Lindsey Graham: ‘I blame Obama for Iraq, not Bush’

[Octafish]

BY DAVID LIGHTMAN
McClatchy Washington Bureau, May 16, 2015

Blame President Barack Obama, not his predecessor, for the turmoil in Iraq, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told New Hampshire’s WMUR.com.

The Iraq war began in 2003, led by President George W. Bush. It ended in December, 2011, during Obama’s presidency. Graham is considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination, and spoke as his potential rivals weighed in on whether they would have authorized American involvement in the war.

“I blame Obama for Iraq, not Bush,” Graham said as he toured New Hampshire. “Bush made mistakes. He corrected his mistakes. Obama leaving Iraq, ignoring the advice of all of his military commanders –he was told what would happen if you leave Iraq with no troops left behind."

Graham, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Bush invaded Iraq with “faulty intelligence...but with intelligence the entire world believed. So when you look at the mistakes of Iraq, the one I blame the most is Barack Obama, not George W. Bush.”

Graham also told WMUR.com he’s now “99.9 percent” certain he’ll run for president, though he would not confirm reports that he’ll do so on June 1.

SOURCE: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article21166422.html

Here's the new narrative, proles. Thanks for the heads-up to our friends at Truth-Out/Buzzflash.

[JoePhilly]

1. And the guy holding the hose putting out your house fire is to blame for ...

... the the fire you started while smoking in bed.

[Octafish]

5. Yeah. Heh heh heh.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. I always thought Republicans supported Israel because it was needed to fulfill Biblical prophecy.

Who knew that it was because they actually BELIEVE in eternal occupations of other peoples by armed troops.

They want as many Americans in jail and working for pennies as possible, and to occupy other countries and exploit them in perpetuity as well. Neocolonialism at its finest.

[Octafish]

6. It's a family tradition.

Baron de Rothschild and Prescott Bush, Sr. sharing a moment and a bit o' information in this small world.



So one day...

Poppy Strikes Gold

By Greg Palast
Sunday, April 27, 2008 (Originally Posted July 9, 2003)

EXCERPT...

And while the Bush family steadfastly believes that ex-felons should not have the right to vote for president, they have no objection to ex-cons putting presidents on their payroll. In 1996, despite pleas by U.S. church leaders, Poppy Bush gave several speeches (he charges $100,000 per talk) sponsored by organizations run by Rev. Sun Myung Moon, cult leader, tax cheat—and formerly the guest of the U.S. federal prison system. Some of the loot for the Republican effort in the 1997–2000 election cycles came from an outfit called Barrick Corporation.

The sum, while over $100,000, is comparatively small change for the GOP, yet it seemed quite a gesture for a corporation based in Canada. Technically, the funds came from those associated with the Canadian's U.S. unit, Barrick Gold Strike.

They could well afford it. In the final days of the Bush (Senior) administration, the Interior Department made an extraordinary but little noticed change in procedures under the 1872 Mining Law, the gold rush–era act that permitted those whiskered small-time prospectors with their tin pans and mules to stake claims on their tiny plots. The department initiated an expedited procedure for mining companies that allowed Barrick to swiftly lay claim to the largest gold find in America. In the terminology of the law, Barrick could "perfect its patent" on the estimated $10 billion in ore—for which Barrick paid the U.S. Treasury a little under $10,000. Eureka!

Barrick, of course, had to put up cash for the initial property rights and the cost of digging out the booty (and the cost of donations, in smaller amounts, to support Nevada's Democratic senator, Harry Reid). Still, the shift in rules paid off big time: According to experts at the Mineral Policy Center of Washington, DC, Barrick saved—and the U.S. taxpayer lost—a cool billion or so. Upon taking office, Bill Clinton's new interior secretary, Bruce Babbitt, called Barrick's claim the "biggest gold heist since the days of Butch Cassidy." Nevertheless, because the company followed the fast-track process laid out for them under Bush, this corporate Goldfinger had Babbitt by the legal nuggets. Clinton had no choice but to give them the gold mine while the public got the shaft.

