Its an extremely serious issue

Donald Trump’s latest bombshell, claiming the Bush administration lied about weapons of mass destruction to get us into the Iraq War, is just him doing wheelies on the way to the nomination. He’s apparently decided it would be fun to taunt the entire GOP by demonstrating that he can say anything and his voters won’t care.

I wish he’d stop showing off, the little scamp, but maybe the GOP establishment will finally get the message that voters have been waiting a really long time for a candidate who would put Americans first. Not donors, not plutocrats, not foreigners, and certainly not foreign plutocrats (i.e., Fox News).

Trump is the first presidential candidate in 50 years who might conceivably: (1) deport illegal aliens, (2) build a wall, (3) block Muslim immigration, (4) flout political correctness, (5) bring manufacturing home, and (6) end the GOP’s neurotic compulsion to start wars in some godforsaken part of the world.

That’s all that matters! Are you listening yet, RNC?

There is not another candidate who agrees with Trump on all these positions. Maybe one issue, but not all of them — and if it’s immigration, they would be lying.

Even 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)97% still refuses to say he’d deport illegal aliens (unless they’re arrested for breaking some other law), build a wall (instead he talks about “border security,” which is code for: No Wall), or reduce legal immigration at all.

Trump is like a greatest-hits album. The two political parties are the record companies, refusing to put all the hits on one album and instead forcing us to choose between Republicans who will depress wages through immigration and bad trade deals, or Democrats who pretend to care about working-class Americans while sacralizing abortion and gay marriage.

Trump is right about President Bush not keeping us safe — though not about his “Bush lied” argument that makes me want to strangle him. This is what Trump said last October on “Coyote News Sunday” (FNC) about how things would have been different on 9/11 under President Trump:

“Well, I would have been much different, I must tell you. … I am extremely, extremely tough on illegal immigration. I’m extremely tough on people coming into this country. I believe that if I were running things, I doubt … that those people would have been in the country.”

And that was before Trump announced his plan for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration! (By contrast, as governor of Florida, Jeb! aggressively pushed a bill to allow illegal aliens to get driver’s licenses, less than three years AFTER 13 of 19 hijackers used Florida driver’s licenses to board the planes on 9/11.)

It is apparently considered less controversial to send a million troops to the Middle East than to stop printing visas for would-be terrorists.

It’s not just George W. Bush’s open-borders policy that cries out for re-examination. During a debate with Al Gore one year before the 9/11 attack — committed by Arabs on U.S. commercial airlines — he pre-emptively denounced the racial profiling of Arabs by airport security.

The Wall Street Journal proclaimed that “the ‘racial profiling’ issue might help Bush win Michigan.” (Good call, WSJ! Bush lost Michigan, anyway.)

In June 2001 — three months before the attack committed by Arabs on U.S. commercial airlines — the Bush administration undertook a study to ensure that Arabs were not being disproportionately stopped by airport security.

When U.S. Airways ticket agent Michael Tuohey laid eyes on Mohamed Atta on the morning of 9/11, he got a “chill” and thought to himself, “If this guy doesn’t look like an Arab terrorist, then nothing does.” But then, he says, he gave himself a politically correct “slap,” and handed Atta his ticket.

Atta proceeded to murder 3,000 Americans. But at least no undue scrutiny of Arabs was taking place at U.S. Airports!

The 

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)79%s, Nikki Haleys, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)56%s, Jeb!, Zeppo and Shemp Bushes of the GOP say: “Vote for me — we may have a terrorist attack, but at least we’ll know we did the right thing!” Trump says: “I’m going to protect you.”

That’s why it doesn’t matter when Trump pops off and says things that are not conservative orthodoxy — or even true!

Even if you think Trump is a libertine, shallow narcissist, you know he will do what no other Republican will: Go to Washington, kick ass, mock political correctness, build a wall, deport illegals, bring manufacturing home, and end the GOP’s peculiar fixation with remaking the Muslim world.

