Corn has broken stories on presidents, politicians, and other Washington players. He's written for numerous publications and is a talk show regular. His best-selling books include Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War.
Donald Trump, the celebrity tycoon and front-runner in the Republican 2016 race, doesn't hold back when he criticizes the Bush-Cheney crowd for the Iraq War. Over the years, he has called the Iraq invasion a "big mistake" and a "mess," and he has insisted he never would have launched that war. Though the war remains unpopular, Trump's critique does put him at odds with the Republican establishment and GOP voters who supported the invasion. So as he has soared to the top of the polls, Trump has deftly devised a way of discussing the Iraq War that includes Obama-bashing. The problem (well, it would be a problem for a conventional politician): Trump is contradicted by his own words.
The politerati are getting a slight break from Trumpalooza these days, thanks to the Biden Bump. The veep has been actively discussing a possible presidential run with Democratic donors and strategists as he moves toward a final decision, and political handicappers have upped the odds that Biden, still coping with the recent death of his 46-year-old son Beau, will enter the fray. This has led to a torrent of speculation about what Biden will do and what a last-minute leap might mean for the 2016 race. Could it hurt the once-inevitable-but-now-email-burdened Hillary Clinton by providing Nervous-Nellie Democrats with an alternative? Could it help Clinton by offering her a more establishment-oriented sparring partner to vanquish—which would yield a positive narrative for her campaign?
The other day, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent seeking the Democratic nomination who has drawn thousands to rallies and boomed in recent polls, was asked how a Biden bid would affect the contest. He characteristically pooh-poohed the question. "Politics is not a soap opera," he said. "What impact it will have on the race, I honestly don’t know. I mean, I wish I could tell you, but I don’t. Will it help or hurt me? Will it help or hurt Hillary Clinton? I just don’t know."
Yet there are several reasons why a Biden run would be good for Sanders.
When Donald Trump, the reality show tycoon turned GOP front-runner, appeared on Meet the Press this past Sunday, host Chuck Todd asked him, "Who do you talk to for military advice right now?" At first, Trump had no direct answer. He replied, "Well, I watch the shows. I mean, I really see a lot of great—you know, when you watch your show and all of the other shows and you have the generals and you have certain people that you like." Todd pressed him: "But is there a go-to for you?" Trump said he had two or three "go-to" advisers. He named John Bolton, one of the most hawkish neoconservatives, and retired Army Col. Jack Jacobs, who is a military analyst for MSNBC and NBC News. "Col. Jack Jacobs is a good guy," Trump said. "And I see him on occasion."
There's just one problem with Trump citing Jacobs as a national security adviser: Jacobs says he has never talked to Trump about military policy.
"He may have said the first person who came to mind," Jacobs tells Mother Jones. "I know him. But I'm not a consultant. I'm not certain if he has a national security group of people. I don't know if he does or if he doesn't. If he does, I'm not one of them."
Jacobs, who received a Medal of Honor (and two Silver Stars, three Bronze Stars, and two Purple Hearts) for his service in Vietnam, notes that he has attended numerous charity events where Trump was present. "I've seen him at a number of functions," he says. But Jacobs adds that he has had no discussions with Trump about national security affairs—at those events or anywhere else.
Jacobs says he assumes Trump has watched his appearances on television. But does Jacobs see his on-air comments reflected in what Trump has been saying as a candidate? "I talk about a wide variety of things on television," Jacobs remarks. "Who knows what anybody absorbs? But I'm delighted to hear that he's a fan of MSNBC."
The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to an inquiry about why Trump cited Jacobs as a military policy adviser.
Donald Trump regularly boasts that he was opposed to the Iraq War. On Meet the Press this past weekend, he said, "And, as you know, for years I've been saying, 'Don't go into Iraq.' They went into Iraq. They destabilized the Middle East. It was a big mistake." In July, he reportedly told a conservative group in Hollywood that instead of invading Iraq the United States "should have invaded Mexico." And he's been consistent on this point for years. In a 2004 interview with Esquire, Trump dumped on the Bush-Cheney crowd for initiating a dumb war:
Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the county? C'mon. Two minutes after we leave, there's going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he'll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn't have. What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!
So here's the puzzle: Why would Trump pick one of the lead cheerleaders for the Iraq War to be a top foreign policy adviser?
In that Meet the Press interview, host Chuck Todd asked Trump to identify his "go-to" experts for national security matters. Trump said he "probably" had two or three. Todd pressed the tycoon for names, and the first one Trump mentioned was John Bolton, the George W. Bush administration's ambassador to the United Nations. "He's, you know, a tough cookie, knows what he's talking about," Trump said. (He also named retired Col. Jack Jacobs, an MSNBC military analyst.)
