>Our cadre of neoconservative foreign policy experts, unhumbled after marching us into a reckless war in Iraq and a poorly conceived one in Afghanistan, who applauded as we bombed Libya and bitterly resent our having failed to bomb Bashar al-Assad in Syria, are frightened. Wisely, they often focus on comments that Trump has made on issues that are of less genuine interest to them — from his strident stance on immigration to his “threat” to our liberties to his sometimes deplorable commentary about women and some minorities. But what really troubles them is his generally level-headed and unmessianic attitude toward foreign affairs. Trump has no desire to make the rest of the world in our image; he is concerned only about the world not making America in its image.
Great article, bumping for other Sup Forumsacks to read it.
This might actually open the eyes of some undecided voters.
Christian Walker
Aka he's a nationalist and not a globalist which is bad for the agenda. These fucking kikes want to remove sovereignty from nation states and the plan to start with where they have a foot hold which is the west. The want the EU to be like the US and they want to join the two. They want an American Union too. The more the better. One giant federal entity submissive to an international law.
We need to start taking this very seriously and treating such "people" as the treason it's they are. We have constitutional rights to indiscriminately exterminate treasonist pigs. That's an objective fact
Camden Thomas
was this before or after trump telling them they were banned?
Isaiah Brooks
>Trump has no desire to make the rest of the world in our image; he is concerned only about the world not making America in its image.
I wonder if this is the same type of Leftist who laments the U.S. occupying other countries and attempting to influence other countries.
However, when Trump wants to focus more on America first, this is suddenly negative.
Elijah Evans
The hysterical anti-Trump comments are hilarious. >Oy vey! The reason he wants to keep our troops at home instead of fighting over seas is so he can round up all the Mexicans, Muslims, homosexuals, and socialists!
I can't say I mind the idea to be honest but we all know it's never going to happen outside of the persecution fantasties of some neurotic kike.
Benjamin Diaz
>I wonder if this is the same type of Leftist who laments the U.S. occupying other countries and attempting to influence other countries.
I guarantee these """""""""people""""""" were against the Iraq War yet are now fervently pro Hillary, who is the biggest neocon on earth besides Bill Kristol.
Alexander Brooks
Trump might remove illegals, but so did Eisenhower, one of the only Republican presidents whose dicks Democrats seem to like sucking and saying was the only "good" republican president.
Carson Jones
>his sometimes deplorable commentary about women and some minorities. This will never cease to make my blood boil
YOU CAN'T JUST LIE LIKE THIS
HE LITERALLY NEVER SPEAKS ABOUT WOMEN HE NEVER SPEAKS POORLY OF ANY UNDESERVING MINORITY GROUP, THAT'S NOT HATED BY OTHER MEMBERS OF THAT GROUP
MEXICANS HATE ILLEGALS AND THE CARTELS TRUMP WANTS TO STOP THEM
MUSLIMS HATE RADICAL ISLAM TERRORISTS TRUMP WANTS TO STOP THEM
WHAT THE FUCK IS SO HARD TO COMPREHEND ABOUT THAT RRREEEEEEEEEEEE
Ryder Carter
shilling for identity politics is the only way the left can win anymore.
Justin Nelson
bump
Luis Bell
...
Cooper Rogers
Jesus, it looks like a fucking gremlin.
Dominic Morales
The fuck is this? Washington Post trying to kiss Trump's ass now? That's even worse than them being unfair to him.
Oliver Wright
I miss Jeb posting
Elijah Wilson
>those legs
Parker Hughes
>Washington Post
Brody Scott
Attack: Jeb Bush - Lvl 3
Nathan Thompson
>Trump has no desire to make the rest of the world in our image; he is concerned only about the world not making America in its image.
remember when (((trump))) was demanding that we go into libya. that sure worked out well.
Wyatt Ward
Bring back Jeb posting!
Dominic Allen
>Hillary lies us into war >it's Trump's fault
kys
forget it
the dream is over
Dylan Long
>4. Using gendered language to describe positives/negatives >5. Speaking over or interrupting women... "Manteruppting"
Jaxson Ward
posting the rest of the article so no one has to click on the link
>The neocons bemoan Trump’s rejection of a global role for the United States, but Trump has no intent to withdraw the United States from the world stage. He only rejects the wanton use of our young men and women on foreign adventures of questionable value.