This is our last chance. It’s similar to the “point of no return” global warming alarmists keep talking about, except our data isn’t fake.

At our current rate of immigration/transformation, if we don’t break the donor fever grip now, we never will. This kind of correction isn’t just a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, it’s a once-in-a-millennium opportunity.

The GOP didn’t hear us with Eric Cantor, with the 2014 election or with John Boehner. After all that, they still gave us Nikki Haley and Paul Ryan. President Trump is the last and only message they will understand.

COPYRIGHT 2016 ANN COULTER 
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK

 Beeno
That is not a bombshell - everyone in the world and their asses knew it was a lie about the weapons of mass destruction - so that is just saying in public which everyone knew for years - because their were no such weapons found ever.  
So what else is new?
By the way - do you know anything about Ann Coulter at all?   She is a writer for Town Hall and all kinds of ultra right organisations - a kind of journalist with such reactionary ideas it even put ordinary Americans off.   If you take at face value what she writes you must have your head read.      

 What that assumes is all the players in a massive conspiracy ....and there would be many of them, probably more than a 100 people given all the data that was presented to the UN....could maintain total silence. 

In an Obama administration any whistle blower on a Bush cover up would have been a hero and an instant celebrity....somebody would have come forward.
It also required that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Blair and many other senior officials would risk their whole careers to go to war with Iraq. Not possible if you know some of the characters.

This was a mistake in intelligence with its genesis in disinformation provided by Iraqi exiles.

 Mozart
With respect - I differ from you in this case.  Disinformation provided by Iraqi exiles should be checked carefully for authenticity.   The UN had a Committee that looked into allegations and came up with nothing.  In a desperate effort to stop the war even the SA Government sent a team to Iraq.  The group knew better than anybody else what weapons and technology had been provided to Iraq prior to 1994 and they knew what to look for - they also found nothing.  Mandela actually phoned Bush in a desperate attempt to stop a war and he refused to take the call - same with Blair.  
Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq come hell or high water. For that reason he used disinformation - that means he was spreading disinformation as well.   What is the difference between disinformation and lying?  

If he never believed the disinformation and the other intelligence presented, at the UN for example, then yes that's tantamount to lying. But the weapons issue destroyed Blair and ultimately Bush....certainly Powell as well. These men would never have put their reputations on the line if they knew for certain that no weapons would be found and the whole thing would implode in two months. And if it was a conspiracy, somebody would have come forward.

This all reminds me of the banking 'too big to fail' conspiracy. If only we would let banks fail, the bad bankers wouldn't do these thing. So bankers are willing to take decisions they know are disastrous, because the banks will be bailed out? Most of the decision makers may lose their jobs, their stock options will be worthless....but they will still make the decision because banks will be saved?

People tend to protect themselves first. That argues against the weapons conspiracy.

 Unfortunately I have to agree with Mozart on this issue.
These leaders would never have risked damaging their credibility by lying..for what reason.
General Powell has always been a man of high moral standing and would never lead folks up the wrong path by fabricating such information.
Sure now we know the info was wrong and the mistake is history.
If their was any evidence of wrong doing by President Bush on this issue do u for one second think that Obama would not have used that evidence against the Bush presidency.

Prior to 1990 there was a very active weapons trade with Iraq in exchange for oil between Iraq in SA.   SA provided all kind of weaponry to Iraq and a friend of mine who worked on weapon manufacturing went to Iraq as well.  The SA Government knew what was going on with regard to weapon provision and manufacturing in Iraq.  They also knew where to look for weaponry.  It would have been impossible not to know exactly where to look.  The Government send a group to investigate knowing exactly what Iraq was up to and found nothing.  They reported their findings to Bush and Blair - but the report was ignored.
However, the UN found nothing as well and we live in an era of satellite spying - so what did they find that way?   I would say we have been misled about the issue and I think that the war in Iraq was probably the biggest disaster ever thus far in the 21st century - 14 years later the situation is messier than it was prior to the war.  

