they posted that you were wrong in your OP which stated tRump was right....... Runaway linked left to Hillary and then said that Hill supported war......

I have a problem with you holier than thou so called progressives who want to call Hill supporters neoliberal and rewrite history so I am embracing the title.

First of all, many Democrats supported the war in 2002-2004. To forget that is disingenuous. Even progressives were like Sadam was a brutal dictator.... Just look at who was nominated by the dems in 2004. Was it the anti-war candidate. No it was Kerry who also voted to give Bush power to invade. Which was exactly what the so called Iraq war was an authorization for Bush.

[Dawgs]

81. I have no idea what you're saying.

And, as far as I can tell, non of it proves that I, or anyone else, supports Trump or Saddam.

Hillary supported the war. Trump supported the war before he was against it. Trump is a dickhead. I hope Hillary beats Trump in the election.

Those are all facts.

[DemonGoddess]

83. DLCWIdem

what you're seeing from Dawg and run away hero is that thing that pisses of so many LIBERALS on this board. You know, we're not pure enough to be with their progressive selves. Never mind that we were liberals long before it was cool to be called "progressive".

[DLCWIdem]

91. i know I have held my temper about the memes stating Hill supported war

And calling democrats neo-liberals. I finally called it out. Hillary wasn't the only one to support AUMF in 2002-2003. 22 Senators also voted for it including Biden and Kerry. However, Hill is the only one being whipped by her vote. That AUMF was actually couched as cooperation between Congress and Bush, and despite most everyone trying to rewrite history it was generally supported by the American public, including Democrats, in the polls. The Iraq war didn't become unpopular until 2004, when the UN inspectors didn't find and MD in Iraq. Democrats were not ant-war when that vote was taken. After all, Democrats didn't nominate the anti-war candidate Dean the nominated Kerry.

[DemonGoddess]

92. Thank you!

[runaway hero]

77. I figured as much

Can't wait for the war in Iran...

[Katashi_itto]

54. You are a neoliberal. Be proud of what you are.

[pampango]

12. I have a BIG problem with him praising a dictator who ruled by terror, for being a great

killer of terrorists.

... terrorism was not big problem in Iraq like it was elsewhere.

Only if you don't count government terror directed at its own citizens. Terrorism was largely 'contained' within the borders of Iraq, you are right. Saddam, like all dictators, was mainly interested in using terror to stay in power.

An illegal war was not and is not now the way to deal with terrorism whether of the ISIS variety or the Saddam variety.

[DLCWIdem]

97. LOD had a guest who just stated that Sadam sponsorred terroism

[MohRokTah]

13. I'm sick of seeing people supporting Trump on DU.

[leftofcool]

15. I am sick of it as well.

Don the Con claims he was opposed to the Iraq war and suddenly DU is full of Trump humpery. Anyone with half a brain around here can Google Trump "real" stance on the Iraq War.

[Dawgs]

22. You could say the same about Hillary and the TPP, Keystone, gay marriage, etc.

I'm not saying I would prefer Trump, but your argument in this case is very hypocritical.

[leftofcool]

29. Uh no you could not.

[Dawgs]

42. Too late. I already did. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

88. And you're wrong. But you know that. At least, I hope you do. eom

[Dawgs]

16. FFS.

[runaway hero]

27. You're right

We should discuss neoliberalism instead. Because apparently that ideology is about whatever way the wind blows.

[Dawgs]

65. I'm sick of seeing people support the TPP and the Iraq war on DU. nt

[MohRokTah]

78. OFFS

Our DEMOCRATIC president supports the TPP, so being sick of it for you is just too fucking bad. It's a Democratic proposal put forward by a Democratic President and this is a Democratic forum.

And NOBODY is supporting the Iraq War, but the OP CLEARLY supported Trump with this thread.

[NCTraveler]

14. I think it's pretty shitty that you don't have a problem with Trump....

Calling for torture as if it were virtuous.

[Dawgs]

17. That's not what I said and you know it. nt

[NCTraveler]

20. Can you post his quote that you....

"don't have a problem with Trump's comments on Saddam Hussein."

I believe you covered it right there. It is exactly what you are saying.

[NCTraveler]

32. Nice deflection.

You find asking for the quote that has you swooning over Trump to be republican in nature on my part? Ohhh the irony. It's just funny.

I really don't expect you to provide context.

[Dawgs]

40. So, you didn't read the OP?

Just the title.

[NCTraveler]

52. Sure did read the op. Missed the Trump quote you are in support of.

In all of the speeches Hitler gave I can pick out a sentence here and a sentence there I agree with. I also know that is a fools game and am educated enough not to do so.

So lets see the quote.

"I apologize if that's not what he meant, but it seems clear to me that it was."

Lets see the quote you are making meaning out of.

[Dawgs]

56. Thanks for finally reading the whole thing. nt

[NCTraveler]

60. I did before my first post. That is clear.

You have still provided zero context with respect to that which you are claiming to support.

[Dawgs]

82. Nowhere in my OP did I suggest that Trump 'calling for torture was virtuous.' . nt

[NCTraveler]

85. "but I don't have a problem with Trump's comments on Saddam Hussein."

Link to his comments? Thanks.

[DanTex]

21. He's suggesting that we should use Saddam-like tactics to control terrorism.

You know, like torture and rape and chemical weapons. I have a big problem with that.

[Dawgs]

28. I do to.

My OP was written largely because of the following comment.

