Trump: Bush lied about reason for invading Iraq

[rightwinger]

What I never understood was; they found WMD's. Which, were the ones they were looking for. MOST of them, rather..
But the WMDs were ours..
Maybe you people should be looking at the BIG picture..
Its not Bush. Its not Clinton. Its the American Federal Government.
Quit voting for anti-American politicians enveloped in greed and corruption.

Bullshit

Bush told the world they had an active WMD program. We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud......powerful words
He did not say he needed to invade because of some rusting 20 year old stockpiles

Then why was CLinton so gung ho for it? Please answer without revisionist, partisan bullshit. Thanks!

Hillary?
Hillary supported the war out of post 9-11 patriotism and a desire to position herself as a hawk in anticipation of a future presidential run

Cost Hillary the election in 2008

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That poster just illustrates how classless and clueless you truly are!

 

[rightwinger]

Millions of REPUBLICANS support Trump in blaming Bush for 9-11 and Iraq

Names please.

Start with New Hampshire, then look at Trumps lead in the polls

Millions of Republicans support Trump and Trump believes Bush botched both 9-11 AND Iraq

You have no way of knowing why they support trump. It's a to Obama..not anti bush.

Shit.....if a Democratic candidate told me Obama was responsible for 9-11, I wouldn't support him

Millions of Republicans flock to Trump as their savior

After suffering under Obama for 7 years, even Bozo the Clown would look like a savior.

That's a funny joke....shows how simplistic your political thoughts are

 

[Dot Com]

I disagree. The entire Bush Admin lied. They knew the intel was spurious. They wanted a war and they made the data fit. We were sold a line of bullshit. Wake up!!

good post but where has your sentiment been since 2009 (your join date)? Have you EVER said Iraq was a sham?

 

[Wilbur Right]

Then why was CLinton so gung ho for it? Please answer without revisionist, partisan bullshit. Thanks!

Because Clinton was to stupid to know the Republicans were lying to her and everybody else. She believed the bullshit because she wanted to. Thought it might be in her favor at some point. Especially if something good came of the invasion.

But she was to stupid to say no to the worst foreign policy decision made by a President EVER.

 

[TNHarley]

Bill not Hillary

 

[Dot Com]

This pretty much has dashed Rove (Turd Blossom) & the Koch bros designs

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Rape rooms! OMG!!!!

I guess we can take that as your vote in favor of them?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Ramsey Clark forewarned them and they dismissed it then ----------> 9/11

Ramsey Clark?

I think you are barking up the wrong tree!

He's a lawyer!

 

[cereal_killer]

You can't argue that when Trump says he's working for us, he really means it. No other Republican would have the balls to call out W and the horrendous mistake of Iraq. That right there proves to me that he's working for us the American people...no one else.

Not to mention he called out all the GOP special interest groups and donors in the audience. The morons were applauding when Rubio and Bush were supporting amnesty

 

[rightwinger]

Then why was CLinton so gung ho for it? Please answer without revisionist, partisan bullshit. Thanks!

Because Clinton was to stupid to know the Republicans were lying to her and everybody else. She believed the bullshit because she wanted to. Thought it might be in her favor at some point. Especially if something good came of the invasion.

But she was to stupid to say no to the worst foreign policy decision made by a President EVER.

Hillary wanted to build her cred as a war hawk and did not want to risk Republicans labeling her soft on terrorism if she voted against the war

It cost her the Presidency in 2008

 

[Synthaholic]

"Bush lied, people died."

One usually hears that from the loopy left, not from the leading contender for the Republican nomination.

Well, he did lie, and people did die because of those lies.

Facts are loopy!

 

[Synthaholic]

Looks like a lot of people said something that wasn't true concerning WMDs.

WMDs were found in Iraq and they are active munitions.

You have been asked to provide a link to an objective source that confirms operational WMD's were found and have failed to do so. You provided links to American soldiers being injured when they found abandoned weapons. Operational is the key word. What was found were old abandoned weapons that could not be used a designed and had been buried unsafely for over 10 years before being found.
You were asked to provide you favorite and best most objectionable example of WMD's being found in Iraq. All you have shown is that some irresponsible Iraqi's buried some artillery and mortar rounds over a decade before the Iraqi war, the coalition forces stumbled onto some of them and were injured when the deteriorating weapons were uncovered.

Read the thread...links are there.

K? Thx.