    

 Okay so let's agree to disagree on that aspect. As far as the war was concerned it obviously was and is a disaster, nobody should dispute that now. Although no fair person could dispute Hussein was an unacceptable leader and somebody guilty of many atrocities.
But if the war destroyed Iraq, the Arab Spring destroyed Syria and Libya, and would have destroyed Egypt except for the gutsy and much maligned intervention of the Egytian military. 
Neither war, nor democratic movements seem to improve these countries.....the best model appears to be a benevolent dictatorship. Unacceptable yes, but hard to dispute.

 Some people need to be ruled differently,  but we are all ruled just the same. Freedom is an illusion. Some shackles are a bit heavier than others though.

Funny how all that Intel was so very wrong. That intel that totally contradicted what the weapons inspectors said was bogus. They were there and they stuck to their guns saying that there were no WMDs. Haha even Mbeki, who had good relations with Saddam, better than any other Western country, wrote to the US and told them that Saddam had zero WMDs. He was flat out ignored. That same genius intel which never mentioned the Saudis at all. Most of the hijackers were Saudis weren't they? Instead, they went into Afghanistan and then Iraq. 9/11 was the catalyst for those wars and neither of those countries had anything to do with 9/11. Mozart, are you kidding me about the secrecy? I'm sure you know who Edward Snowden is right? The stuff that he exposed was being kept secret by thousands of people for a long time. Until he leaked that USB drive with the prism training program on it...Obama himself would have sworn in church with his hand on five bibles that the CIA was doing nothing of the sort. How about MK-ultra? How long did that go on for before it was exposed. How many people kept those secrets? Also, David Kelly. The UK weapons expert who was about to release a dossier which showed Saddam had no weapons. He was found dead in his car from an apparent suicide. His wife, still today, says that he was murdered because the information he wanted to release went against the UK/US plan to invade Iraq and steal their oil. Also funny how how today, Iraq owns none of its own oil anymore. It's all been sold off. Nice. I was one of the million strong who marched in London and every single person there knew that no weapons would be found. Funny how Uncle Sam with all his smarts knew less that the average man on the street. An honest mistake? I call BS.

Oh...is Blair's political career dead? Wasn't he appointed emissary to the Middle East or something? I'm Bush and Cheney are also sobbing into there bags of money. Poor guys.