Bolton has long been one of the most hawkish of all the neoconservative hawks. He was part of the Bush-Cheney crew that claimed Saddam Hussein had amassed weapons of mass destruction and that war was the only option. As a top State Department official prior to the 2003 Iraq invasion, Bolton pushed the false claims that Iraq had obtained aluminum tubes and uranium for its supposed nuclear weapons program. He was also a supporter of a conspiracy theorist named Laurie Mylroie who contended that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. Before Bush launched the Iraq War, Bolton predicted that "the American role actually will be fairly minimal." (In 1997, he was one of several conservatives who wrote to President Bill Clinton and urged him to attack Saddam.)
Not surprisingly, Bolton has stuck to the position that the Iraq invasion was the right move. In May, he said, "I still think the decision to overthrow Saddam was correct."
The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for an explanation of Trump's reliance on Bolton's advice.
Bolton, who flirted with the notion of running for president in 2016, has a long history of extreme positions. In 2009, he noted that the only way to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons would be an Israeli nuclear strike on Iran—an option he seemed to endorse. In 2012, he backed then-Rep. Michele Bachmann's call for an investigation of members of Congress supposedly connected to a Muslim Brotherhood plot to infiltrate the US government. This past March, Bolton called for the United States and/or Israel to bomb Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
Bolton is not in an exclusive relationship with Trump. He has also advised other GOP 2016ers, including Sen. Ted Cruz and Gov. Bobby Jindal. But Trump's reliance on Bolton is curious, for Bolton was neck-deep using false assertions to promote a war that Trump himself says was all for "nothing." Bolton ought to have received a "you're fired" pink slip from Trump. Instead, Trump solicits his views.
Would Trump have retained an apprentice who screwed up this badly?
It had to happen: anti-Trump attack ads from the GOP side. One of the first Rs to launch a torpedo at the tycoon topping the polls is Sen. Rand Paul, the libertarian-ish Kentucky Republican whose campaign has yet to gain traction. In what can be taken as a sign of frustration—or desperation—this week Paul released a commercial assailing Donald Trump. The ammo is nothing new, with the spot focusing on old Trump statements and positions that ought to tick off Republicans. It shows Trump calling Hillary Clinton a "terrific woman" and remarking (in 2004) that he identified more as a Democrat than a Republican. Trump responded by pooh-poohing the attack, once again saying his views have evolved. And he added a dig at Paul: "Recently, Rand Paul called me and asked me to play golf. I easily beat him on the golf course and will even more easily beat him now, in the world in [sic] the politics. Senator Paul does not mention that after trouncing him in golf I made a significant donation to the eye center with which he is affiliated."
It's doubtful Paul is going to score many points with the ad. After all, of the GOPers running for president, Paul has perhaps the longest list of troublesome past comments, and he's the most likely to be accused of heresy. For instance, he repeatedly asserted that Dick Cheney, as vice president, pushed for the Iraq War so Halliburton, the megamilitary contracting firm Cheney once led, would bag billions of dollars in profits.
Paul even once took a position similar to one of the Trump quotes in this new ad. His get-Trump spot excoriates the celebrity billionaire for having previously declared, "The economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans." Yet Paul used to repeatedly insist that President Jimmy Carter was better on the federal budget than President Ronald Reagan.
Last year, I reported on Paul's habit of dumping on Reagan, noting that when Paul stumped for his father's presidential bid in 2008 and ran for Senate in 2010, he routinely asserted that Carter had a better record on fiscal discipline than Reagan. So Paul was fine with criticizing the GOP when he was campaigning for or as a libertarian maverick. But now that he's struggling to find his footing in the Republican presidential contest, he's eager to attack Trump's supposed blasphemy.
Here are the relevant portions of my reporting from last year:
In a variety of campaign appearances that were captured on video, Paul repeatedly compared Reagan unfavorably to Carter on one of Paul's top policy priorities: government spending. When Paul was a surrogate speaker for his father, then-Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), during the elder Paul's 2008 presidential quest, his sales pitch included dumping on Reagan for failing to rein in federal budget deficits. Standing on the back of a truck and addressing the crowd at the Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers picnic in July 2007, Rand Paul complained about Reagan and praised his father for having opposed Reagan's budget:
The deficit went through the roof under Reagan. So how long did it take Ron Paul to figure out that the guy he had liked, endorsed, campaigned for, campaigned for him? The very first [Reagan] budget. Ron Paul voted "no" against the very first Reagan budget… Everybody loved this "great" budget. It was a $100 billion in debt. This was three times greater than Jimmy Carter's worst deficit.
