Washington Post ^ | June 6, 2016 | Jose De Real
Donald Trump’s regular praise for authoritarian governments and dictators has come under fresh scrutiny this week following his latest laudatory comments about the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, whose human rights abuses and support for international terrorism made him a top enemy of the United States for decades.
“He was a bad guy, really bad guy. But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good,” Trump said during a campaign event in Raleigh, N.C., Tuesday evening. “They didn’t read them the rights — they didn’t talk, they were a terrorist, it was over. Today, Iraq is Harvard for terrorism. You want to be a terrorist, you go to Iraq. It’s like Harvard. Okay? So sad.”
The remarks have revived worries among Republican lawmakers and members of the party’s foreign-policy establishment, many of whom have become increasingly despondent over Trump’s loose and threatening rhetoric on international relations. Many critics in both parties also say that the presumptive GOP presidential nominee is laying out an alarmingly dark worldview that should give voters serious pause.
“This follows a disturbing trend of Trump relating to the way brutal tyrants executed policy in their countries. I do think that there’s something dark about Trump’s view of the world,” said Republican strategist Tim Miller, a former Jeb Bush aide who has played an active role in the anti-Trump movement. “When a person running for president continually compliments brutal, undemocratic dictators and their methods, I think it’s fair to have some concerns that those are methods that they might be interested in deploying if necessary.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Other news outlets capitalized on this press release. Links at the bottom.
We all know they are saying that Trump admires these dictators. If he admires them, then he must aspire to be one of them is what they are saying.
First of all, to address the point about Hussein. Trump said he was a "bad, a really bad guy." Everyone knows he was a horrible human being. No question. However, I seem to recall liberals who are now crowing about his horrible human rights record, wanted to leave him in power. They didn't want to go into Iraq. Hillary voted to go into Iraq, but Obama didn't, and she said she regretted her decision in 2008. She has since maintained that. Bernie also was opposed to going into Iraq and tried to use the argument that she supported it against her, but it didn't work this time because the fix was in. So if liberals had to go back in time, they would have left him in.
The article says, "Trump commented on Hussein’s record several times throughout the Republican primary season, saying that Iraq would have been better off if he were still in power in part because of his brutal tactics against dissenters." Now one argument that I heard from liberals in particular is that George Bush had no business nation building there because he destabilized the country. He kept the various factions from fighting and kept a lid on the crazies. It's argued that killing Saddam led to the rise of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and ISIS.
This is from a military general and is posted in the Huffington Post (a liberal source):
Former Military Chief: Iraq War Was A ‘Failure’ That Helped Create ISIS
Tony Blair is right: without the Iraq war there would be no Islamic State
How the Bush Wars Opened the Door for ISIS
Former US military adviser David Kilcullen says there would be no Isis without Iraq invasion
This a snippet of papers who seem to concur with Trump, although not by using his language, that Saddam Hussein in power kept a group like ISIS from springing up.
Peter Bergen for CNN says that Trump gets it right:
Trump gets it right on Saddam
As a reminder, Trump said last night, "I don't love Saddam Hussein. I hate Saddam Hussein." That's what you say about your favorite people.
KIM JONG UN
“If you look at North Korea, this guy, I mean, he’s like a maniac, okay? And you’ve got to give him credit,” Trump said during a campaign event in Iowa. “He goes in, he takes over, and he’s the boss. It’s incredible. He wiped out the uncle. He wiped out this one, that one.”
I have read several books on North Korea and seen multiple documentaries. Kim Jong Un is a horrible dictator. Trump calls him a maniac. However, what Trump said isn't untrue. He was in his 20s, and by accounts that I've read not even very smart in school, but he literally got an entire country of people to accept him as dictator. Now for your average citizen of North Korea, the new boss is the same as the old boss. They have to accept whoever comes in as they have no power to speak up or fight back. However, the party brass got behind him, and something obviously went on with his uncle where he didn't perceive the uncle as loyal. Despite the fact his uncle was at his father's side and in turn around the party brass for years (probably having made allies and friends), he had him executed and kept the party brass behind him. He now runs one of the most repressive and controlling countries in the world.
The only thing that may have helped him was the cult of personality built around the Kims deifying them. It's a dynasty. The grandfather is eternal president for life even in death. However, I'm not certain that the top party brass with some exposure to the outside world believe the lies told the public about the Kims. How could they? The lies told about Kim Jong Il were ridiculous, and only someone isolated and brainwashed could believe them.
So he's a monster (who, don't forget, has over 200,000 people in camps) no doubt, but to step in, get party brass behind him, eradicate his own uncle and those disloyal while consolidating party brass behind him, have the country "accept" him the same way they did his father and grandfather when he was so young, and keep the country "running" under their system, is something that could not have been a very easy feat, even with dynasty and cult of personality. Per a quote from an ABC report which will be linked, Trump says, "...I mean this guy doesn't play games. And we can't play games with him." True. He kills his own citizens, and he would kill us all in a heartbeat if he could do it and get away with it.
Calling someone a "maniac" you "can't play games with" is really what you say about a favorite person, right?
“As far as Putin is concerned, I think Putin has been a very strong leader for Russia. He’s been a lot stronger than our leader, that I can tell you. I mean, for Russia.”
Now ABC also did a report on this, also going off of the Clinton press release. Trump said:
"If Putin respects me and if Putin wants to call me brilliant and other things that he said that were frankly very nice, I'll accept that, and I'll accept it on behalf of our country,” he said.
HORRIBLE! So Trump accepts Putin's compliment and says he thinks he can get along with him. What's wrong with that? I fail to see the problem there. Is he supposed to disavow Putin's compliment? I don't get that one.