 oh wait. I erred slightly on the Kelly story. Here is what an intelligence insider from the UK said about it. It's pretty dated. Still, where there's smoke ;) Shrimpton spoke in depth about the details of Kelly's murder on 17th July 2003, information which has been withheld by the British press. With apparent backing from the organisations whose members he claims to speak for, Shrimpton presented their view that Dr Kelly had been murdered by a team of assassins and the charade of an apparent suicide was then played out to cover this up. Speaking with impeccable credentials, including contributions to the Journal for International Security Affairs and having previously given a closed-doors confidential briefing to the US Senate Intelligence Committee, Shrimpton exploded the much-reported myth that Dr Kelly had taken his own life. He spoke of the probable method of Kelly's death, the group which most likely carried out the assassination, who arranged it and finally where the responsibility lies. Additionally, he explained the political context and motive for Kelly's murder. David Kelly went missing on 17th July 2003 and was found dead on 18th July. In the previous days, Kelly had testified before Parliament's Foreign Affairs Select Committee that he was not the source of a BBC story which had accused the Government of making false claims about Iraq's WMD. When Kelly's body was found, the British press quickly reported it as a suicide, though several analysts had their doubts. On Jones' show, Shrimpton explained how he had learned that David Kelly was the BBC's source before the BBC disclosed this fact. He went on to explain that his source from within the intelligence community knew David Kelly personally, and did not believe that he had committed suicide. After making their own enquiries, says Shrimpton, this source determined that Dr Kelly had not committed suicide, but rather had been assassinated. Apparently at ease to discuss these explosive disclosures, Shrimpton explained that there was advance knowledge of Kelly's death in Whitehall, but that the deed itself was most likely carried out by the French external security organisation, DGSE. There was no indication that anybody in MI5 or MI6 had been involved. He went further by suggesting that the hit squad itself was composed of Iraqis from the former regime's Mukhabarat intelligence organisation, recruited from Damascus with the help of Syria's own intelligence apparatus. They were apparently then flown into Corsica, seven days prior to the murder. He doubts that any of the hit-squad are still alive. Officially, Kelly's body was said to have been found in a copse, in a wood, but the forensic tents were set up in the adjacent field, suggesting, says Shrimpton, that the body was found in the field. This has not been explained to his satisfaction. The incision in Kelly's wrist was probably to conceal the injection of both Dextroprypoxythene, the active ingredient in Co-Proxamol, and Succinylcholine, a muscle relaxant, rather than as evidence of his bleeding to death, as highlighted by a group of six doctors in letters published in the British press. Shrimpton further agreed with the doctors by pointing out that Kelly only had one Co-Proxamol tablet in his body and that this was not sufficient to kill him. According to Shrimpton, Kelly was murdered because he had been talking to the press and there was a fear of what else he might discuss with journalists. Furthermore, Kelly was due to return to Iraq and may have learned fresh information on that trip which Whitehall could not afford to trust him with. Shrimpton's appearance on Jones' show gave him the first public opportunity to bring forward his information, since the story has been effectively censored by the British Press, who according to Shrimpton are concerned about losing the pro-Euro Tony Blair as Prime Minister were they to publish details of Kelly's assassination. Blair's departure, he says, could threaten Britain's proposed adoption of the Euro as the national currency. Whilst this story begins to circulate in the USA, the coverage in the UK may well remain nil, whilst maneuvering behind the scenes attempts to pre-empt Shrimpton's accusation of government-sanctioned murder of one of its own operatives. Only with public support, and a belief that this information should be widely known, can this information be brought into the wide open and covered by the mainstream media.

 Mozart
In essence I think Bush believed the Iraqi refugees - who lied through their teeth - and that led to the war.  I am not saying that he deliberately lied about the issue - I would rather say he was misled by his advisers.
However, there is one thing that I wish to mention and that is the issue of democratic government.  Democracy as a system works - but is at times distorted even in countries where the system developed and thrived by the wealthy and the media.  That results in weak leadership and other problems.  After all Aristoteles said democracy is a poor form of Governance and that only the learned people who can take positive decisions should be part of government.
However, where people have no idea about democracy and they are used to be governed by dictators for thousands of years - to try and bring in democracy is futile.  it is against what they believe the case is for all time.  The top man is the boss and the rest must obey or they die.  That have been and is the case in Muslim countries and in Africa, but also in a country like China.  Democracy is an alien concept for them.
I am afraid that the matter in Muslim countries are further complicated by the fact that Islam has factions itself - like the Sunni's and the Shi'ites.  That leads to constant war and to interfere in that is futile and self-destructive.
All-in-all the Muslim Nations should be allowed to deal with their own issues.  The successor of Hussein was as bad a bas tard as Hussein was.  Assaad's successor in Syria  is likely to be the same.   We must just accept that the bad bas tards will float to the top and if they get their they will be bad.   Bad news the whole lot.  
   

And here...Moz I'd like you to explain this one. This reporter says on camera that Building 7 has collapsed. Only problem...it can still be seen standing behind her in the shot. Honestly, I like to hear an explanation for this since I can't think of one. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=677i43QfYpQ

Actually Plum, the reason they went into Afgahnistan was because the training camps and Bin Laden were there. Afgahnistan should have been the sole focus. Taking out the leadership that sponsored all of that was a totally justified response. I used to go to Board meetings in the World Trade Center. I still have my World Trade Center security card.
I went to the memorial services of victims. I heard the stories from people were there. Women were leaping off the 90th floor to escape the flames. Policemen and firemen died still running into the building to help victims as the building collapsed.
I agree the Muslim nations should be left to choose their own rulers. But if they persist in attacking innocents they should expect an equivalent response.

