Should Hillary claim that she also opposed the Iraq War?
The Iraq War was a debacle. Hillary supported it. So wouldn’t it be in her interest to start claiming she opposed it? Forget the morality of the idea; would it work as a campaign strategy?
Many people probably find the suggestion to be absurd. Almost ludicrous. But why?
They’d say she supported the war. There is a paper trail showing her support. She could never get away with claiming she opposed it. Maybe so, but Trump also support the Iraq War, and did so publicly. Nonetheless, Trump does in fact claim that he opposed the Iraq War, and reporters do let him get away with it. So why can’t Hillary? Why the double standard?
Hillary’s core supporters include lots of smart/idealistic people like Paul Krugman, who would be outraged by Hillary lying about her support for the war. Yes, they let her shade the truth on murky personal questions like emails, but they’d be outraged by a bald-faced lie on a key policy issue. She is seen as a competent manager of government (wrongly in my view). In contrast, Trump is never seriously seen as someone who would actually govern the country. He’s running as a sort of troll, a way for voters to show their contempt for the establishment. The American Brexit. The truth value of his claims about the Iraq War have no importance, nor do his claims about the “40%” unemployment rate, or indeed anything else. It makes no difference whether or not he favors a higher minimum wage, or infrastructure, or paying off the national debt in 8 years, or anything else. He’s a troll, and all that matters is that he annoys the (global) establishment.
I’m a member of the global establishment, if you define the term loosely enough, and so I’m annoyed. Not because his policies would hurt me, indeed they’d massively help my career. Every day after January 20th would be like Christmas, as I got to watch the look on alt-right and supply-sider faces as they found out the truth about Trump. The blogosphere would go crazy.
Rather I’m annoyed because we have a track record here, and Trump people don’t seem to know it. Throughout history, there have been lots of right-wing demagogues who engaged in the big lie. Today we see Duterte in the Philippines, Orban in Hungary, Putin in Russia, Erdogan in Turkey, etc. A few years back we had Berlusconi in Italy. In earlier decades we saw many others.
It never turns out well. That’s what Trump supporters don’t get, it never turns out well.
Maybe Trump will be a first, but I doubt it. (Of course left wing demagogues (Chavez, etc.) are usually even worse.)
PS. I can already anticipate what commenters will say, but I know that deep down you guys don’t believe it. Deep down even the most die-hard Trump supporter would be shocked if Hillary suddenly started claiming that she opposed the Iraq War. So don’t waste your time denying it. I don’t believe you.
PPS. I would LOVE to see Hillary deny that she supported the Iraq War, in tonight’s debate. As a prank, a way of making a point. Trump would take the bait and insist she was lying. But she could reply “how is that different from your lies about opposing the war”. After the debate the news media would be all over the issue, and would end up claiming that both sides were lying. It would be the big story—man bites dog. Then Hillary could say she was “just being sarcastic”, which Trump always uses as a get of of jail free card, when he is caught saying something idiotic (and that he didn’t realize at the time was idiotic.) She could say she was just trying to make a point—how ridiculous Trump’s lies are.
She won’t take my advice. And I suppose she shouldn’t. But it’s a nice daydream.
PPPS. You want double standards? Remember when Trump bragged about his sexual prowess in a GOP debate? Try to imagine a female candidate doing something comparable. It makes my head explode. I guess I have a double standard too. (Any comments on the PPPS will be deleted.)
Tags:
26. September 2016 at 10:02
If Hillary said she was against the war, Scott Adams would call it a linguistic kill shot.
26. September 2016 at 10:25
Trump never said he thought the unemployment rate was 40%. Why do you keep saying that?
He said, “The unemployment rate is probably 20 percent,”
26. September 2016 at 10:32
It’s a question that has been asked before, should Hillary just come back at Trump exactly as he would, with lies and crudeness and so on? And as you said she shouldn’t. No way she can play that role better than he does.
All she can do at this point is stay healthy, stop saying mean things about his voters, try to look strong in the debates, keep the spotlight on his venality, and really work the get-out-the-vote stuff where she has a decided advantage.
Looks like a tossup at this point which is just insane, but shows the horribleness of the choice offered.
If the troll wins it won’t be the end of the world, or the country. But it will be sad, and set a precedent for the future: no longer do you have to be a serious person to run this great nation.