Barrick says it had no contact whatsoever with the president at the time of the rules change.(1) There was always a place in Barrick's heart for the older Bush—and a place on its payroll. In 1995, Barrick hired the former president as Honorary Senior Advisor to the Toronto company's International Advisory Board. Bush joined at the suggestion of former Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney, who, like Bush, had been ignominiously booted from office. I was a bit surprised that the president had signed on. When Bush was voted out of the White House, he vowed never to lobby or join a corporate board. The chairman of Barrick openly boasts that granting the title "Senior Advisor" was a sly maneuver to help Bush tiptoe around this promise.

CONTINUED...

http://www.gregpalast.com/poppy-strikes-gold/

People who understand the value of mineral extraction. Generation after generation.

[KingCharlemagne]

21. Actually, classical imperialism at maturity (at least according to Lenin's

analysis).

[think]

3. And this guy is going to be running for president. Hopefully Republican voters open their eyes to

the bold face lies being tossed out by Lindsay Graham and his ilk......

[Octafish]

8. The Dangerous Lie That ‘Bush Lied’

Some journalists still peddle this canard as if it were fact. This is defamatory and could end up hurting the country.

By LAURENCE H. SILBERMAN
Wall Street Journal, Opinion, Sunday, Feb. 8, 2015

In recent weeks, I have heard former Associated Press reporter Ron Fournier on Fox News twice asserting, quite offhandedly, that President George W. Bush “lied us into war in Iraq.”

I found this shocking....

SNIP…

The charge is dangerous because it can take on the air of historical fact—with potentially dire consequences. I am reminded of a similarly baseless accusation that helped the Nazis come to power in Germany: that the German army had not really lost World War I, that the soldiers instead had been “stabbed in the back” by politicians.

Sometime in the future, perhaps long after most of us are gone, an American president may need to rely publicly on intelligence reports to support military action. It would be tragic if, at such a critical moment, the president’s credibility were undermined by memories of a false charge peddled by the likes of Ron Fournier.

Mr. Silberman, a senior federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, was co-chairman of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/laurence-h-silberman-the-dangerous-lie-that-bush-lied-1423437950

Their ilk is sick and their actions like invading Iraq in wars built on lies (twice) have nearly destroyed the USA.

[KingCharlemagne]

23. Only for the bottom 90%. The top 10% have made out (and continue to make out) like

the bandits they are.

Yay, capitalism! Bravo, imperialism!

[Octafish]

41. Money trumps peace for a rea$on.

It’s unclear how many defense contractors have secret indemnification agreements with the military. Under the law, most government agencies are banned from entering open-ended indemnification agreements, but the Pentagon and a handful of other agencies were exempted in an executive order signed by President Richard Nixon in 1971.
http://www.theeverlastinggopstoppers.com/2014/06/meet-republican-senators-defense-contractors-friends/

War is Love for Wall Street-on-the-Potomac.

[KingCharlemagne]

42. The ghosts of 1 million dead Iraqis killed by violence before their time cry out for

justice, joining an estimated 2-3 million southeast Asian ghosts still crying for justice lo these 50 years later and countless Central and South American ghosts crying out for justice in the years between. To the ghosts, it looks like their demise has been a bipartisan affair. Ghosts care not about Dem or Republican. They care about justice, a justice that like Gatsby's blue light is ever vanishing.

[JHB]

38. Silberman is no journalist, he's a conservative activist in Federal Court

Laurence Silberman is a senior justice on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, an influential court second only to the U.S. Supreme Court in importance. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, Silberman is a longtime affiliate of right-wing and neoconservative organizations like the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Federalist Society.

A close associate of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld dating back to the 1970s, Silberman was a key foreign policy adviser to Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign. He gained notoriety at the time when he was linked with an alleged conspiracy to delay the release of American hostages in Iran—the so-called "October Surprise."