 Mozart
I have no problems with the Afghanistan issue.  In the case of Iraq there was a French gentleman in charge of Siza Water - the first water concession in SA operating in Ballito - who told me the day the war start ed, that it is a huge mistake which the US and UK Governments will regret for decades to come.  
I think he was right about that one.   

He was, but he wasn't alone. An Iraqi occupation was never going to end well. In that sense the hugely successful post war occupations of Germany and Japan were a head fake. In those countries the status quo was totally broken, and the people so disillusioned that they wanted to rejoin the world community. Not so in these ME countries.

Moz, watch that video I posted. It's very short. That woman can tell the future.

 I watched it....my guess is she is standing in front of some earlier tape.

Nope Moz she isn't.

 Ou maaaikie I notice you seldom deal with the issues.here you slate poor Anne who has written a very sensible article. No doubt criticisms of her by the global elitist media have brain washed you.As a test tell us what is wrong with these assertins:Even if you think Trump is a libertine, shallow narcissist, you know he will do what no other Republican will: Go to Washington, kick ass, mock political correctness, build a wall, deport illegals, bring manufacturing home, and end the GOP’s peculiar fixation with remaking the Muslim world. 
Very interesting Plum:

And here...Moz I'd like you to explain this one.

This reporter says on camera that Building 7 has collapsed. Only problem...it can still be seen standing behind her in the shot.

Honestly, I like to hear an explanation for this since I can't think of one.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=677i43QfYpQ

Trump is saying the truth about 9/11 is still to be revealed.

 There is another point of view and that is a real problem.   Putin in particular is under constant attack by the US in particular because he is protecting the interests of Russia.  he is not warmongering - the US is.  As Farange said in one video the US - Supporting Liberals in the EU has one ideal - to bomb people not thinking like them out of existence.
To answer you frankly - both the Republicans and Democrats have a spotty record over the last 70 years - a record where they started wars in other parts of the world for economic reasons - like the Vietnam War was used to relieve joblessness in the US and the weapons they manufactured was frequently used against the US - mostkly through capture, but also through illegal weapons trade.
The same can be said of the subsequent wars - mostly started to enhance the interet of the US and the success rate was zero to extremely negative.   Trump will not be a good president because of his inherent tendency of trying to rule the world.   He will make enem ies of too many people and that would be a disaster.  
It bothers me that such an amateur could have his finger on the red button and the results would be horrific.  The man is a showpony and a big talker - he may know something about building of a business empire - but he knows zero about diplomacy and tact.  That has been shown up during his recent campaign as well.  
The world does not need bullies - they need real leaders.  I can see a strong conservative President do a lot for the US and the world - also for such leaders in the UK., France and Germany - but that will not happen with Trump in charge in the US.               

 ou maaaikie you started off well re the American wars and Putin but then showed gross ignorance once again.Please read this brilliant article. Maybe you will understand why Trump has being doing so well and why it would disasterous for him not to win. This article cuts through all the blab and highlights what this huge battle is about. At the moment you are not seeing the wood from the trees ou maaikie!!!!!!!!!

In an exclusive statement to Breitbart News, Pat Buchanan declared that Trump’s rise represents a rejection of 25 years of Bush Republicanism— an ideology which Buchanan says has destroyed America’s once-great manufacturing core, flooded the country with low-skilled workers, and drained the treasury with ill-advised foreign adventures in the Middle East.

“In the GOP nomination race, the chickens of a quarter century of Bush Republicanism have come home to roost,” Buchanan told Breitbart. “Trump’s triumphs to date are due to his recognition of, and identification with, the Middle American revolt against Bush family ideology and policy, and what it has produced.”

Buchanan explained that “America is rejecting the Bush immigration policy,” which has “proffered amnesty” to “12 million illegals… because it said the United States is helpless to do anything about their presence here.”

