How could I vote for such a vulgar disgusting man?

[Al_U_Card]

DILBERT knows best?

 

The Turn to “Effective, but we don’t like it.”

Posted July 30th, 2017 @ 10:39am in #POTUS #generalkelly #healthcare #Trump

 

Prior to President Trump’s inauguration, I predicted a coming story arc in three acts. Act one involved mass protests in the streets because Hillary Clinton’s campaign had successfully branded Trump as the next Hitler. Sure enough, we saw mass protests by anti-Trumpers who legitimately and honestly believed the country had just elected the next Hitler. I predicted that the Hitler phase would evaporate by summer for lack of supporting evidence. That happened.

 

I also predicted the anti-Trumpers would modify their attack from “Hitler” to “incompetent,” and that phase would last the summer. That happened too. The president’s critics called him incompetent and said the White House was in “chaos.” There were plenty of leaks, fake news, and even true stories to support that narrative, as I expected. Every anti-Trump news outlet, and even some that supported him started using “chaos” to describe the situation.

 

Now comes the fun part.

 

I predicted that the end of this three-part story would involve President Trump’s critics complaining that indeed he was “effective, but we don’t like it.” Or words to that effect. I based that prediction on the assumption he would get some big wins by the end of the year and it would no longer make sense to question his effectiveness, only his policy choices.

 

How does the anti-Trump media gracefully pivot from “chaos and incompetence” to a story of “effective, but we don’t like it”? They need an external event to justify the turn. They need a visible sign of the White House moving from rookie status to professional status.

 

They need General John Kelly to replace Reince Priebus as Chief of Staff.

 

Done.

 

Watch in awe as the anti-Trump coverage grudgingly admits things are starting to look more professional and “disciplined” at the White House. And as the president’s accomplishments start to mount up, you will see his critics’ grudging acceptance of his effectiveness, but not his policy choices. We’re entering that phase now with the help of a new Chief of Staff that even the mainstream media can’t hate. Generals command respect from both sides of the government because they have fought for both sides. No one forgets that.

 

Expect to see lots of stories about General Kelly bringing efficiency and effectiveness to the White House. Reporters and pundits don’t want to criticize a four-star general who fought for them. At best, expect the anti-Trumpers to say the Chief of Staff is calling the shots, not the President. That’s the predictable fake news attack. But I don’t think it will stick through the end of the year.

 

By year-end, expect “Effective, but we don’t like it.”

 

Now for some related fun. I have often said Trump supporters and anti-Trumpers are in the same movie theater but watching different movies on the same screen. You’ve seen lots of evidence of that, but I’m going to give you an experiment you can try at home. It might blow your mind.

 

1. Identify your most lefty, Trump-hating friend or family member.

 

2. Share this link of President Trump’s accomplishments while you are in the same room so you can watch them read it.

 

THE LINK

 

3. Watch as your lefty friend turns “cognitively blind” to the list of accomplishments as if it is not really there. Your subject will KNOW President has accomplished nothing, and all of his or her friends know it, and the television channels they watch know it. So how-the-hell could there be in existence an extensive list of legitimate accomplishments that make perfect sense and can easily be verified?

 

The only way that list of accomplishments can exist in your anti-Trumper’s world is if the anti-Trumper has been in a hallucination for months, duped by the media and everyone they love. The existence of the list of accomplishments will form a crack in their reality. It simply can’t exist. That’s the trigger for cognitive blindness. The list will simply be “invisible,” but not in the literal sense, only the mental sense. If you check back in two days, your anti-Trumper will claim once again no such list exists. Watch their eyes when they say it. It will be freaky.

 

Some anti-Trumpers will pick any one or two items from the list, argue that they are not good for the country, and use it as an excuse to see the rest of the list as nonsense. Some will simply tell you Trump has shepherded no “major legislation” through Congress, which is true. It is also true that he intentionally waited for Congress (and Obamacare) to fail hard before he got serious. The harder they fail, and the more dire the situation, the more power the president will have to push creative solutions on a weakened Congress. Keep in mind that President Trump is a predator when it comes to deal-making. He would have been an idiot to enter the fight hard and early when Congress was at full credibility and strength. That gets you nothing but a committee-made crap-law that may or may not have your name on it. By waiting, he accumulates leverage and widens his options. That’s how I would have played it. I would wait for the lobbyists, Congress, and my critics to punch themselves out before I involved the public and put together a plan to shove down Congress’ useless throats with the help of social media.