>The neocons have two clear foreign policy objectives, and Trump may grant them neither. For many of them, their deepest yearning, ungranted even in the waning days of the George W. Bush presidency, is an air campaign against Iran. Trump doesn’t like the Iran nuclear agreement, but his instinct is to make a better deal rather than attacking, while Hillary Clinton has a strong record of supporting the prodigal misuse of military force. Clinton is just another neocon, though wrapped in sheep’s clothing — just as on some foreign policy issues Trump is little more than Bernie Sanders in wolf’s clothing.
Austin Kelly
"manterrupting" has been eternally BTFO now anyway
Caleb Howard
>But clothing makes a huge difference. Most Americans don’t want the United States to be disrespected, and they want a muscular military that doesn’t take any nonsense — but they also don’t want military adventurism. Trump succeeds in having it both ways: He reassures that the United States will be respected and also that we will not employ our troops as cannon fodder on distant battlefields. Underneath all the tirades against illegal immigration and the need to be tough with our adversaries, there is an inward focus. There is a sense that America — in order to be great again — needs to relinquish its role as global cop and tend first to its needs at home. By sounding caustic, Trump is able to appear more militaristic and tougher than the far more reckless Clinton. Calculating and cavalier, Clinton would agree with her old pal, then-U.N. Ambassador Madeleine Albright: “What’s the point of having this superb military ... if we can’t use it?” The stern rebuke to that question later provided by Gen. Colin Powell that the military is not a toy is lost on the neocons and Clinton. Among Clinton’s weaknesses, her fear of appearing weak may be her most damning.
Christopher Price
>The second neocon priority? A new Cold War with Russia. Vladimir Putin, unlikable and increasingly uncooperative and antagonistic, admittedly makes this objective more within reach, but Trump might avoid it as well. Clinton repeats over and over that Russia only understands a tough and determined opponent, while Trump may have a more sophisticated and mature approach. Far less petulant than most of the former Republican candidates, Trump says he would actually talk with Putin. That takes real courage given the general view among Republican elites. Contrast that with Clinton, who thinks we should not be talking too much to Putin and that we ought to further expand NATO because , in her view, Russia would be an even greater threat had it not been for NATO expansion. Of course, to admit that NATO expansion triggered the current crisis would be admitting that her husband is largely responsible for it. Trump seems to understand George Kennan’s warning that NATO expansion would directly lead to a more paranoid and aggressive Russia.
Jace Adams
>he is concerned only about the world not making America in its image.
This is like reporting there may be a tenth planet populated by thousand foot tall squidbillies... they can't even process the idea its so alien to their twisted mentality.
Nicholas Cox
>During an ambassadorial conference in 2014, a former colleague breathlessly characterized the Ukraine crisis in neocon terms as a Manichean struggle between good and evil. Such comic-book notions now dominate our political discourse, distorting reality and making it nearly impossible to objectively assess complex issues. Trump, for all his bizarre commentary on domestic issues, better grasps the subtleties of global politics and the dangers of thinking ourselves infallible and invincible.
>It’s quite an irony: The ostensibly more reckless, infantile, inexperienced and bombastic candidate may actually be more mature, level-headed and reasonable on foreign policy than his critics, who, against all the good advice our parents gave us as children, pout and refuse to talk to those they don’t like, escalate arguments to violence when they are upset, lack any remorse for the harm caused by their past opinions and actions, and fail repeatedly to see that there might be two sides to any disagreement.
Jose Jones
Squidbillies is a great fucking show tb-h
Josiah Nguyen
>google search picture >run across this
Stephanie Moore, 20, now faces up to five years in prison after posting a video of herself riding a sea turtle on a beach in Melbourne Florida.
FUCKING WHAT?! THIS IS AMERICA! YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO RIDE A FUCKING SEA TURTLE!
Lucas King
>tattoo
fucking dropped
Kevin Wood
really thats all she did. when I was in hawaii nearly drowning a sea turtle with a head the size of a basketball stuck his head up next to me to check on the state of my near drowning. fuck those bastards. they stronger than they look.