“America’s establishment has failed America,” Buchanan said, “The single clearest message in the presidential campaign of 2015-2016 is that the American people would like to cleanse our capital city of its ruling class.”

Buchanan, former speechwriter and White House adviser to Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, is legendary amongst conservatives for his insurgent Republican presidential campaigns during the 1990s, which laid the intellectual groundwork for the conservative nation-state movement. Buchanan has been credited with presaging the revolt which has manifested itself in the 2016 election and for correctly predicting the consequences of mass migration, ideological free trade, and military adventurism — predictions which were largely dismissed at the time he made them.

This week, Trump seemed to scandalize the collective consciousness of professional Republicans with his Saturday debate performance in which he launched a full-throated assault on Bush Republicanism. Trump repudiated all three pillars of Republican globalism: namely, military adventurism, immigration multiculturalism, and trade globalism.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)79%, who shares Bush’s goals for more global trade, more immigration, and more foreign adventurism, was quick to defend Bush’s enduring legacy during the debate. “He kept us safe, and I am forever grateful to what he did for this country,” Rubio said earnestly as he was met with uproarious applause from the GOPdonor-stacked audience.

Immediately following the debate, professional Republicans, including writers at theNational Review, pounced on the opportunity to once again— now more emphatically— proclaim Trump ineligible of being the Party’s nominee

Many even sought to portray Trump as a radical “truther”— a claim which seems particularly bizarre considering that Trump is the only GOP candidate to propose a pauseon Muslim migration— repeatedly citing, as his reasoning for doing so, his desire to prevent future terror attacks carried out by Muslim migrants, such as 9/11.

Reports described Trump’s assault on Bush as “heretical” to Republicans.

However, contrary to what the writings of professional Republicans may suggest, Buchanan explains that the Republican electorate — and the American people in general — have resoundingly rejected the Bush legacy and, more broadly, have rejected Republican globalism.

“America is rejecting the Bush immigration policy that refused to secure our border, allowed 12 million illegals to enter, then proffered amnesty because it said the United States is helpless to do anything about their presence here,” Buchanan said.

Buchanan has warned of the Balkanization that will ensue as a result of the immigration agenda of Bush Republicanism– writing in 2008 that Bush’s immigration policies “may turn this republic into a Tower of Babel.”

According to a 2009 Wall Street Journal report, under George W. Bush’s presidency, the U.S. created three million new jobs. Yet at the same time, under Bush’s presidency, 10.5 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) settled in the United States — meaning that Bush brought in three immigrants for every one job he created. During that time, the number of working-age, native-born Americans not working exploded. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ current population survey, the number of working-age Americans without a job increased by 10.6 million between the fourth quarter of 2000, right before Bush took office, compared to the fourth quarter of 2008, right before he left office.

Pew polling data shows that 92% of the Republican electorate — and 83% of the American electorate as a whole (Republicans and Democrats) — would like to see America’s immigration level frozen or slashed.

While many GOP candidates have argued that it is not possible to round up and deport 12 million people residing unlawfully in the country, Trump has distinguished himself from the field with his nation-state-focused worldview: “We either have a country or we don’t.”

Buchanan, who has not made any endorsement in the race, explained that the American people are rejecting the trade globalism of Bush Republicans that “carted off what was once the greatest manufacturing base the world had ever seen”:

Trump’s success is a repudiation of a Bush ‘free-trade’ policy that allowed China to run up $4 trillion in trade surpluses against us since George H. W. Bush took office, and to cart off what was once the greatest manufacturing base the world had ever seen.  Compare Detroit and Shanghai today — to see the fruits of ‘free trade’.

Bush trade policy brought down the curtain on America’s economic independence. We now depend on foreign and sometimes hostile nations for the necessities of our national life.

Indeed, the number of American manufacturing jobs decreased by 3.4 million under George W. Bush’s presidency as he continued to push for more global trade agreements and opposed efforts to crack down on illicit trading practices. As Bush said at the time, “I believe that the entry of China… into the WTO will strengthen the global trading system and expand world economic growth.”