 

I think the President would have been modestly happy with some kind of “skinny” win on healthcare. It would have been good for momentum. But he’ll be much happier with a real health care solution that takes advantage of innovation. (Our constipated Congress ignored innovative solutions, as far as I can tell.)

 

Frankly, I don’t know how much the world really needs tax reform or infrastructure spending. The stock market doesn’t seem to move on the news of either thing becoming more or less likely as we go. My prediction is that President Trump’s reelection chances (should he run again) will depend mostly on what happens with health care. If President Trump gets that right, on top of the things already going well, Mt. Rushmore could get crowded.

[kenberg]

Some anti-Trumpers will pick any one or two items from the list, argue that they are not good for the country, and use it as an excuse to see the rest of the list as nonsense. Some will simply tell you Trump has shepherded no “major legislation” through Congress, which is true. It is also true that he intentionally waited for Congress (and Obamacare) to fail hard before he got serious. The harder they fail, and the more dire the situation, the more power the president will have to push creative solutions on a weakened Congress.

 

A brilliant plan. And it is working beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Congress is well on its way to a total collapse..What a plan!

 

It's reached the point where I honestly cannot be sure if the quoted piece is satire or intended as a serious argument. The standard defense of Trump has become that what he said was so stupid that obviously he does not really believe it, that would not be possible, so it is really a clever move that we mere mortals cannot grasp.

 

For example, I often get a bit sick hearing about him. That will no doubt lessen my effectiveness in speaking out against him. Good move clever guy.

 

I have to stop reading this stuff, it's bad for my mental health.

[Al_U_Card]

 

 

For example, I often get a bit sick hearing about him. That will no doubt lessen my effectiveness in speaking out against him. Good move clever guy.

 

I have to stop reading this stuff, it's bad for my mental health.

"Polarization effect discomfort" caused by leaning one way so long that attempts to change position disturbs the inner-ear balance mechanism. ;)

[y66]

"Polarization effect discomfort" caused by leaning one way so long that attempts to change position disturbs the inner-ear balance mechanism. ;)

You're out to lunch here Al. There may be a few people posting here in the WC who are less affected by the polarization problem than kenberg but I can't think of any off hand. Shubi perhaps.

[kenberg]

I make no claim to being immune to anything, although "polarization discomfort" is nit what I think is up with me. Unless it means that I am really uncomfortable with how polarized everything now seems to be. That would be true.

 

Trump gives an examplle a day, but I will pick the recent comments to a police gathering to illustrate my point. As I suppose most know, he commented that it is not necessary to be too nice to suspects. no need to keep them from banging their heads as they are placed in the car.

 

Now I do not regard myself as polarized about cops. I have often noted that someone, when stopped by a cop, should make an effort to keep the tension down. As should the cop, of course. The cop doesn't know you, he wants to go home to his family after his shift, or maybe just home to his dog, and if everyone keeps cool that will probably happen. Saying that everyone has a responsibility to try to keep tensions down is not at all the same as saying that there is "no need to be too nice". There is, or should be, a real possibility for community/police relations to at least usually go well. Latino parents don't want their kids falling in with MS-13. African_American parents don't want their kids involved in the drug trade. And white parents don't want their kids doing stupid things either. I could cite examples from experience. The police and responsible adults are on the same side. But it takes some restraint and it takes work. A gratuitous comment that "there is no need to be too nice" is, to my mind, unbelievably stupid. It gives any cop who is so inclined a presidential encouragement to act badly, and it fuels the efforts of those who wish to portray the police as our enemies. The statement was moronic.

 

I regard the above as completely obvious to anyone with sense, I do not regard my reaction as polarization discomfort. Rather I see Trump's words as an irresponsible attempt to play to polarization. I gather more than a few police have said the same thing.