James Brooks
I've hated neocon scum for years. It feels so good to have someone who can win that's not one of them.
Robert Green
>sometimes deplorable commentary about women and some minorities citation needed WaPo
Alexander Martinez
Never did. He said if you want to kill Gaddafi do that with a cruise missile and not destroy the whole country for ISIS.
Of course that was the point of it, so his suggestion was moot.
Anthony Clark
It almost feels like a token statement, as of they know the readers will just stop without hearing some kind of affirmation of their bias.
Beyond that, I'm having a hard time figuring out if this is pro or anti trump.
Xavier Fisher
Calling out a woman for being a bitch isn't deplorable nor is it "commentary on women." Sometimes a bitch is just a bitch and needs to be called out on it.
Noah Perez
It's no joke. Hillary the hawk and Donald the dove. I find it halarious leftists want shillary but are against fighting foreign wars.
right but the media just cut off one part of his quote and ran with it
quote mining should be fucking illegal it's practically designed to deceive the public
Sometimes they take like two words and use the words to mean the exact opposite of what a politician implies
Again Shillary and her goons (Samantha Powers, Susan Rice, Victoria Nuland) lied about Gaddafi committing genocide in the lead up to intervention, which was only meant to deceive the public just like they did in Iraq.
>“We came, we saw, he died,” exclaimed an ebullient Hillary Clinton, as she exulted over the horrific death of Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi, who was sodomized with a bayonet before being brutally murdered by rampaging militiamen. Visiting Tripoli, the Libyan capital, the American Secretary of State was eager to take credit for the “liberation” of yet another Muslim country by Western powers acting in concert. An extensive and quite revealing New York Times investigation (Pt. 1 here, Pt. 2 here) reports on “a ‘ticktock’ that described her starring role in the events that had led to this moment. The timeline, her top policy aide, Jake Sullivan, wrote, demonstrated Mrs. Clinton’s ‘leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country’s Libya policy from start to finish.’ The memo’s language put her at the center of everything: ‘HRC announces … HRC directs … HRC travels … HRC engages,’ it read.”
Jeremiah Bailey
>These days, however, out on the campaign trail, Mrs. Clinton is not quite so eager to take ownership of what can only be characterized as an unmitigated disaster, a case history dramatizing the perils of “liberal” interventionism from inception to bloody denouement.
>Mrs. Clinton was easily won over by the Libyan rebels who presented a utopian view of what the post-revolutionary era would look like: there would be free elections, a free media, women would be able to “do it all,” and everyone would get a pony. They “’said all the right things about supporting democracy and inclusivity and building Libyan institutions, providing some hope that we might be able to pull this off,’ said Philip H. Gordon, one of her assistant secretaries. ‘They gave us what we wanted to hear. And you do want to believe.’”
Angel Young
>Confirmation bias in a writer or reporter is fatal, but only to his/her own career: in a Secretary of State it is a death sentence for thousands. And that’s exactly how it turned out in Hillary’s case.
>To this day, Clinton avers that “it’s too soon to tell” whether the Libya intervention qualifies as an unmitigated failure – even in the face of marauding militias, no less than two self-declared governments, the horrific death of an American ambassador at the hands of the very militias we empowered, and the incursion of the Islamic State, al Qaeda, and other terrorist outfits. She refused to be interviewed for the Times article.
>While Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Vice President Joe Biden opposed regime change, Clinton took the side of the younger “back-benchers,” as the Times calls them, who wanted to go in there and “get on the right side of history.” The misnamed “Arab Spring” was in full bloom, and the media was pushing the idea that this was a great awakening of “democracy.”
Jaxson Barnes
(((trump))) has been friends with shillary for decades, man. if you think he was fooled by her you're the fucking fool.
Nolan Miller
>Hillary, who had hesitated at first to jump on the bandwagon during the Egyptian events, made up for lost time in Libya. She “pressed for a secret American program that supplied arms to rebel militias, an effort never before confirmed,” the Times reports. Those arms would be used to attack a CIA outpost in Benghazi, where Ambassador Stevens would fall at the hands of these very militiamen.