"Silberman boasts a history of service to Republican presidents and conservative causes unmatched by any member of any court, including the current Supreme Court," noted a 2011 Slate profile. "Among many other entries, his résumé includes stints as acting attorney general during the Watergate crisis and as co-chair of George W. Bush's 2004 blue-ribbon commission to investigate U.S. intelligence prior to the Iraq invasion. His judicial decisions include a vote to strike down the independent counsel statute threatening the Reagan presidency (in 1988) and the District of Columbia handgun ban in 2002. He was also awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2008 by George W. Bush."
- See more at: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Silberman_Laurence

Regarding the WSJ Op Ed in your post:

In a rebuttal of Silberman's op-ed, Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine wrote: "It is hard to believe that Silberman expects such a crude exercise in propaganda to actually succeed. His intention appears to be slightly more indirect: to turn the demonstrable fact that the Bush administration deliberately misled the public into, at the very least, a partisan dispute that journalists cannot repeat without fear of being accused of bias." - See more at: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Silberman_Laurence

[Octafish]

40. I love the guy. Silberman's a made man of the BFEE.

Know your BFEE: Judge Laurence Silberman, Go-To Guy of the Military Industrial Complex

[Thinkingabout]

4. Great RW talking point and the FOX listeners would be the believers.

Bush and pals set up the Iraqi government with their man just as dear old dad set up Saddam in Iraq. Bush failed to get their man to sign the agreement to protect our military and set up the withdrawal. The problem in Iraq is Bush all the way with his invasion.

[Octafish]

11. How fast the Oiligarchs work to make us forget.

William Safire was almost alone tying George Herbert Walker Bush to the illegal arming of Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

THE ADMINISTRATION'S IRAQ GATE SCANDAL

BY WILLIAM SAFIRE
Congressional Record
Extension of Remarks - May 19, 1992
Washington

Americans now know that the war in the Persian Gulf was brought about by a colossal foreign-policy blunder: George Bush's decision, after the Iran-Iraq war ended, to entrust regional security to Saddam Hussein.

What is not yet widely understood is how that benighted policy led to the Bush Administration's fraudulent use of public funds, its sustained deception of Congress and its obstruction of justice.

As the Saudi Ambassador, Prince Bandar, was urging Mr. Bush and Mr. Baker to buy the friendship of the Iraqi dictator in August 1989, the F.B.I. uncovered a huge scam at the Atlanta branch of the Lavoro Bank to finance the buildup of Iraq's war machine by diverting U.S.-guaranteed grain loans.

Instead of pressing the investigation or curbing the appeasement, the President turned a blind eye to lawbreaking and directed another billion dollars to Iraq. Our State and Agriculture Department's complicity in Iraq's duplicity transformed what could have been dealt with as `Saddam's Lavoro scandal' into George Bush's Iraqgate.

The first element of corruption is the wrongful application of U.S. credit guarantees. Neither the Commodity Credit Corporation nor the Export-Import Bank runs a foreign-aid program; their purpose is to stimulate U.S. exports. High-risk loan guarantees to achieve foreign-policy goals unlawful endanger that purpose.

Yet we now know that George Bush personally leaned on Ex-Im to subvert its charter--not to promote our exports but to promote relations with the dictator. And we have evidence that James Baker overrode worries in Agriculture and O.M.B. that the law was being perverted: Mr. Baker's closest aid, Robert Kimmett, wrote triumphantly, `your call to . . . Yeutter . . . paid off.' Former Agriculture Secretary Clayton Yeutter is now under White House protection.

Second element of corruption is the misleading of Congress. When the charge was made two years ago in this space that State was improperly intervening in this case, Mr. Baker's top Middle East aide denied it to Senate Foreign Relations; meanwhile, Yeutter aides deceived Senator Leahy's Agriculture Committee about the real foreign-policy purpose of the C.C.C. guarantees. To carry out Mr. Bush's infamous National Security Directive 26, lawful oversight was systematically blinded.