 

As I say, Trump gives us daily examples, this is just one I picked off a well-stocked shelf.

[Winstonm]

Here are a few gems from Trump's Wall Street Journal interview:

 

 

His Boy Scouts speech.

 

Trump gave a strange, meandering speech to the Boy Scouts of America last month that was criticized for being too political. The group later apologized, saying that the speech’s “political rhetoric” was “never our intent.”

 

When the Journal editors said that the speech got “mixed” reactions from former scouts, Trump shot back that, “They loved it... it was no mix.” The president then claimed that the head of the Boy Scouts personally called him to tell him that, “it was the greatest speech that was ever made to them, and they were very thankful.” The group reportedly denied that such an exchange ever took place.

 

A question about infrastructure.

Asked about how he planned to work with Democrats in Congress to achieve his infrastructure goals, Trump brought up his former Democratic presidential rival Clinton.

 

“She spent hundreds of millions of dollars on negative ads,” the president said. “She didn’t do a positive ad, virtually. And she lost easily.”

 

And then, as if unaware his presidential campaign ended after the election, Trump said that “we’re substantially up” in “swing states” like Ohio.

 

“You know, I won the state by 9 or 10 or something, by 9 or 10 points, without any governor support, OK?” he said. “So you have the governor of Ohio not supporting you and you win by almost 10 points, which is pretty good because Ohio’s not — if you remember, you guys were always saying you have to win Ohio, right?

 

 

 

New Yorkers who can’t find work.

 

“I’m going to start explaining to people when you have an area that just isn’t working – like upper New York state, where people are getting very badly hurt – and then you’ll have another area 500 miles away where you can’t – you can’t get people, I’m going to explain you can leave, it’s OK, don’t worry about your house,” he said. “You know, a lot of them don’t leave because of their house. Because they say, gee, my house, I thought it was worth $70,000 and now it’s worth nothing. It’s OK. Go, cut your losses, right?”

 

This guy appears not to be playing a part but to seriously be out of touch with reality.

[awm]

No one really thought Trump would be the next Hitler -- for one thing he has not shown any signs of wanting to conquer other countries and for another the US institutions may be strong enough to prevent some of his worst instincts. The comparison to Hitler is based on the explicit racism of his campaign, where he accused Mexicans of being rapists and murderers and called for requiring a Muslim registry -- both moves strongly reminiscent of the way Hitler treated the Jews.

 

He has behaved in a way quite consistent with his words too -- the behavior of ICE in the Latino community is quite horrible, with many cases of people who've been in the US for decades with no criminal record being rounded up, families being separated, even legal immigrants being locked up when they could not produce papers on demand, etc. Hate crime against muslins is also rising, and he has made several attempts at a "Muslim ban" although most were struck down by the courts. So I don't think the accusations of Naziism were necessarily incorrect.

 

The incompetence has been a pleasant surprise in many cases; he had trouble getting his Muslim ban, couldn't pass a law to take health insurance away from millions, may have trouble sabotaging Obamacare, etc. On the foreign policy front it is scary though; he has alienated many of our allies by behaving stupidly and it ups the risk of war on the Korean Peninsula.

 

If he becomes more effective it's not clear to me if it will be good or bad, considering.

 

As for accomplishments they seem to fall in several buckets:

 

1. Naming judges to the bench. Yes for conservatives it's a win... but this shouldn't make anyone who values individual rights over those of big companies happy.

2. Presiding over a good economy. Yes so far, but he inherited a good economy from Obama and most of the stuff he wants that potentially could screw it up hasn't happened yet (still in NAFTA, no Obamacare repeal, no net neutrality repeal, no big cuts to H1B visas, etc).

3. Rolling back environmental protections. I guess if you don't believe in global warming (or want the Earth to burn) it's a win?

4. Has gotten a lot of people to sing his praises, companies give him credit for things they were going to do anyway, etc. Basically how things work in a banana republic. Real impact of all this is very little.