>While initially the US was purportedly acting only to prevent civilian deaths at the hands of Gaddafi – a “humanitarian disaster” that turned out to be nothing but media-driven war propaganda – Hillary and her staff soon fell down the slippery slope to actively aiding the rebels. The ‘responsibility to protect” soon became another regime change operation, as in Iraq.
Levi Johnson
bump
Kevin Bennett
Trump was friends with everyone
It was part of his job
>“’We don’t want another war,’ she told [Russian Foreign Minister Sergey] Lavrov, stressing that the mission was limited to protecting civilians. ‘I take your point about not seeking another war,’ she recalled him responding. ‘But that doesn’t mean that you won’t get one.’”
>The French were pushing particularly hard for a more muscular Western response, and in a meeting with French and British officials the frogs played their “trump card,” as the Times describes it. Although the meeting was convened to decide whether to act, Clinton was informed that “French fighter jets were already in the air” – but, added the French official, “this is a collective decision and I will recall them if you want me to.”
Noah Barnes
nigger, the last post was 35 seconds ago. why the fuck are you bumping? do you belong in canada?
Jeremiah Hill
>This certainly gives new meaning to the phrase “leading from behind” that administration officials used to describe our role. Clinton was supposedly “irritated,” but she capitulated readily enough.
>“’I’m not going to be the one to recall the planes and create the massacre in Benghazi,’ she grumbled to an aide. And the bombing began.”
>The Libyan leader, who had ruled his country for more than 40 years, knew what the outcome would be. His regime, “he railed to anyone who would listen,” was Libya’s sole defense against Islamist crazies who would overrun the country if not for him. But no one in the West was listening.
Tyler White
stop being rude >Clinton was jazzed that this was supposedly a model of “multilateralism,” with the Arab League as well as the Europeans in on the deal. But that proved to be the original mission’s undoing as Qatar – a little shithole of an oil-rich country long dependent on the US military for its miserable existence – starting funneling weapons to Islamist militias with dubious credentials. This is how we were pressured into going from “humanitarian intervention” to regime change. If we didn’t arm the “good” militias, Clinton argued, the bad ones being empowered by Qatar would prevail. Yet military officials were not convinced:
>“NATO’s supreme allied commander, Adm. James G. Stavridis, had told Congress of “flickers” of Al Qaeda within the opposition. Mr. [Tom] Donilon, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, argued that the administration could not ensure that weapons intended for ‘the so-called good guys,’ as one State Department official put it, did not fall into the hands of Islamist extremists.”
Oliver Adams
>As the Times makes all too clear, Clinton has a bias in favor of action, as well as relying on what can only be called a woman’s intuition. Her aides, the Times says, “described her as feeling her way through a problem without being certain of the outcome.” Another word for this is recklessness.
>Clinton eventually succeeded in persuading President Obama, who signed a presidential finding authorizing a covert action to overthrow Gaddafi. US weapons poured into the country. The militias were unleashed, while Clinton hailed the elections that were staged shortly after the “liberation.” Yet as it turned out the elected officials had no real power: the guns were in the hands of the militias, who extorted government officials for more weapons in return for not being killed. The country went to pieces rather quickly, but our Secretary of State and would-be President had already moved on: she was too busy plotting regime change in Syria to be bothered with the unraveling of Libya.
Joshua Cox
(((trump))) fucking disgusts me.
David Martin
not an argument
>Clinton wanted to make a deal with the Qataris that we would arm their favored radical Islamists in Syria if they would lay off aiding al-Qaeda-type crazies in Libya. But when the President vetoed her Syrian regime change plan, the proposed deal was off – and Libya continued to deteriorate into the Mad Max scenario we see today.
>She quit the State Department after losing the internal debate over Syria, and is now campaigning for the highest office in the land on a platform of “love and kindness.”
>Not that there’s much “love and kindness” in the country she destroyed almost single-handedly.
Aiden Stewart
he looks like one of those fatties that get bullied
Ethan Campbell
Sorry. You cant stop this. Great nations were forged by blood, submision, reeducation and homogenization. At the end the final product was stronger and better than each separate part. Germany, france, the UK, italy.. It always involved one particular region conquering by militar, economic and cultural power other regions. This is our final destiny. Earth Galactic confederation when???