26. September 2016 at 10:38
Because Trump said, on 28 September 2015:
“The unemployment rate is probably 20 percent, but I will tell you, you have some great economists that will tell you it’s a 30, 32. And the highest I’ve heard so far is 42 percent.”
There is no “great economist” who will tell you it is 30% – and nobody past third grade who thinks it is 42 percent. Trump was lying.
26. September 2016 at 11:54
Now Trump’s own campaign manager says he is a liar:
“Conway said she believed Holt was “a great choice” to moderate Monday night’s debate, adding that Trump was not aware of the NBC anchor’s political affiliation when he labeled Holt a partisan Democrat.”
If you call someone a Democrat, at a time you don’t know their affiliation, that’s a lie. Just to be clear, I’m not saying Trump lied on this occasion, his campaign manager says he did.
But this is really pointless, he lies everyday.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/arent-addressing-im-asking-trump-141025838.html
26. September 2016 at 12:04
If you want a systematic study of his dishonesty, check this out:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/fact-checking-2016-gop-presidential-candidates/
26. September 2016 at 12:34
The main double standard is the one between normal politicians and complete idiots like Trump.
Politicians have been almost trained to try and lie as little as possible. Hillary can’t go up there and make up a whole load of stuff because she’s a politician. Trump, however, can’t make up a whole load of lies that have no basis in economic or political reality and it doesn’t affect him, because most of the people that will be reading the fact checkers after the debate will be Hillary supporters.
And that is what will happen tonight: Trump will make a crazy, nonsense statement that is believable, then Hillary will try and challenge it with some form of truth that’s more complicated and less believable that will garner less support. (Tariffs are good, the wall will be effective, China’s stealing our jobs etc.)
26. September 2016 at 12:39
What do you think of this?
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/02/hillary_clinton_told_the_truth_about_her_iraq_war_vote.html
Note that October 2002 was before U.N. weapons inspectors were readmitted into Iraq.
26. September 2016 at 12:47
You are mixing things up. At first you are analysing correctly that Trump is anti-establishment, kind of a maverick. Voters see in him a way to show their contempt for the establishment.
From this analysis you should conclude that Trump can bend the truth a lot more (he runs on the “maverick” platform) while Hillary can not bend the truth as much – she runs on the “honest establishment” platform, remember?
Of course she could start lying even more now (as you seem to recommend) but then she’ll lose by a landslide for sure. With recommendations like that I’m not sure if you aren’t a secret Trump supporter after all.
I’m really curious how the debates will turn out. Trump is in a similar position like Romney in 2012. The debates are his very last chance. Romney was being screwed by one very biased Candy Crowley moment. I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried something similar during the upcoming debates. I’m curious how Trump would react to such an incident. Romney did not react properly, gave in to easily and therefore lost. Trump usually does not back down easily. That’s his strength and maybe his only strength.
26. September 2016 at 13:28
*saddles hobby horse*
‘He’s running as a sort of troll, a way for voters to show their contempt for the establishment. The American Brexit.’
Brexit was about leaving the EU. In particular, aspects of immigration and sovereignty.
The electorate that had just returned the Conservative party to power again, rejected Scottish independence and rejected a move to the Alternative Vote system (all status-quo maintaining on the advice of the establishment) wasn’t looking about for any random way to give the establishment a kicking.
There really was a deep current of resentment about the EU specifically. Leave won in spite of establishment opposition, not because of it.
The Trumpian animus is far less specific.
26. September 2016 at 14:09
Scott,
As a throw away comment, I assume you think left-wing demagogues have been worse due to redistributionist policies such as those under Stalin, Mao, and Chavez. You certainly have a point. The food shortages alone have been tragic.
But, I think it’s safe to say Hitler and the Japanese fascists were at least as destructive, if not more so, due to the wars they insisted on starting. And plenty of bad right-wing governments have ruined economies with currency pegs, only to help bring bad left-wing governments to power after economic meltdowns, defaults, and high inflation.
26. September 2016 at 14:31
Scott,
I’ll ask again. When did Trump say he thought unemployment was 40%?
26. September 2016 at 16:25
“So wouldn’t it be in her interest to start claiming she opposed it? Forget the morality of the idea; would it work as a campaign strategy?”
-Yes and yes.
“She could never get away with claiming she opposed it.”
-Yes, she could.
“Hillary’s core supporters include lots of smart/idealistic people like Paul Krugman, who would be outraged by Hillary lying about her support for the war.”