No they aren't. You posted links that confirm what I said, not what you are claiming. They weapons in those links in many cases dated back to the 80's. They were degraded and caused American casualties because they were improperly handled.
You are trying to promote some nonsense that even the Bush administration did not attempt to promote.

I posted two of many links showing WMDS were found in Iraq. Thousands of them.

Their age is irrelevant as they are viable - able to injure and kill.

So, once again - thousands of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and, those weapons are viable WMDs.

That is what I have posted and that is fact.

Anything you don't like about it is your problem.

You are being completely disingenuous. Bush did not push for war to remove degraded canisters of chemical weapons that were unusable as a weapon of MASS destruction.

Without any U.S. military to find them they would have become inert at some point, or only have injured Iraqis who came across them.

 

[mikegriffith1]

This is a pathetic myth, and I'm surprised that Trump repeated it. Even Oliver Stone admits that Bush was furious when it became clear that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and that Bush demanded to know why the CIA and the DoD claimed there were WMDs.

Now, I certainly believe that certain Bush administration officials and some folks in the CIA and the DoD knew or suspected that the WMD case was either doubtful or false, but the evidence is clear that Bush sincerely believed the WMD case and was very upset when it turned out to be false.

But WMDs were found in Iraq.

Technically, yes, but not the type or amount that had been claimed was there.

Chemical weapons were found - mustard and sarin (and VX).

Over 5000, just that amount found was released with the last few years.

Considering the toxicity of one microliter, 5K found can kill a shitload of persons.

Those were hardly worth an invasion that cost us thousands of dead and tens of thousands of wounded, not to mention about $2 trillion that we could not afford.

And everybody knows that "WMDs" mainly referred to nukes, and it is now clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the supposed "evidence" for Saddam's alleged nuke program was pitiful and flimsy at best, and some folks in the White House knew it.

 

[paulitician]

Trump da man. He went on to double-down. "How did Bush keep us safe, the World Trade Center went down?"

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Actually, he said, "They lied"

Dunno if anyone lied. Do know, many used false info to make a point. Whether they knew it to be false at the time, is not known.

However, chemical weapons were found in Iraq.

Cheney definitely lied when he said unequivocally that Atta had met with Iraqi government officials in Germany. Also:

Vice President Dick Cheney had told Meet the Press on December 9, 2001, that Iraq was harboring Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,[14] and repeated the statement in another appearance on September 14, 2003, saying "We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida organization. We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven."[15] and once again in an interview with National Public Radio in January, 2004, stating that there had been "overwhelming evidence" of a relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda based on evidence including Iraq's purported harboring of Yasin.[16]

In the same Meet the Press interviews, Cheney implied a connection between Iraq and Mohamed Atta; "The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the September 11 terrorists attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out."[14] and "With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop any more of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know."[15] Czech officials have since backed off of this claim, and even Cheney has since acknowledged that the notion "that the meeting ever took place" has been "pretty well knocked down now."[17] (See Mohamed Atta's alleged Prague connection.)
​

Another lie:

And for any analysts unclear on what the administration wanted to hear, Vice President Dick Cheney, whom several Bush officials told me was not as smart as the president, made sure they got the message on August 26, 2002, when he delivered a public speech that had not been vetted by the White House or cleared by Bush. “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction,’’ he said. “There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.”

The clear message to the worker bees at the CIA: The White House knew Saddam had the weapons. Disagree at peril to your career.​

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/05/29/dick-cheneys-biggest-lie-333097.html

Let me educate you and maybe you will not be such a liberal hack!

If I tell you that Michelle Obama is really a transgender man and that the Obama kids are adopted, I would be lying. Now, you being a gullible liberal swallow that lie, hook, line and sinker, and then proceed to act on that lie by repeating it, would you be a liar or simply someone who was led astray by a very convincing argument that I made?

If you consider yourself to be a liar, through no fault of your own, then you would be consistent in calling Cheney a liar. The intelligence he received was that information was true.

If you don't consider yourself a liar, how can you hold someone else accountable for acting on bad intelligence information?

If you don't consider yourself a liar, how can you hold someone else accountable for acting on bad intelligence information?

Because they are responsible for making the wrong choice. They took a gamble using information that was tenuous at best.They exercised no good judgement whatsoever. They were wrong and created a multi generational global shitstorm of epic proportions. They in no way get a pass because of " bad Intel". It was their bad judgement that did it.

The exercise of good judgement is merely your uninformed opinion. But, you admit that use of the word "lie" is totally incompatible with what actually occurred?