Third area of Iraqgate corruption is the obstruction of justice. Atlanta's assistant U.S. Attorney Gail McKenzie, long blamed here for foot-dragging, would not withhold from a grand jury what she has already told friends: that indictment of Lavoro officials was held up for nearly a year by the Bush Criminal Division. The long delay in prosecution enabled James Baker to shake credits for Saddam out of malfeasant Agriculture appointees.

When House Banking Chairman Henry Gonzalez gathered documents marked `secret' showing this pattern of corruption, he put them in the Congressional Record. Two months later, as the media awakened, Mr. Bush gave the familiar `gate' order; stonewall.

`Public disclosure of classified information harms the national security,' Attorney General William Barr instructed the House Banking Committee last week. `. . . in light of your recent disclosures, the executive branch will not provide any more classified information'--unless the wrongdoing is kept secret.

`Your threat to withhold documents,' responded Chairman Gonzalez, `has all the earmarks of a classic effort to obstruct a proper and legitimate investigation . . . none of the documents compromise, in any fashion whatsoever, the national security or intelligence sources and methods.'

Mr. Barr, in personal jeopardy, has flung down the gauntlet. Chairman Gonzalez tells me he plans to present his obstruction case this week to House Judiciary Chairman Jack Brooks, probably flanked by Representatives Charles Schumer and Barney Frank, members of both committees.

`I will recommend that Judiciary consider requiring the appointment of an independent counsel,' says Mr. Gonzalez, who has been given reason to believe that Judiciary--capable of triggering the Ethics in Government Act--will be persuaded to act.

Policy blunders are not crimes. But perverting the purpose of appropriated funds is a crime; lying to Congress compounds that crime; and obstructing justice to cover up the original crime is a criminal conspiracy.

http://fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920519l.htm

I never heard a word of any of that from 1991 on the tee vee or in the newspaper in the run-up to the 2003 invasion.



"If I wanted to lie, or if we wanted to lie, if we wanted to exaggerate, I wouldn't use my daughter to do so. I could easily buy other people to do it." -- Kuwait Ambassador

http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

So. Whatever happened to Chloe Kardashian, anyway?

[ProfessorGAC]

7. Um, Lindsay!

If we hadn't invaded the wrong country using an excuse that had nothing to do with Iraq, there wouldn't have been anything for Obama to do there. It would have been impossible to make that "mistake" if we hadn't blundered into that scene.

[Octafish]

13. America’s biggest genius: Why Lindsey Graham is a huge threat to Einstein

Lindsey Graham wants to run for president on his sterling foreign policy record. Behold his intellectual perfection

SIMON MALOY
Salon.com, Jan. 30, 2015

News that Sen. Lindsey Graham is actively exploring a run for the presidency in 2016 should thrill and delight all serious people who think seriously about foreign policy. As I made clear in my endorsement of Graham from last October – in on the ground floor, baby! – there’s nobody in politics with a firmer grasp of how everything that happens on the international stage is linked to Benghazi. The world needs strategic thinking of that caliber now more than ever.

SNIP...

ADDAM HUSSEIN’S WMD

Gannett News Service, Sept. 6, 2002:

Graham, who sponsored a House-passed resolution last year demanding that Saddam once again allow U.N. weapons inspections, also said the United States doesn’t need the world’s approval to go after Saddam.

“Saddam Hussein has been hard at work trying to secure chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. He’s trying to upgrade his mass-destruction arsenal that will be used against us and our friends,” Graham said. “Iraq is a self-defense issue, and we need to aggressively engage Saddam Hussein. We don’t need the blessings of the world to defend ourselves. A regime change is the only alternative in Iraq.”

SNIP...

SADDAM’S CAPABILITY TO DESTROY THE UNITED STATES AS WE KNEW IT

Charleston Post and Courier, Oct. 27, 2002:

Graham said the United States needs to push for a regime change in Iraq, which he said presents “a threat to our way of life.”

CONTINUED magnificence...

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/30/americas_biggest_genius_why_lindsey_graham_is_a_huge_threat_to_einstein/

Gee. Maybe Lindsey's misdirecting in order to avoid his own superbrain's role in Gulf Fiasco II.