"Iraq is Harvard for terrorism."

[Renew Deal]

23. The Iraq War is skewing the judgement of too many people

Hussein was a bad guy, but he was no killer of terrorists. He was a mass murderer of anyone considered not loyal enough. He was a king.

That doesn't justify the Iraq War. The Iraq War doesn't justify denying that Hussein was a bad guy.

[Dawgs]

26. Agree. nt

[DLCWIdem]

70. He actually supported many terroist groups

He only killed the terroists who were working against his interests. And the innocent citizens who were against him. Terroist groups who supported his intetests were not killed.

[DLCWIdem]

98. MSNBC JUST HAD A GUEST ON LOD WHICH STAYED SADAM WAS A sponsor of

Terrorism

[LexVegas]

31. Is that the appeal of Trump for those that are seeking "revolution" within the Democratic party? nt

[Dawgs]

36. None of my comments have anything to do with the "revolution" or the Democratic party. nt

[sufrommich]

34. Except Trump admired his willingness to judge and

execute "terrorists" in five minutes:

"You know what he used to do to terrorists?" Trump polled the Tennessee crowd. "A one day trial and shoot him...and the one day trial usually lasted five minutes, right? There was no terrorism then."


And his willingness to use gas on Kurds:


"Saddam Hussein throws a little gas, everyone goes crazy, 'oh he's using gas!'" Trump said. Describing the way stability was maintained in the region during that time, Trump said "they go back, forth, it's the same. And they were stabilized."


Anyone who thinks he's not telegraphing to his base how we should deal with whoever Trump decides is a "terrorist" is in some serious denial about it.

[runaway hero]

37. I guess the CIA should change its rules then,

Because they have done things way worse then that and made judgement calls worse as well. See: Osama...

[sufrommich]

46. Both sides are bad,so vote Trump.

Amirite?

[runaway hero]

50. Vote Hillary

But let's make it clear: I don't support any military action in Iran, imo

[Dawgs]

39. Don't disagree. nt

[obamanut2012]

51. Good lord

[Dawgs]

62. Confused, huh? nt

[runaway hero]

41. Since when was third way neo liberalism/neo conservatism a part of the Democratic Party

I can't actually believe people think Blair and Bush were right? Saddam was a bad guy. No one has said otherwise. But this what we have now, is better?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I hope their kids go off the war in Iran.

[Bluenorthwest]

66. No one has said any such thing. The OP is praising Trump, who was an advocate for invasion of

Iraq as if he was an opponent of that invasion who had opposed it for the right reasons. Trump was for the war, now he's praising the man he supported deposing. Cake and eat it too.

[runaway hero]

69. Weak support.

Much weaker then what clinton said. Bernie was against it too, I believe. The point is the invasion was stupid. No grey area on that

[Dawgs]

71. Wrong. I'm not "praising" Trump.

I said I don't think what he said was wrong.

Big fucking difference.

[obamanut2012]

49. No, he was saying he's for extra-judicial imprisonment and killings

And you agree???????



REALLY?!

[Dawgs]

61. Don't get it, huh? nt

[riversedge]

53. So, you just used Trump to have your rant. Whatever.

[Dawgs]

59. Nope.

[Her Sister]

68. Hard for Trump!

Honk if you agree!

Sorry, but I don't have a problem with Trump's comments on Saddam Hussein.

[Tarc]

76. I believe the relevant logical fallacy here is "...but Hitler liked dogs"

[Dawgs]

80. Huh?

[Tarc]

100. If you can't figure that out...

...you really shouldn't be posting in the first place.

[DemonGoddess]

84. Why in hell are you agreeing with Trump?

[David__77]

89. I would not have used the word "good" as Trump did.

If he had said "effectively," then I think it would have landed just a bit differently. While Trump did not say that he endorsed Saddam Hussein's tactics, the use of "good" occurs to me as a positive assessment.

[The_Casual_Observer]

90. Trump fails to realize that Isis is a mutation of the "Elite Republican Guard"

That was disbanded and defunded by Garner and Bremer.

They were always there, but they were working for the "man".

Trump is an idiot. He knows nothing except what he is told by Hugh Hewitt.

[tallahasseedem]

93. You have your history wrong.

He should in no way, shape, or form be commended for this. It wasn't a deal because he was committing genocide of anyone he perceived as a threat.

[treestar]

95. Trump was for that war

probably thinks he'd have it won faster.

[MFM008]

101. I wouldnt agree with him if he said

today was Thursday.

[deathrind]

102. I understand the point

You are trying to make and agree in principle. SH was a bad person and needed to be dealt with but not in the manner we did in 2003. Anyone who thinks Iraq is better off now then before 2003 simply is not informed of the situation on the ground in Iraq.

As far as the replies concerning Trumps comment on how to deal with terrorists sans civil rights. That is exactly what we have been doing. Predator strikes do not drop leaflets with Miranda rights printed on them before sending the AMG 65 through the front door of a suspected terrorist house nor do they notify the population in the immediate area. I think Trump is a despicable human and the thought of him as POTUS is terrifying, the fact that he has had enough support to even get this far in the process is even more terrifying. But reality based facts are just that...reality, no matter what corner they come from.

Also this idea that if one acknowledges the reality of a fact coming from Trump that one must support all of what Trump says is ridiculous.

[JI7]

103. Saddam was the terrorist to his own people