[Winstonm]

And this should warm the heart of any racist:

 

The Trump administration is preparing to redirect resources of the Justice Department’s civil rights division toward investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants, according to a document obtained by The New York Times.

 

The document, an internal announcement to the civil rights division, seeks current lawyers interested in working for a new project on “investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.”

 

The announcement suggests that the project will be run out of the division’s front office, where the Trump administration’s political appointees work, rather than its Educational Opportunities Section, which is run by career civil servants and normally handles work involving schools and universities.

[Al_U_Card]

You're out to lunch here Al. There may be a few people posting here in the WC who are less affected by the polarization problem than kenberg but I can't think of any off hand. Shubi perhaps.

If you ever played against Shubi, polarization would be the mildest term to use....lol. Ken is just very experienced so his tendency is towards the greater accumulation rather than one version of any story. The term was intended to illustrate just how polarized the US, and its politics especially, have become in the last 2 generations. From the outside, it is more Hatfields and McCoys than anything else.

[RedSpawn]

The Scaramucci hire confirms that with Donald Trump in charge the U.S. has devolved from a democracy to a demasscracy: a government of, by, and for assholes.

Actually, I think Bush's hire of Michael D. Brown to ultimately be FEMA chief in 2003 is a fine example of demasscracy and nepotism.

 

He, his Katrina emails, and his nonexistent disaster recovery work experience was a HOT ASS MESS as Americans (initially called refugees) lost their lives because of the botched federal rescue response to Hurricane Katrina.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/03/brown.fema.emails/

https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/08/28/hurricane-katrina-was-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-george-w-bush

[jjbrr]

dont you mean kakistocracy

[jjbrr]

snip

 

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

[barmar]

The incompetence has been a pleasant surprise in many cases

Last week Jared Kushner said that the campaign couldn't have colluded with Russia because the team was too dysfunctional and disorganized: "we couldn’t even collude with our local offices". He was speaking off the record to a group of congressional interns, but the remark was leaked.

 

So if you ever get accused of conspiring to commit a crime, maybe you can claim incompetence as a defense. If you weren't so stupid, you wouldn't have been found out. :)

[Winstonm]

Last week Jared Kushner said that the campaign couldn't have colluded with Russia because the team was too dysfunctional and disorganized: "we couldn’t even collude with our local offices". He was speaking off the record to a group of congressional interns, but the remark was leaked.

 

So if you ever get accused of conspiring to commit a crime, maybe you can claim incompetence as a defense. If you weren't so stupid, you wouldn't have been found out. :)

 

Yet they were competent enough for Kushner, Trump Jr., and Manafort to organize and hold a meeting with Russians in hopes of getting dirt on Hillary. B-)

[nige1]

Kaitlyn seems to think that only a psychopath can counter democratic attempts at social welfare: if a politician seems effective, immorality and impropriety are acceptable.

 

I fear that Kaitlyn under-rates Arms-lobby influence. It forced Donald to reverse his hands-off foreign policy, so that the US...

• Again backs Jihadists against Syria.
• Resumes fire-works displays of bombs and rockets.
• Imposes more sanctions on Russia (and, indirectly, on Europe).

The reaction is predictable: 1984-type policies are popular with those paranoid about Russia and Socialism.

 

When Donald attempted peaceful dialogue with Putin, it triggered accusations that Russia was trying to influence the presidential election. Hypocrisy: because it's US policy to undermine foreign elections (in South America, Ukraine, and elsewhere).

 

Emails were leaked that revealed political dirty tricks against a presidential candidate. Evidence of Russian responsibility is controversial. But even were the accusation true, the effect was the defence of democracy against those undermining it.

 

Politicians of all parties seem tainted, at all levels. Putin seems brighter but is as bad as any of them. Hilary might be a worse war-monger. We need a global grass-roots campaign against corruption.

[RedSpawn]

Yet they were competent enough for Kushner, Trump Jr., and Manafort to organize and hold a meeting with Russians in hopes of getting dirt on Hillary. B-)

Correction: One was a Russian-American. More specifically, a Russian-American lobbyist whose activities and bank records we have yet to subpoena and vet.