Perhaps we need Hillary with a reset button to go in there.
Per ABC News:
"I think in terms of leadership, he's getting an A and our president is not doing so well," Trump said of al-Assad during an interview with Fox News in September.
Later that week, in an interview with ABC's "This Week," Trump tampered his praise for al-Assad but said the U.S. shouldn't trust some of the groups rebelling against the regime.
"Assad's a bad guy, but they're all bad guys. We're supporting rebels. You know they talk about the Syria Free Rebels. We're supporting rebels. We don't even know who they are," Trump said.
Trump again says that he is a "bad" guy. He has said he doesn't believe we should be fighting Assad and ISIS or two wars at once saying the U.S. has “bigger problems than Assad.” A quote from him:
“I would have stayed out of Syria and wouldn’t have fought so much for Assad, against Assad because I thought that was a whole thing,” Trump said. “You have Iran, which we made into a power. Iran now is a power. Because of us, because of some of the dumbest deals I have ever seen. So now you have Iran and you have Russia in favor of Assad. We’re supposed to fight the two of them. At the same time, we’re supposed to fight ISIS, who is fighting Assad.”
"We would be so much better off if Gaddafi were in charge right now. If these politicians went to the beach and didn't do a thing and we had Saddam Hussein and if we had Gadhafi in charge, instead of having terrorism all over the place, we'd be — at least they killed terrorists, all right? And I'm not saying they were good, because they were bad, they were really bad, but we don't know what we're getting," he said.
So here he says Gaddafi is bad. He didn't praise him. He just said he's better than the alternative. We know that ISIS has expanded. We know that our embassy was attacked.
Per media sources:
ISIS expands in post-Gadhafi Libya
Gaddafi Predicted Rise of ISIS and Terrorist Attacks Just Before His Death
ISIS Thrives In Libya 5 Years After Revolution That Toppled Gaddafi
Five years after Gaddafi, Libya torn by civil war and battles with Isis
UN warns Isis is strengthening hold in Libya with 'nationalistic narrative'
To weaken ISIS, U.S. deploys small number of special ops in Libya
How one major failure allowed ISIS to exploit the chaos in its newest hotspot
'Unbearable': What life is like under ISIS in Libya
However, guess who is helping?
US Enlists Former Gadaffi Fighters To Oust ISIS From Libya
Former henchmen of deposed despot Gaddafi join Libyan fight to WIPE OUT evil ISIS
OBAMA'S WORST MISTAKE ACCORDING TO OBAMA:
“Probably failing to plan for the day after, what I think was the right thing to do, in intervening in Libya.”
IN 2014 TO NY TIMES:
“[W]e [and] our European partners underestimated the need to come in full force if you’re going to do this. Then it’s the day after Qaddafi is gone, when everybody is feeling good and everybody is holding up posters saying, ‘Thank you, America.’ At that moment, there has to be a much more aggressive effort to rebuild societies that didn’t have any civic traditions.”
Trump gets attacked all the while Bernie also was opposed to the war in Libya. Bernie said:
"I think -- and I say this with due respect -- that I worry too much that Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change and a little bit too aggressive without knowing what the unintended consequences might be," he said Dec. 19. "Yes, we could get rid of (former Iraqi leader) Saddam Hussein, but that destabilized the entire region. Yes, we could get rid of (former Libyan dictator Muammar) Gaddafi, a terrible dictator, but that created a vacuum for ISIS. Yes, we could get rid of (Syrian dictator Bashar) Assad tomorrow, but that would create another political vacuum that would benefit ISIS. So I think, yeah, regime change is easy,
getting rid of dictators is easy. But before you do that, you've got to think about what happens the day after."
"Look, everybody understands Gaddafi is a thug and murderer," Sanders said to Fox News. "We want to see him go, but I think in the midst of two wars (in Iraq and Afghanistan), I'm not quite sure we need a third war, and I hope the president tells us that our troops will be leaving there, that our military action in Libya will be ending very, very shortly."
Effects per Wiki:
As of February 2015, damage and disorder from the war has been considerable. There are frequent electric outages, little business activity, and a loss in revenues from oil by 90%. Over 4,000 people have died from the fighting, and some sources claim nearly a third of the country’s population has fled to Tunisia as refugees.
Jake Tapper asked Trump about comments he made in 1990 regarding Tiananmen Square:
”You said ‘When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it, they were vicious, they were brutal, and then they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength.’” “That doesn’t mean I was endorsing it,” Trump replied. ”I said that was a strong, powerful government that put it down with strength. And they kept down the riot. It was a horrible thing, it doesn’t mean at all I was endorsing.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432655/trump-defends-praising-putin-chinas-strong-response-tiananmen-square
I fail to see the problem. He expressed it was a "horrible" thing, but people often associate strength with goodness. That's not always true. It takes a strong government, not from a moral standpoint, but from a physical standpoint and a powerful standpoint to do that to its own citizens. That's a government that is too strong and powerful. It's not one we would want or Trump would want because he called it "horrible." There is good strength and there is bad strength.
MEDIA THAT MADE ARTICLES OF HILLARY'S PRESS RELEASE:
Donald Trump's soft spot for dictators
Donald Trump's History of Praising Dictators
Trump’s favorite dictators: In reviled tyrants, GOP nominee finds traits to praise
5 Controversial Dictators and Leaders Donald Trump Has Praised
The terrifying implications of Donald Trump's affectionate remarks about dictators
Donald Trump finds something to like in these dictators
It’s not just Saddam Hussein: Trump has a long history of googly-eyed admiration for dictators