Trump: Bush lied about reason for invading Iraq

[Redfish]

I never lie. You will never "bust" me. You are incompetent and do not have the mental abilities to even participate in a discussion with me.

Bullshit. You claimed there were Democrats who backed Schumer when he suggested Bush nominees be denied confirmation by the Senate.

You then couldn't name a single one.

You claim to know what was in Clinton's head, Bush's head, and Hillary's head. Is that because you want to give head to all of them?

More bullshit. I never said I knew what was in any of their heads. I said Clinton had 8 years to go to war with Iraq had that been the route he cared to take -- and he didn't.

Democrats who agreed with Schumer:

Reid, Pelosi, Durban, Clinton, just to name 4. Now, are you claiming that Schumer was the ONLY democrat who said that no Bush appointee would get a hearing in the senate?

yes, Clinton did not go to war in Iraq, he chose Bosnia. What's your point?

No link, no credibility. You have to prove it.

GFY. everything does not have to linked. Everyone who was alive during that time knows that Reid, Pelosi, Durban, and Clinton agreed with Schumer.

So I ask you one final time. Are you claiming that Schumer was the only democrat who wanted to block Bush nominees?

You can not find a link because you are distorting what Schumer said to start with. You are lying about the Schumer comment. He did not call for a 'no vote, no hearing, no consideration'. He said that after putting two far-right justices on the court, they should not put another one on it. He was suggesting a conservative of more moderate credentials be considered.
You are caught in the talking point lie and are unable to get out of it.

you are wrong.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/16/schumer-claims-he-didnt-call-for-blocking-bush-noms-even-though-he-clearly-did/

read the entire article, it contains his actual words.

 

[Camp]

Bullshit. You claimed there were Democrats who backed Schumer when he suggested Bush nominees be denied confirmation by the Senate.

You then couldn't name a single one.

More bullshit. I never said I knew what was in any of their heads. I said Clinton had 8 years to go to war with Iraq had that been the route he cared to take -- and he didn't.

Democrats who agreed with Schumer:

Reid, Pelosi, Durban, Clinton, just to name 4. Now, are you claiming that Schumer was the ONLY democrat who said that no Bush appointee would get a hearing in the senate?

yes, Clinton did not go to war in Iraq, he chose Bosnia. What's your point?

No link, no credibility. You have to prove it.

GFY. everything does not have to linked. Everyone who was alive during that time knows that Reid, Pelosi, Durban, and Clinton agreed with Schumer.

So I ask you one final time. Are you claiming that Schumer was the only democrat who wanted to block Bush nominees?

You can not find a link because you are distorting what Schumer said to start with. You are lying about the Schumer comment. He did not call for a 'no vote, no hearing, no consideration'. He said that after putting two far-right justices on the court, they should not put another one on it. He was suggesting a conservative of more moderate credentials be considered.
You are caught in the talking point lie and are unable to get out of it.

you are wrong.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/16/schumer-claims-he-didnt-call-for-blocking-bush-noms-even-though-he-clearly-did/

read the entire article, it contains his actual words.

Your link misinterprets what Schumer said. It makes opinionated conclusions and assumptions to fit the agenda they are trying to promote. Read by itself, the comments tell a whole different story. You can see the actual comments being made on youtube. You are arguing a dead issue. Your claims have been debunked.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Redfish 13548363

---or are you saying that Hillary and the dems were too stupid to see the truth? It has to be one or the other.

.

No. Bush was too stupid and dishonest to do as both Clintons Kerry and most of the rest of the world's sane leaders suggested he do. Give the inspectors more time and avoid war.

The Clintons and most Dems could see the diplomatic progress being made with ongoing inspections. They were wise to prefer the diplomatic inspection route. Were they shocked that Bush would lie the way he did about 'hidden lethal weapons'? Sure they should have been. But then it was too late - the Decider decided war over peace entirely on his own.

 

[Dot Com]

You've lost it Sport. This is between two candidates running for the Repub nomination. Not you going back 30 yrs to justify that failed war started by Bush jr. Thread bumps are appreciated but you're coming across as obsessed seeing as you've been deflecting my thread for how many hours now?