 

And still no one has answered how in the world a former Soviet military counterintelligence officer was granted American citizenship in the 1st place. And how is he allowed to be in Washington D.C. to influence politicians?

 

Also, are we suggesting that Akhemtshin was under the control of the Russian government? Is he an American who now works on behalf of Russia as a "foreign" agent? Is he a spy? What exactly is he?

 

Akhmetshin has been a presence in the US for more than 20 years, and his history has been a source of intrigue for months. Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley requested more information about his immigration history in April as his committee investigated a complaint that Akhmetshin, Veselnitskaya and others engaged in undisclosed lobbying on behalf of the Kremlin to weaken the Magnitsky Act.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/15/politics/who-is-rinat-akhmetshin/index.html

[Winstonm]

Kaitlyn seems to think that only a psychopath can counter democratic attempts at social welfare: if a politician seems effective, immorality and impropriety are acceptable.

 

I fear that Kaitlyn under-rates Arms-lobby influence. It forced Donald to reverse his hands-off foreign policy, so that the US...

• Again backs Jihadists against Syria.
• Resumes fire-works displays of bombs and rockets.
• Imposes more sanctions on Russia (and, indirectly, on Europe).

The reaction is predictable: 1984-type policies are popular with those paranoid about Russia and Socialism.

 

When Donald attempted peaceful dialogue with Putin, it triggered accusations that Russia was trying to influence the presidential election. Hypocrisy: because it's US policy to undermine foreign elections (in South America, Ukraine, and elsewhere).

 

Emails were leaked that revealed political dirty tricks against a presidential candidate. Evidence of Russian responsibility is controversial. But even were the accusation true, the effect was the defence of democracy against those undermining it.

 

Politicians of all parties seem tainted, at all levels. Putin seems brighter but is as bad as any of them. Hilary might be a worse war-monger. We need a global grass-roots campaign against corruption.

Some questions.

 

If Trump's dialogue with Putin triggered the Russian allegations, how did Obama know about the intelligence reports prior to the election and prior to Trump dialogue with Putin? What information do you have that the U.S. has a policy to undermine democratic elections? And what causes you to call the claim of Russian interference "controversial"?

[nige1]

Some questions. If Trump's dialogue with Putin triggered the Russian allegations, how did Obama know about the intelligence reports prior to the election and prior to Trump dialogue with Putin? What information do you have that the U.S. has a policy to undermine democratic elections? And what causes you to call the claim of Russian interference "controversial"?

When did Obama reveal the contents of these intelligence reports? In the past, secret service statements have not always been reliable (e.g. WMD, Gas attacks). But I'm not privy to evidence, for or against current propaganda.

Historically, the US has influenced foreign elections, in accord with its interests (e.g. Chile's Salvador Allende, Ukraine's Viktor Yanukovych).

Russia is likely to adopt a similar policy but I'm unaware of reliable evidence from the US presidential election.

[Winstonm]

When did Obama reveal the contents of these intelligence reports? In the past, secret service statements have not always been reliable (e.g. WMD, Gas attacks). But I'm not privy to evidence, for or against current propaganda.

Historically, the US has influenced foreign elections, in accord with its interests (e.g. Chile's Salvador Allende, Ukraine's Viktor Yanukovych).

Russia is likely to adopt a similar policy but I'm unaware of reliable evidence from the US presidential election.

 

That isn't much detail. Perhaps your information source is lacking in detail, too?

[nige1]

That isn't much detail. Perhaps your information source is lacking in detail, too?

What information source? We suffer from a lack of facts and a dearth of reliable detail :(

[Winstonm]

What information source? We suffer from a lack of facts and a dearth of reliable detail :(

 

Can we truly complain about state secrets? Once we decide to form a government and be governed, we grant certain powers. One of those powers is a degree of opacity.

 

The only thing I know is what I read and hear and therefore, in my view, the sources of my information are important. Multiple news sources reported that the U.S. intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia was responsible for the hacks of the DNC and Podesta accounts, and that information was given to President Obama prior to the election.