[CTyankee]

16. He's the guy who said if he were president and you tried to join ISIS he wouldn't call

a judge, he'd send a drone to kill you...

unbelievable...

[Octafish]

22. He said he'd threaten Congress, too.

Why the media silence on Lindsey Graham’s vow to use the military to force vote in Congress?

By Bill Van Auken
world socialist web site, 14 March 2015

The protracted 2016 presidential campaign cycle has already begun, and with it the close attention of the media to the statements made by prospective candidates in hopes of discovering even the slightest “gaffe” that can be turned into a political news item.

All the more odd then that the remarks made at a New Hampshire town hall meeting by one Republican presidential hopeful, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, have been virtually blacked out by all of the major print and broadcast outlets.

Asked by a member of the audience what he would do about automatic cuts to the Pentagon budget that would go into effect because of sequestration, Graham responded that the problem had left him sick to his stomach.

[font color="green"]He continued: “And here is the first thing I would do if I were President of the United States: I wouldn’t let Congress leave town until we fix this. I would literally use the military to keep them in if I had to. We’re not leaving town until we restore these defense cuts. We’re not leaving town until we restore the intel cuts.”[/font color]

The statement is extraordinary. A candidate for the presidency of the United States vows that, once elected, he would use the military to impose his—and its—will upon a recalcitrant Congress. Presumably, troops would hold members of the House and Senate at gunpoint until they produced the results demanded.

CONTINUED...

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/03/14/medi-m14.html

Lindsey reminds me of Napoleon with his hand in his pants instead of his shirt.

[ProfessorGAC]

20. Nice Find!

What a maroon!

[madokie]

9. And he's going to run on the clown car ticket

LOL, can't wait to see how that goes. LOL

what a fucking idiot Lindsey is

[Octafish]

15. There's something that resonates about him with conservative voters.

Plastic?

[madokie]

17. Spot on

This is going to be a blood bath before its all said and done.

[lonestarnot]

37. Looks just like him.

[deutsey]

10. Yep, they're really pushing the "faulty intelligence" horseshit

Unfortunately, as I pointed out in another thread, if there are even some Democrats who hold Reagan in high esteem and who believe that Bush legitimately won in 2000, then this crap should stick, too.

[Octafish]

19. We've always been at war with Eastasia. Er. Eurasia.

The fourth basement at the George H.W. Bush Center for Intelligence must have a great research library, filled with studies on the wonders of propaganda. If I had a library card there, I'd look into the efficacy of the First Lie. The technique is one of Karl Rove's basic campaign tenets. Be first to lie about the opponent (and let them waste time explaining how they're not liars) -- but, more importantly, get the lie into the heads of the voters. It will require an EXTRA effort to drive out that which is easily embedded. For instance: "Benghazi!"

That's why I rush to defend Robert Parry and those who actually work to tell the Truth:

Sorry, Rove, Bush Did Lie About Iraq

By Robert Parry
In These Times
March 9. 2010

George W. Bush’s political adviser Karl Rove claims “one of the biggest mistakes” of that presidency was not aggressively challenging critics who charged that Bush “lied” to the American people about the reasons for the Iraq War, an accusation that Rove insists was false and unfair.

In his forthcoming book, Courage and Consequence, Rove calls the “lie” charge “a poison-tipped dagger aimed at the heart of the Bush presidency” and blames himself for “a weak response” that underestimated “how damaging this assault was.”

But the problem with Rove’s account is that not only did Bush oversee the twisting of intelligence to justify invading Iraq in March 2003 but he subsequently lied – and lied repeatedly – about how Iraq had responded to United Nations inspection demands.

So, while it may be impossible to say for certain what Bush believed about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction, it can’t be argued that Bush didn’t know that Iraq declared that it had destroyed its WMD stockpiles and let U.N. inspectors in to see for themselves in the months before the invasion.