For the third time, virtually all the candidates, INCLUDING Jeb! admit that Iraq was an avoidable blunder that George rushed into head- on and every school child knows that their reasons changed multiple times and were all debunked.

You're scary obsessed guy. Go out in the street and tell people that decade+ long death trap was justified and see the reactions you get.

You don't even want to discuss what you SAY you want to discuss. I asked you how Hillary would respond if she was asked to justify her husbands 8 years of handling "the Iraq problem" -- Wouldn't that amuse you also?? Bringing up Mad Albright's comments and the Monica eve bombings, and ignoring all those resigning UN Humanitarian Aid Envoys and weapons inspectors? If you're only interested in the spectacle. That would be even MORE entertaining I think..

For the third time, virtually all the candidates, INCLUDING Jeb! admit that Iraq was an avoidable blunder that George rushed into head- on and every school child knows that their reasons changed multiple times and were all debunked.

And what would THEY have done? Isn't that the real interview question? Why wasn't Trump asked what he would have done? Maybe build a wall and make them pay for it? It's ALL BullShit unless YOU know what THEY would have done.

If you know what each of them WOULD have done Dottie -- Please tell me. Or we might all be interested in what YOU wanted to do in the 1990s when the UN was reporting deaths of up to 30,000 children/elderly per year from the effects of containment.

tl;dr

Stop derailing the thread

 

[Dot Com]

Well, I guess you should not have started a thread if you didn't want a dialogue. You crazy?

says the chick who threw her candidate (Trump) under the bus. Save it sis

As to the OP: its about Trump putting Jeb! in his place. The is thread is about candidates in the Repub Primary candidates mkaythanks

 

[Dot Com]

That 1/2 million includes military casualties from the Iran war and the Kuwait war. You take those out and our policy of containment and bombing killed FAR more than that.

Incorrect. He slaughtered half a million Iraqis, including a couple hundred thousand Kurds, and another 300 thousand during the rebellion of 91. AND, another 300 thousand in Iran war. So, just for shits, we'll call it a cool million, give or take...

I'm not sure why this is even being debated.

Bush did not go into Iraq to save the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. Had this been Bush's policy, then he'd have invade other countries with evil dictators that like to kill their own people. He didn't. Simple as.

You are correct FW -- he wasn't saving the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. He was TRYING to save them from over a decade of CRIPPLING economic sanctions (more strict than Iran or NK sanctions) and daily bombing by the USA...

Do you think he actually gave any consideration to the Iraqi people? I mean, he didn't give them any consideration AFTER he had invaded and put Bremer in charge of everything and then turned Iraq into a petri dish for Islamic terrorism.

He didn't care about the US soldiers, he didn't care about the people who have been impacted all over the world by Islamic terrorism, and he didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people. Simple as.

I actually think he got it. He felt a sense of urgency to do something because of

1) the toll it was taking on the Iraqi people. And our sanctions should never be designed that way for so long.

2) the mess at the UN with the resignations criticizing the policy from weapons inspectors and humanitarian officials.. And the corruption.

3) the urgency to stop persecuting and killing an entire COUNTRY of Muslim Arabs in a time when he wanted to run a general "War on Terrorism". Looked bad to be bombing Iraq daily and saying we weren't at war with all of Islam..

But you're right. We arrived to NAG the Iraqi people into Democracy and running stuff our way. We became super nannies to a people who were not in the mood to be feeling the love. We ran off their military and govt and tried to make replacements in own image. THAT -- was tone deaf -- to say the least. AND -- it's Bush's fault for taking that advice. But I DON'T fault him for having the balls to do SOMETHING to end 12 VERY BAD years of former US policy. He should have figured out what it was gonna cost us in lives and money before his first term was up...

because Halliburton/KBR was standing in the wings. Remember the whole "Join us or you won't get any Reconstruction contracts"? Of course you don't.

CNN.com - Transcripts

But first, our top story tonight -- should countries that opposed the war in Iraq be able to bid on lucrative reconstruction contracts? No way, says the Bush administration, today moving to keep billions of dollars from trading partners like France, Germany, Russia, even Canada. Those countries are outraged, and the European Union may take action. Senior White House correspondent John King has details.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The president welcomed members of the Iraqi National Symphony to the Roosevelt Room, happy to talk music but not about another major diplomatic dustup. At issue, a White House decision to block Iraq war opponents from nearly $20 billion in U.S.-funded reconstruction contracts. Bush critics call it hardball retaliation. The White House prefers to call it rewarding allies.

SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: These are countries that have been with us from day one. These are countries that are contributing forces, that have been making sacrifices.

KING: This Pentagon memo says restricting the big contracts to Iraqi war allies should encourage the continued cooperation of coalition members. But the administration also hopes the lure of big reconstruction contracts might convince other nations to offer troops, or as the memo put it, "limiting competition for prime contracts will encourage the expansion of international cooperation in Iraq."

You're welcome

Stop going full-retard in attempting to derail the thread

 

[Dot Com]

13534847

. I said that the resolution would not have passed without dem votes, that is true.

That resolution passed in October 2002. Bush was not necessarily lying about WMD in October 2002. That is except the fact that he said he wanted to have the UNSC disarm Iraq PEACEFULLY.

That means because UN inspectors were not in Iraq in October 2002, there was justification to threaten war in order to get the inspectors back. Those were not lies to get Dem support for the authorization. Guess what? Saddam Hussen allowed the inspectors back in and the vast majority of nations by March 2003, wanted continued inspections not US invasion.

So the vote in October 2002 had nothing to do with Bush's LIE on March 17, 2003. That's when Bush committed the big WMD lie. (See my previous post)

The front runner in the GOP field knows Bush lied. Why don't you? The vote in October 2003 had nothing to do with Bush's WMD lie. Why try to defend him based on the October vote? He was not lying about WMD in Iraq then.

The GOP can't stop Trump from telling the truth about the Iraq invasion. Your storyline blaming Dems five months before Bush decided to invade doesn't work anymore. Bush lied, peopled died. Trump is right, you are wrong.

If Bush lied then so did both Clintons because they both said the exact same things at the exact same time.

I am not defending Bush, he screwed up, but you are trying to defend the dems who spoke the exact same "lies" at the exact same time.

My only point is that they all have blood on their hands. To put it all on Bush is just partisan bullshit.

Bill Clinton never invaded Iraq. His containment strategy worked for 8 years
Hillary was one vote out of 100 Senators, it does not reach the level of culpability of ordering an invasion

Bubba Clinton invaded Bosnia. Hillary said the exact same things about Iraq and WMDs that Bush said. She voted to authorize and fund the foolish invasion. Sure Bush was CIC and gave the order, if Hillary was CIC at that time she would have done the same thing, and you fricken well know it.

link or GTFO out of the thread clown boi. Thanks.

 

[Dot Com]

Incorrect. He slaughtered half a million Iraqis, including a couple hundred thousand Kurds, and another 300 thousand during the rebellion of 91. AND, another 300 thousand in Iran war. So, just for shits, we'll call it a cool million, give or take...

I'm not sure why this is even being debated.

Bush did not go into Iraq to save the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. Had this been Bush's policy, then he'd have invade other countries with evil dictators that like to kill their own people. He didn't. Simple as.

You are correct FW -- he wasn't saving the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. He was TRYING to save them from over a decade of CRIPPLING economic sanctions (more strict than Iran or NK sanctions) and daily bombing by the USA...

Do you think he actually gave any consideration to the Iraqi people? I mean, he didn't give them any consideration AFTER he had invaded and put Bremer in charge of everything and then turned Iraq into a petri dish for Islamic terrorism.

He didn't care about the US soldiers, he didn't care about the people who have been impacted all over the world by Islamic terrorism, and he didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people. Simple as.

I don't blame Bush for "not caring about the Iraqi people", but he led us into a war which costs lives of OUR soldiers and trillions of dollars. Guess what? We are not winning! We don't even know what our strategic goals are! It's a total mess, and Bush is responsible for that mess. Now the right wing establishment want to paint it as a success, they're like the naked emperor with his "new clothes". Now everybody is enjoying a good laugh.

It could have been won, we were winning until obozo unilaterally declared defeat and pulled out.

I think we all agree that the mid east is a huge mess, but it has gotten worse under Obama's incompetence and weakness.

link to any of that "word salad" hack boi Redfish

 

[Dot Com]

Redfish 13540230

If Bush lied then so did both Clintons because they both said the exact same things at the exact same time.