Cameron Price
>This Times story dropped like a stone: although normally one would expect such a damning account of a presidential candidate’s tenure as Secretary of State to be grist for the media mill, there wasn’t so much as a peep about it from anywhere else – including from the Republican candidates, never mind from Bernie Sanders.
>A woman who could very well occupy the highest office in the land, with near total control of US foreign policy, basically committed an entire nation to perdition. Where’s the outrage? Who is drawing the lessons learned from all this?
>The Republicans, who mostly agree with her interventionist views, are screaming about "Benghazi! Benghazi!" without understanding what led to the death of an American ambassador. The liberal media, which is clearly rooting for Hillary, isn’t about to point to this horrific example of incompetence and hubris.
Brody Morris
>Mexican intellectuals
Asher Rodriguez
You know im right. Being the US kikes the driving force in this shit, you should embrace it. Would be a shame to not be under one Organized regime when we have our first intergalactic meeting with intelligent lifeforms.
Dylan Sullivan
If La Raza was right and race mixing was a good idea then why is Brazil such a shithole?
Nolan Scott
It will be less of shithole the quickest global domination, assimilation and cultural homogenization comes, as it will be done by the US. Of course, maintaining your current life quality wont be posible wealth will have to redistribute somehow.
Chase Barnes
globalism just leads to a few billionaires running everything and the rest of us living in shitty ghettos
again think of Brazil as the template.
Landon Carter
>globalism just leads to a few billionaires running everything >so lets elect a billionaire to stop this
He doesn't want to outsource your jobs, flood the country with immigrants, or be a neocon so yes he is clearly the best choice.
Matthew Myers
>Trump is against globalism you fucking moron sure he is. im sure the lifelong democrat, personal friend of the clintons and all around (((nice guy))) is really on our side.
Sebastian Anderson
She prolly has some sort of sick enjoyment from killing men specifically
John Ramirez
well I'm glad we agree
Yeah I think she gets off on people dying and definitely got off on Gaddafi getting assraped
>tl;dr >conservatives go out of their way to not be offensive or accused of being nazi's >liberals are power hungry cunts full of themselves
Lincoln Cruz
Yeah, what the absolute fuck? Is this some baldly desperate attempt to get back in the God-Emperor's good graces?? If so, could they be more transparent???
Camden Roberts
>w-we can c-change our t=tune r-real quick g-goy...
Christian Baker
Wayne!
Wyatt Edwards
Pls bump with some jeb posting
Daniel Morales
this article is complete garbage because most of the foreign policy elite and virtually all top think tanks opposed the Iraq war.
Brookings, CFR, Atlantic Council, Carnegie Endowment, Wilson Center and many others all opposed it. Go back and read their publications and watch recordings of their panel discussions from that time if you don't believe me.
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld ignored advice and basically hijacked our foreign policy
Rumsfeld was actually a lot like Trump in that he believed the foreign policy establishment was incompetent and inefficient and that he could get a better outcome with minimal resources, but it didn't turn out that way.
Kayden Brooks
Only one group mattered, the Jewish Neocons, and their control of AIPCA, PNAC, the NYT etc and shilling for Israeli foreign policy.
Removing Saddam from Iraq was an Israeli and Saudi foreign policy aim. It had no actual benefit to the US strategically at all.
David Allen
Why don't the top gentiles fight back and overthrow the kike kingdom?
Xavier Gutierrez
gentiles no longer have an ingroup ethnic preference like Semites (Muslims, jews, etc) do because whites having an ethnic prefence=racism, so whites are easily dominated by Semites.
Collective action always beats individual action.
Christopher Lopez
Wolfowitz was my neighbor as a kid and went to my temple.
Juan Johnson
My berniefag best friend sent me this screenshot with the message "This is why I can't vote for hillary"
throw these dumb niggers a bone and they go nuts
Zachary White
Oh and my mom dated Scooter Libby at one point.
Evan Roberts
STOP NIGGERS WE HAVE A FUCKING SHOOTING ON OUR HANDS AGAIN GET IN HERE NOT SURE IF SHOOTER AT LARGE
Caleb Rodriguez
But there are top gentiles out there right now...working towards ending Jewish reign? Were all those head guys just instantly redpilled?