[RedSpawn]

When did Obama reveal the contents of these intelligence reports? In the past, secret service statements have not always been reliable (e.g. WMD, Gas attacks). But I'm not privy to evidence, for or against current propaganda.

Historically, the US has influenced foreign elections, in accord with its interests (e.g. Chile's Salvador Allende, Ukraine's Viktor Yanukovych).

Russia is likely to adopt a similar policy but I'm unaware of reliable evidence from the US presidential election.

How dare you suggest even the slightest appearance of impropriety about our foreign election meddling? We had noble intentions and acted in good faith and in the best interests of the affected people. {sarcasm included}

 

See http://freebeacon.com/politics/congress-demands-investigation-obama-admin-meddling-foreign-elections/

 

https://spectator.org/obamas-meddling-in-foreign-elections-six-examples/

 

https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/341866712/Lee-Inhofe-Letter-to-Secretary-Tillerson#from_embed ==> official letter from U.S. Senate about our potential foreign election meddling in Macedonia.

 

American exceptionalism allows us to meddle in other countries' elections without expecting any chickens to come home to roost in our federal elections.

[RedSpawn]

That isn't much detail. Perhaps your information source is lacking in detail, too?

http://freebeacon.com/politics/congress-demands-investigation-obama-admin-meddling-foreign-elections/

 

https://spectator.org/obamas-meddling-in-foreign-elections-six-examples/

 

https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/341866712/Lee-Inhofe-Letter-to-Secretary-Tillerson#from_embed ==> official letter from U.S. Senate about our potential foreign election meddling in Macedonia.

 

Gauntlet dropped. Let the investigations begin and the subpoenas for banking records flow. Follow the money.

[RedSpawn]

Can we truly complain about state secrets? Once we decide to form a government and be governed, we grant certain powers. One of those powers is a degree of opacity.

 

The only thing I know is what I read and hear and therefore, in my view, the sources of my information are important. Multiple news sources reported that the U.S. intelligence agencies all agreed that Russia was responsible for the hacks of the DNC and Podesta accounts, and that information was given to President Obama prior to the election.

Yes and 13 Western intelligence sources confirmed Iraq (Saddam Hussein) had weapons of mass destruction and yet all 13 of them were wrong on the matter which lead to an extended war campaign costing approx. US $1 trillion and loss of lives--all built on faulty intelligence.

 

Read George Bush's speech giving the ultimatum to Iraq before we went to war. Our confidence and resolve in this matter was compelling, but we were wrong on so many levels. Our mindset changed since 09/11 and our need to respond militarily and get revenge for that day of infamy took precedence over our need to get our facts right.

 

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/wariniraq/gwbushiraq31703.htm

 

The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

 

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

 

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained, and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

 

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological, or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

 

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

 

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

http://static.neatorama.com/images/2006-11/iraq-civil-war.gif

How do we know that the same intelligence sources have gotten their facts right THIS time especially when no governmental authority has examined the breached DNC server? Confirmation bias is REAL and very expensive and afflicts intelligence agencies too!

 

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/cf_images/GA/2006w28/AxisofEvil.jpg

[Winstonm]

Yes and 13 Western intelligence sources confirmed Iraq (Saddam Hussein) had weapons of mass destruction and yet all 13 of them were wrong on the matter which lead to an extended war campaign costing approx. US $1 trillion and loss of lives--all built on faulty intelligence.

 

Read George Bush's speech giving the ultimatum to Iraq before we went to war. Our confidence and resolve in this matter was compelling, but we were wrong on so many levels. Our mindset changed since 09/11 and our need to respond militarily and get revenge for that day of infamy took precedence over our need to get our facts right.

 

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/wariniraq/gwbushiraq31703.htm

 

How do we know that the same intelligence sources have gotten their facts right THIS time especially when no governmental authority has examined the breached DNC server? Confirmation bias is REAL and very expensive and afflicts intelligence agencies too!

 

Not quite accurate. The folly of Iraq was that the intelligence agencies allowed the WH to influence the results to match their wishes.