Nevertheless, Bush followed up his false pre-war claims about Iraq’s WMD with a post-invasion insistence that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had barred U.N. inspectors from his country, a decision that Bush said left him no choice but to invade. Bush began reciting this faux history just months after the invasion and continued the tall tale until the end of his presidency more than five years later.

CONTINUED...

http://inthesetimes.com/article/5663/sorry_rove_bush_did_lie_about_iraq

Hey! Now that I think of it...you're known for telling the Truth, deutsey.

[spanone]

12. faulty intelligence?....what utter horseshit. ginned up intelligence

graham never met a war he didn't love & embrace...fuck him

[Octafish]

26. The focus groups must be reporting that they remember ''Bush Lied.''

Guess even with the continuous propaganda bombardment ever since echoing CIA director Tenet's "slam dunk" for WMDs.

Lindsey loves the MIC. Little Sister, the antidote for Big Brother, illuminates a few connections:

http://littlesis.org/person/13310/Lindsey_Graham

[napkinz]

14. ...

[Jefferson23]

18. lol This is a version of hot potato game. Sorry, your party is comprised to this day of liars and

war mongers..same old, same old. Faulty intelligence is a lie, they wanted the war no matter
what and got it. The conversation should be more about why it is so terribly tragic to have
a president knowingly waging war because he wanted it. Also, where is the play book that
explains to the next president how to put a country back together again? These assholes
in the GOP take no responsibility for the fact they destroyed a country, killed their people
and this is no biggie, just fix it, Obama.

Republicans are a menace to the world.

[KingCharlemagne]

27. All due respect, but Gebhardt and Daschle were not exactly profiles in

courage either, now were they? Oh yeah, and Hillary voted for that monstrosity too. Has she ever apologized or exhibited even the slightest bit of remorse?

[Jefferson23]

29. I am well aware of all those who voted yes. How does that change what Bush deliberately

orchestrated? I am at a loss here, the main responsibility that Graham is trying to lay
on Obama is without merit. As president you can't push for a war and when you get
nothing, not even the oil contracts, you're going to blame the Democrats who voted
for it? He destroyed an entire country, I do believe he owns it and I do hope that
no Democrat lets the Republicans get away from their lies about it. I supported Obama
in the primaries and Sanders now, but Hillary should not be shy about speaking to what
Bush was selling. Voters then get to decide for themselves why she accepted that, just like
the others who voted yes.

[KingCharlemagne]

31. Bush and other members of his Junta should be on trial at the Hague. Hillary's vote

in favor should permanently disqualify her from ever holding high office again, because she's either a dupe of the first order or something far, far worse. That's the way things would work in a mature democratic republic. But not in the USA, apparently.

[Jefferson23]

33. The voters get to decide if she is qualified, I think you would agree. To your opinion

on Bush and their collective war crimes, yes, I agree. I have been less than pleased
on the manner in which Democrats pushed back on Bush's war, and it delves into the
never going to happen category for too many politicians/Americans. I feel this way,
make the damn case for it, the documentation is all there and when we as a party
won't do it, it makes us complicit and I hate that reality, but it exists. Taking
impeachment off the table was a travesty of justice and one we should learn from.

I was not trying to be sarcastic when I said, where is the playbook that instructs
an incoming president to put a completely destroyed country back to together again.

I would like to see it.

I always wish for the Bush/Cheney regime live a long life with the chance of having
their ass hauled to the Hague. There would be no better deterrent to insane
foreign policy whims of dominating the world at the expense of innocent people.

[ladjf]

24. Graham is a dumb crook. nt

[City Lights]

25. LOL, what a shocker!

The "rest of the World" did not believe Junior and The Dick of Death's lies. Some of us knew they were lying then. Sorry, Lindsey, if you were too stoopid to realize it back then.

[Yorktown]

28. A Federalist text detailing how nuts Lindsey Graham is:

Lindsey Graham Is An Unhinged Kook Who Shouldn’t Be Taken Seriously
MAY 19, 2015 By Ben Domenech
Yesterday Lindsey Graham expressed his interest in yes, for real, becoming a presidential candidate for 2016. Spend any amount of time around the good senator and you’ll hear more extreme sentiments expressed publicly than from any other candidate for the Republican nomination.

