In an interview with Jake Tapper on CNN this morning, Donald Trump explicitly condemned the 2003 Iraq invasion and the 2011 overthrow of Moammar Qaddafi in Libya, stating that both policies had been catastrophic and left the Middle East dramatically worse off than it had been before. Tapper idiotically inquired, "What about the human rights violations (of Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein)?", to which Trump responded with appropriately withering contempt, "You think they aren't happening NOW?"
There you have it, folks. Trump the political baboon can see at least some patently obvious political realities, whereas pundits almost never can. As foreign policy critic William Blum has pointed out, if you go into the hospital for a knee operation and wake up to discover that your surgeon has removed your entire leg, it is not appropriate to crow that the result has left you "better off," since you no longer have a bad knee. But this is precisely the logic preached to us by the establishment media, that the destruction of Iraq and Libya have made the world "better off," because Saddam Hussein and Moammar Qaddafi are no longer around to commit "evil" deeds. And Trump says, correctly, that in the wake of these insane interventions, "there is no Iraq, there is no Libya." There is simply chaos and terror, the predictable result of overthrowing stable governments in favor of terrorist gangs and foreign rule.
Trump has also completely bested Jeb Bush, who, incredibly enough, has put himself in the news to defend the horrendous legacy of his brother George W. Bush. Trump pointed out that it is nonsensical to say, as Jeb continually does, that GW "kept us safe," when three thousand people were killed on his watch. This has nothing to do with "blaming Bush for 911," and everything to do with recognizing what the word "safe" means. Being safe is manifestly inconsistent with being slaughtered in a huge terrorist attack in your "homeland." Given the pathetic nature of Trump's competition, it's surprising he isn't ahead by more than he is. Jeb was nearly reduced to tears when Trump criticized him for speaking Spanish, which he somehow construed as an attack on his (Mexican) wife. And now he takes it as a personal affront that Trump is asking questions about why we were obviously not safe on 911. Jeb is convinced that Trump is dangerously incapable of handling U.S. foreign policy, and he may be right. But at the same time Jeb thinks that the nearly catatonic GW was not only capable, but handled his duties well. Sure.
Meanwhile, Hillary basks in media deference for having "won" the Democratic debate. What debating points did she score that entitle her to this victory lap? In response to Bernie Sanders' observation that social democratic policies should be adopted so as to distribute the wealth less unequally, Hillary said simply, "We are not Denmark." Wow. Who knew? And when the issue of her vote in favor of the Iraq war came up, she said that president Obama still valued her opinion on world affairs after that vote (he made her his Secretary of State), so who is anyone else to criticize? So her falling for Bush and Cheney's b.s. about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is evidence of good judgment (Not that Hussein's possession of such weapons would have justified the U.S. invasion of Iraq; it certainly would not have)? And the subsequent destruction of Iraq was therefore acceptable? Huh?