-Krugman’s smart, but he’s a cold-blooded establishmentarian. Not an idealistic bone in his body. He would defend Hillary Clinton 100% of the way this campaign, no matter what she did or said. Dude wants a cabinet job. Give him a break.
“If you want a systematic study of his dishonesty, check this out:”
-Scott, the 50-point IQ drop when you talk about politics really is visible. That is neither systemic, nor a study, nor even remotely reliable.
“but I know that deep down you guys don’t believe it.”
-That claim is as ridiculous as a televangelist claiming that no atheists exist in the world.
“Deep down even the most die-hard Trump supporter would be shocked if Hillary suddenly started claiming that she opposed the Iraq War.”
-I’d be a tad surprised, but I wouldn’t be even remotely shocked. She is that mendacious. The idea of Trump as a serious presidential candidate (one whom I support!) is, to me, far more shocking.
Sumner, throughout every part of this post, from beginning to end, you persistently show yourself to be more nuts than I ever thought you’d be. Congrats. But don’t be hopeful.
26. September 2016 at 16:28
“Trump is in a similar position like Romney in 2012.”
-As of time of writing, his position is better than Mitt’s ever was, at any point in 2012, and is completely incomparable to Mitt’s just before the debate (3% NowCast). Check FiveThirtyEight.
26. September 2016 at 19:02
I just reviewed the Trump comments on the Iraq War and he seemed neutral, using typical wishy-washy two-faced language. “Perhaps it is right, perhaps it isn’t”. It is wrong for him to say he was against it, but probably more wrong to say he supported the war. Given the sentiment at the time, neutral was against the tide. Hillary is a hawk and everyone knows that, so the lie would not work. For Trump, the lie fits better.
26. September 2016 at 20:58
Darth Trump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU_Jdts5rL0
26. September 2016 at 20:59
Poor Sumner. You have what’s called a goyishe kopf. IQ challenged gentiles simply cannot understand the ways of the chosen.
26. September 2016 at 23:02
“I’ve seen numbers of 24 percent — I actually saw a number of 42 percent unemployment. Forty-two percent.” He continued, “5.3 percent unemployment — that is the biggest joke there is in this country. … The unemployment rate is probably 20 percent, but I will tell you, you have some great economists that will tell you it’s a 30, 32. And the highest I’ve heard so far is 42 percent.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-unemployment-rate-may-be-42-perc/
27. September 2016 at 06:27
dtoh, Ok, it was 42%.
Don, You said:
“I just reviewed the Trump comments on the Iraq War and he seemed neutral, using typical wishy-washy two-faced language. “Perhaps it is right, perhaps it isn’t”.”
If you intend to be taken seriously here, you might provide the quote where Trump actually said he supported the war, instead of an irrelevant quote. But then almost none of my commenters seem to want to be taken seriously.
Trump said he supported the war. How complicated is that for you people?
27. September 2016 at 07:18
“Trump said he supported the war. How complicated is that for you people?”
-He addressed that on the debate stage last night. The moderator was totally biased and did not grill Her on this issue, and Trump didn’t have either the imagination or the time to. She got away! Sad!
27. September 2016 at 07:29
Scott, Trump said, “The unemployment rate is probably 20 percent”
What do you not understand about that and why are you saying he said it’s 40%. When you say some economists believe that low interest rates are an indication of loose monetary policy does that mean you agree with them. Trump was very specific. Why are you (now) deliberately distorting what he said. You’re constantly berating him for a lack of honesty… I mean really.
27. September 2016 at 09:40
dtoh, it took about 3, maybe 4 seconds to find this on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI2UztDjQhQ
27. September 2016 at 19:32
Tom – Post the whole quote. Please.
29. September 2016 at 12:12
“If you intend to be taken seriously here, you might provide the quote where Trump actually said he supported the war, …”
Which quote are you referring to Professor Sumner?
The only quote I know of http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald-trump-and-the-iraq-war/ is:
“Yeah, I guess so. …”
It is supporting the war, so he is lying, but it is hardly a ringing endorsement.
10. October 2016 at 11:56
I would be happy with any sign Hillary Clinton would give that she realize that Invading Iraq, Bombing Libya and arming rebels in Syria were all big mistakes.
10. October 2016 at 12:01
BTW: do you all know who was against the war in Iraq Jim Webb, That’s who and the Democratic party voters ignored him!
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2006/09/jim-webbs-2002-op-ed-against-invading-iraq
This is sad. He would have mopped the floor with Trump.