Under President Bush, the trade deficit nearly doubled, the trade deficit with China tripled, and the national debt of the United States also nearly doubled.

Trump has distinguished himself from Bush Republicanism with his vociferous oppositionto the Trans-Pacific Partnership — a pact which both Cruz and Rubio cast a vote to fast-track and have previously praised. Rubio has not retracted his prior support of TPP, whereas Cruz has straddled the line by saying he opposes “in its current form” the pact he once described as “historic” and said would “mean greater access to a billion customers for American manufacturers, farmers and ranchers.”

Cruz and Rubio also opposed efforts to combat foreign currency manipulation, something Trump has warned is being used by foreign countries to put American factories out of business.

By a margin of nearly five-to-one, the American people believe these so-called free trade deals lower wages rather than raise them, according to Pew polling data.

Buchanan continues: “Trump’s success also represents a repudiation of a reflexively interventionist foreign policy that produced the longest wars in our history, cost us 6,000 dead, 40,000 wounded, and trillions of dollars.  And the price tag rises monthly. We are now mired down in five wars — Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen — for what?”

“Contrast where we were when Ronald Reagan went home, with where we are, and it is easy to understand the revolutions raging in both parties, Buchanan concludes.  “America’s establishment has failed America.  The single clearest message in the presidential campaign of 2015-2016 is that the American people would like to cleanse our capital city of its ruling class.”

Interestingly, while Buchanan has been described as remarkably prescient, particular statements from George W. Bush may strike some as reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of the views of the American electorate. Bush has articulated positions which seem antithetical to the “Trump phenomenon.”

For instance, in 2008 Bush said, “I’m troubled by isolationism and protectionism … (and) another ‘ism,’ and that’s nativism.”

Bush doubled down on this sentiment in 2011, declaring, “If you study history, is that there are some ‘isms’ that occasionally pop up — pop up. One is isolationism and its evil twin protectionism and its evil triplet nativism.”

Ironically, these issues are arguably the central focus of the 2016 election.

Trump has surged in the polls with his campaign platform that rejects the Bush “isms” of military adventurism, trade globalism, and migration multiculturalism — the latter, most emphatically, by rejecting the donor class assumption that Muslim migration is a civil right.

In perhaps just one remarkable display of Buchanan’s foresight, in 2008 the conservative thinker penned a column responding to Bush’s so-called “evil” -isms, which have now come to define the 2016 election.

Buchanan observed that there is nothing about Bush Republicanism that is particularly attractive to American conservatives. He said, “After the judges and tax cuts, what is there about Bush that is conservative? His foreign policy is Wilsonian. His trade policy is pure FDR. His spending is LBJ all the way. His amnesty for illegals is Teddy Kennedy’s policy… In smearing as nativists, protectionists and isolationists those who wish to stop the invasion, halt the export of factories and jobs to Asia, and stop the unnecessary wars, Bush is attacking the last true conservatives in his party.”

All these things a very unpopular with most Americans and Trump is getting his message across paying minimal amounts for advertising.

This s sure one very smart operator. He nails the issues and puts it all very simply so the masses can understand. (Ou maaaikie still doesn't understand and I guess dense denise never will. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

How he is hated by the donor class, the global elitists  who cant stand him.

Trump we salute you courage and intelligence and willingness to take on this very powerful group of people at considerable risk to yourself and your family.  GOOOOOO PRESIDENT TRUMP

Hang on, so this Buchanan chap was President Nixon's advisor? Oh well then we should really listen to what he has to say . . . he's provided so much sound advice in the past!

LMAO!