 

[Synthaholic]

This is a pathetic myth, and I'm surprised that Trump repeated it. Even Oliver Stone admits that Bush was furious when it became clear that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and that Bush demanded to know why the CIA and the DoD claimed there were WMDs.

Now, I certainly believe that certain Bush administration officials and some folks in the CIA and the DoD knew or suspected that the WMD case was either doubtful or false, but the evidence is clear that Bush sincerely believed the WMD case and was very upset when it turned out to be false.

But WMDs were found in Iraq.

False. Unless the definition of MASS has changed to mean some poor schlub who happened upon it and started poking the canister.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

He stated the same reason as Clinton (male) did and Clinton(femaile) voted for it. I would say that this is a conspiracy of lies between the democrats and the republicans.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, he said, "They lied"

Dunno if anyone lied. Do know, many used false info to make a point. Whether they knew it to be false at the time, is not known.

However, chemical weapons were found in Iraq.

Cheney definitely lied when he said unequivocally that Atta had met with Iraqi government officials in Germany. Also:

Vice President Dick Cheney had told Meet the Press on December 9, 2001, that Iraq was harboring Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,[14] and repeated the statement in another appearance on September 14, 2003, saying "We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida organization. We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven."[15] and once again in an interview with National Public Radio in January, 2004, stating that there had been "overwhelming evidence" of a relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda based on evidence including Iraq's purported harboring of Yasin.[16]

In the same Meet the Press interviews, Cheney implied a connection between Iraq and Mohamed Atta; "The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the September 11 terrorists attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out."[14] and "With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop any more of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know."[15] Czech officials have since backed off of this claim, and even Cheney has since acknowledged that the notion "that the meeting ever took place" has been "pretty well knocked down now."[17] (See Mohamed Atta's alleged Prague connection.)
​

Another lie:

And for any analysts unclear on what the administration wanted to hear, Vice President Dick Cheney, whom several Bush officials told me was not as smart as the president, made sure they got the message on August 26, 2002, when he delivered a public speech that had not been vetted by the White House or cleared by Bush. “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction,’’ he said. “There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.”

The clear message to the worker bees at the CIA: The White House knew Saddam had the weapons. Disagree at peril to your career.​

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/05/29/dick-cheneys-biggest-lie-333097.html

Let me educate you and maybe you will not be such a liberal hack!

If I tell you that Michelle Obama is really a transgender man and that the Obama kids are adopted, I would be lying. Now, you being a gullible liberal swallow that lie, hook, line and sinker, and then proceed to act on that lie by repeating it, would you be a liar or simply someone who was led astray by a very convincing argument that I made?

If you consider yourself to be a liar, through no fault of your own, then you would be consistent in calling Cheney a liar. The intelligence he received was that information was true.

If you don't consider yourself a liar, how can you hold someone else accountable for acting on bad intelligence information?

If you don't consider yourself a liar, how can you hold someone else accountable for acting on bad intelligence information?

Because they are responsible for making the wrong choice. They took a gamble using information that was tenuous at best.They exercised no good judgement whatsoever. They were wrong and created a multi generational global shitstorm of epic proportions. They in no way get a pass because of " bad Intel". It was their bad judgement that did it.

The exercise of good judgement is merely your uninformed opinion. But, you admit that use of the word "lie" is totally incompatible with what actually occurred?

Lie is exactly what occurred...on a massive scale

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

This is a pathetic myth, and I'm surprised that Trump repeated it. Even Oliver Stone admits that Bush was furious when it became clear that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and that Bush demanded to know why the CIA and the DoD claimed there were WMDs.

Now, I certainly believe that certain Bush administration officials and some folks in the CIA and the DoD knew or suspected that the WMD case was either doubtful or false, but the evidence is clear that Bush sincerely believed the WMD case and was very upset when it turned out to be false.

But WMDs were found in Iraq.

Technically, yes, but not the type or amount that had been claimed was there.

Chemical weapons were found - mustard and sarin (and VX).

Over 5000, just that amount found was released with the last few years.

Considering the toxicity of one microliter, 5K found can kill a shitload of persons.

Those were hardly worth an invasion that cost us thousands of dead and tens of thousands of wounded, not to mention about $2 trillion that we could not afford.

And everybody knows that "WMDs" mainly referred to nukes, and it is now clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the supposed "evidence" for Saddam's alleged nuke program was pitiful and flimsy at best, and some folks in the White House knew it.

Why do you assume that everyone else in the world is as uninformed and ignorant of reality as you?