He holds an expansive view of the unrestricted powers of the executive branch; a steadfast belief in protecting the administrative state; and he has expressed doubts about much of the Bill of Rights. He does not believe bloggers deserve first amendment protections. He does not believe Americans suspected of terrorist acts deserve to be read their rights. And he, like Hillary Clinton, believes the Citizens United decision was a monstrosity that ought to be overturned – he has called for a Constitutional amendment to do so.

In more senses than one, Graham takes after John C. Calhoun – a warhawk with progressive views of government and an ahistorical view of the Constitution whose primary motivation, first and last, is power.

Graham also regularly says things that are not just wacky, but absurd, even within his own established field of foreign policy and national security. The other day in Iowa, Senator Graham endorsed droning Americans without even calling a judge first. “If I’m president of the United States and you’re thinking about joining al-Qaeda or ISIL [the Islamic State], I’m not gonna call a judge,” Graham said, a reference to Sen. Rand Paul’s earlier remark about how the NSA should call a judge to obtain a warrant before tapping into people’s phone records. “I’m gonna call a drone and we will kill you.”

In a conversation with Wolf Blitzer, his depiction of Saddam Hussein’s influence in the Middle East is just bizarre. To suggest that Saddam was a destabilizing force at the time America entered Iraq is nothing more than fanciful revisionism. But this is the sort of thing Graham does all the time.

So why does Graham get away with it? Why is he viewed by some people as a serious person, where Michele Bachmann and Ben Carson and Donald Trump are not? Graham is held up by the television networks as an “adult” on foreign policy and national security, but his views are not just unconservative or hawkish, they are regularly unhinged and bereft of facts. The fact that he endures as a voice with any authority on matters foreign or domestic within the Republican Party is a sign of how unwilling the party is to seriously engage in internal debate about its future.

This is why him running for president is a very great thing. Light will bring heat for the Senator, and I suspect that his DOA campaign will help publicize the extremism of his views in the context of the presidential field. Graham’s intent is to make the case for his particular brand of foreign policy. But by placing himself on stage with a number of candidates whose interest is in appealing to particular factions of the Republican coalition, Graham will be a useful foil for big government policies of a wide variety.

For candidates who wish to appeal to those voters who value the constitution – and reject the Obama Administration’s approach to governance – Graham offers a tempting target on a plethora of subjects. Running for president doesn’t allow you the freedom of the Senate floor to merely talk about what you want to talk about, and I suspect that he may spend more time defending his domestic policy views than advocating for his foreign policy perspective, both of which are equally unhinged.

[DinahMoeHum]

30. Hey, Senator. . .

[samsingh]

32. graham is a lying piece of shit in my opinion - no one really believed the intelligence

[struggle4progress]

34. "I haven't trusted Obama since he faked the moon-landing in 1969"

[Johonny]

35. So Bush brought back to life all the people needlessly killed? I must have missed that mistake fix.

1) If the entire world believed why didn't we use the UN? oh right the whole world didn't believe.
2) Bush agreed to remove the troops.
3) Bush's biggest mistake was starting a war he didn't need to start.
4) you can't fix 3. All you can do is live with the consequences. These are the consequences.
5) people that think you can fix 3 are delusional.


Either Bush has JC like powers to raise the dead or Lindsey Graham is an asshole. You decide.

[lonestarnot]

36. Oh yeah dipshit, endless war for warmonger richie rich is right up his alley. Fuck him.

[roamer65]

39. I blame Bu$h and this idiot Graham.

He voted for authorization no doubt.

[MisterP]

43. while Obama definitely tried to keep us in, gave blanket immunity to everyone involved,

then hired Salafist shock troops against Qaddafi and Assad and pretended to be surprised when they didn't turn in their guns and kindly recognize the line in the sand east of Deir ez-Zor, then got boots on the ground again

it's all definitely Bush's baby no matter who's raising it at the moment