 Bwahahahhahahahahaha as usual ou rooitwit has nothing substantive to say.
What we do know is that for some very peculiar reason ou rooitwit supports the donor class and cant stand Trump.Of course rooitwit is a peculiar oak and of course the reason is he just doesn't think.Ou rooitwit is is a very big sponge sucking it all up. Rooitwit when will you ever start to think?Here on this Board you have role models like Dr Moz and myself. One would think that would help you but I see very little if any development in you - ALAS
What do you think of Pats insights or is it once again too much for you? Ha hahahahahahahahahahaha

  Questioner asks Trump about his comments about how George W. Bush lied to get us in the Iraq War. Trump says a lot of people agree with what he says about how Saddam Hussein was not responsible for 9/11. He says going into Iraq was the worst decision made by a president perhaps in the history of the United States. Trump says he is the one who didn’t want to go to War with Iraq, so it is not fair to raise questions about his having his finger on the nuclear button. Trump says Bush went into Iraq because he was loyal to his father and “destroyed” the Middle East. Trump says Obama got us out the wrong way as well.

Except . . . ummm . . . Drumpf is lying through his teeth . . . as can be seen in this 2002 interview with Howard Stern.

Wehe . . . busted!

 So I'm curious Plum. This is a BBC programme. We have a reporter and an anchor talking about the Salomon building collapsing....but it's clearly visible in the background. Possible answers are:
1) The background feed was from an earlier clip.
2) The reporter is prescient and knew the building would fall
3) They realized they made a mistake and corrected it by  paying somebody to take it down.
4) The whole thing is a conspiracy the building is still there.
5) The whole thing is a conspiracy there never was a building
6) The whole thing is a conspiracy and the BBC is a right wing front.
Which answer do you tend to support?

 So I'm curious Plum. This is a BBC programme. We have a reporter and an anchor talking about the Salomon building collapsing....but it's clearly visible in the background. Possible answers are:
1) The background feed was from an earlier clip.
2) The reporter is prescient and knew the building would fall
3) They realized they made a mistake and corrected it by  paying somebody to take it down.
4) The whole thing is a conspiracy the building is still there.
5) The whole thing is a conspiracy there never was a building
6) The whole thing is a conspiracy and the BBC is a right wing front.
Which answer do you tend to support?

Buildings behind the reporter are being green screened - probably from a tape done a little earlier.
Notice how blurry the panel of TV's 30 or 40 meters behind the male anchor are, yet when they switch to the female reporter both the reporter and the buildings behind her are in focus. That's because the buildings are being green screened only a few feet behind the reporter. No camera shot from inside a brightly lit studio through a window in the background would have that much contrast in the image seen outside the window.  The real "conspiracy" is BBC representing a tape delayed shot of NY as live.

 Forget about the news with the background story,   What is important i s whether a politician running for selection should advertise that he is a supporter of torture?  That to my mind is way past the limit and that should not be accepted by thinking people and condemned outright by everybody.      

 Plum, IF that whole thing was conspired by a couple of lizards, the BBC reptoids would not have been in on the deal. You should learn to pinch salt....not too much though, too much of it is bad for your health. 

 ou maaaikie you limp wrsited pC lib.did you ever answer my question re what you would do if you had a terrosist who had information that could save your family but he wont tell.
Lets hear your answer. Sorry if I missed it.Trump is 200% right these guys deserve what they get and nothing must be off the table in getting the truth out of them. Very unfortunate we reach this stae of affairs but look at what we have to deal with.

 Beeno
I answered it clearly.  Information gotten through torture is of zero value and will save nobody.   A severely tortured person will always provide info what he believes will reduce his plight and will provide info that he believes the torturer would want to hear.  It may even cause more severe danger to a family - since it would add up to zero value information - while real information will be neglected.
Let me ask you clearly - are you in favour of state-sponsored torture?  If you are in favour - do you realize how it could be used by irresponsible governments liike ours?

 Trump ou maaaikie is talking aboiut using it against terrorists. Its an extrem emasure against extrem people.Answered this elsewhere. You are a limp PC lib  -doubtless a Chamberlain type of noodle. Thankfully Churchill came along and now Trump.Hope more Trumps arise in Europe to save the day!