Paul's speech apparently worked. His father won the straw poll held at the picnic, collecting 182 of the 294 votes cast, or 65 percent.
Appearing at a Montana GOP event in January 2008, Paul touted his dad's conservative credentials—remarking that the elder Paul had even voted against gun safety measures backed by the NRA—and pointed out that deficits had mounted under Reagan and President George H.W. Bush: "Domestic spending went up more rapidly in the '80s than it did under Carter." And he took this swipe at Reagan:
You know, we wanted Reagan to veto a budget or to have balanced budgets and he didn't do it. And it wasn't anything personal against him. I think his philosophy was good. I just don't know that he had the energy or the follow-through to get what we needed.
As a Senate candidate the following year, Paul continued to bad-mouth Reagan. Speaking at the University of Kentucky to Students for Liberty that spring, he noted that he and other small-government advocates had "high hopes" for Reagan that were "fairly quickly" dashed. "A lot of the things that we believed would happen didn't," Paul said. He explained:
People want to like Reagan. He's very likable. And what he had to say most of the time was a great message. But the deficits exploded under Reagan. The Democrats said, "Well, the deficit's going up because you reduced the tax rates and supply side economics doesn't work." But the interesting thing is, if you look at the numbers, tax rates went down in the early '80s, tax revenue did rise. The reason the deficits exploded is they ignored spending. Domestic spending went up at a greater clip under Reagan than it did under Carter.
A few weeks earlier, talking to student Republicans at Western Kentucky University, Paul pointed to the dramatic rise in deficit spending under President George W. Bush and declared that Republicans had "become hypocrites" on spending and the deficits. GOPers, he maintained, had not "truly become fiscal conservatives." He added, "We haven't followed through on the message of fiscal conservatism that we said we had." And he traced the problem back to Reagan:
Some say, well that's fine, but there were good old days. We did at one time…When we had Reagan, we were fiscal conservatives. Well, unfortunately, even that wasn't true. When Reagan was elected in 1980, the first bill they passed was called the Gramm-Latta bill of 1981, and Republicans pegged it as this great step forward. Well, Jimmy Carter's last budget was about $34 or $36 billion in debt. Well, it turns out, Reagan's first budget turned out to be $110 billion dollars in debt. And each successive year, the deficit rose throughout Reagan's two terms.
And, he told the students, don't venerate Reagan merely because he was a conservative: "Why did the deficit rise [under Reagan]? Because spending rose more dramatically under Reagan than it did under Carter. Well, you say, 'Reagan's a conservative, Carter's a liberal.' Not necessarily always what it seems."
Speaking two months later to the Carroll County Republican Party, Paul forecasted that economic doom was soon to come—"1979 on steroids"—and advised that "everyone should have a percentage of their savings in gold," noting it was possible that the United States could experience a "complete catastrophe" like the hyperinflation of the Weimar Republic. "I would be prepared," Paul said. "There's a coming calamity possibly." Then he turned to a critique of the Republican Party:
As Republicans, it's been very easy for us to say we're fiscally conservative and we're for balanced budgets. It's never happened. We were in charge in the Reagan term, the next Bush's term, this last Bush. The deficits were horrendous under the Republicans…During Reagan's two terms, domestic spending went up faster than Jimmy Carter.
That same month, when he was addressing a gathering of local conservatives in Lexington, Kentucky, Paul contended that being only "a little bit conservative" was not sufficient and that his party, partly because of Reagan, had lost its credibility on fiscal matters:
We live in such bad times that if you don't have somebody who truly believes that we need to take an ax to government, you're not going to get anything done…Even when we elected Reagan. A lot of us loved the rhetoric of Reagan. My dad supported Reagan in 1976 when only four US congressmen would stand up for him. The deficit still exploded…The deficit exploded because domestic spending rose faster under Reagan, so did military, but domestic spending rose faster under Reagan than under Jimmy Carter…We have to admit our failings because we're not going to get new people unless we become believable as a party again.
These days, Paul, who is stuck in a civil war within the GOP over foreign policy issues, is trying to Reaganize himself and demonstrate that he's not outside the Republican mainstream. (His Senate office did not respond to requests for comment.) But not long ago, Reagan was a foil for Paul, who routinely pointed out that the GOP's most revered figure actually had been a letdown. It's no surprise that denigrating Ronald Reagan—and commending Jimmy Carter—is no longer common for Paul. Such libertarian straight talk would hardly help him become one of the successors to the last Republican president who retains heroic stature within the party Paul wants to win over.