So you are wrong. Will you admit that? Both Clinton's expressed publicly in early March 2003 that they opposed Bush going to war as long as the inspection process was in progress. You've been wrong a very long time. It must come as a shock to you that you could be so wrong all this time. Or don't you care if you state things that are not based on the facts.

Don't feel bad, most on the left, the right, and very many in between, have never tried to understand Senator Clinton's vote on Iraq in the context of this very well put together time line:

.
On October 11, 2002, the day Hillary Clinton and others in the Senate voted on the Iraq war resolution, certain things were known, and other things were not known.

On October 11, 2002, everyone knew:
1. The text of the resolution, which stated that prior to any military action the President must first determine that reliance on peaceful means will not protect the security of the US, or enforcement of UN Security Council Resolutions,
2. The US and its allies were negotiating a UN Security Council resolution to compel new intrusive inspections in Iraq,
3. The publicly disclosed Key Judgments from the National Intelligence Estimate, and
4. That the neocons were talking about regime change and disparaging the idea of inspections.

On October 11, 2002 almost no one knew:
5. The extent to which George Bush was or was not bluffing about regime change,
6. That Colin Powell's power and authority would be neutralized by Cheney and Rumsfeld,
7. The extent to which Cheney and Rumsfeld had short-circuited the institutional integrity of the Pentagon and the CIA, and
8. The extent to which the NIE was based on cooked intelligence

In other words, almost no one knew the extent to which the Bush administration was undercutting all of our administrative and constitutional checks and balances. Even today, we don't know the extent of it.

So on October 11, 2002, almost no one could be expected to foresee that:
9. Bush would flagrantly abuse the discretion afforded him under terms of the joint resolution, specifically, his refusal to attempt to reconcile the inspectors' intelligence with the NIE, prior to the invasion, and
10. Bush's agreement to proceed with the inspections process was a sham from the beginning.

And what was Hillary Clinton saying during the months after her vote?

"Hillary Clinton tells Irish TV she is against war with Iraq," Irish Times, February 8, 2003

"Hillary Clinton prefers 'peaceful solution' in Iraq," Associated Press March 3, 2003
"[Clinton said the US] should continue its attempts to build an international alliance rather than going to war quickly with Iraq...nspection is preferable to war, if it works, the New York Democrat said."

On March 18, 2003, everyone (who was willing to look) knew with substantial certainty that:
11. UN inspections had discredited the NIE,
12. The White House made no effort to reconcile the inspectors findings with their prior intelligence assumptions,
13. The White House offered nothing substantive to refute the inspectors' findings,
14. Hans Blix said the inspectors, who found nothing that presented even a remote danger to the US or Europe, could complete their work in a matter of months,
15. George Bush had promised to call for another Security Council vote to invade, ("Everyone will show their cards,") and totally disregarded that promise a few days later,
16. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and others said their was insufficient basis for launching a war at that time,
17. Most of our allies were - including Britain - also advocating more time for the inspections to be completed, and
18. Mainstream media never seriously considered or reported Numbers 11 through 16 above.

Put another way, Number 18 meant that, at a time in the world when a journalist's professionalism and integrity counted most, Helen Thomas stood virtually alone in the Beltway press corps, courageously asking hard questions while surrounded by cowards. Tim Russert's sycophancy stands out because he repeatedly lied about the inspectors.

To this day, Chris Matthews forgets about the elephant in the room. He interviewed White House speech writer Michael Gerson, John McCain, and George Tenet, each of whom repeated the canard that they believed at the time of the invasion that Saddam had WMD. Matthews never referenced the reports by Blix and ElBaradei, which prove that their "beliefs" were based on a reckless indifference to the truth.

Chris Matthews Rewrites History about the Clintons and the Origins of the Iraq War

Key Paragraph:

(So on October 11, 2002, almost no one could be expected to foresee that:
9. Bush would flagrantly abuse the discretion afforded him under terms of the joint resolution, specifically, his refusal to attempt to reconcile the inspectors' intelligence with the NIE, prior to the invasion, and
10. Bush's agreement to proceed with the inspections process was a sham from the beginning.)

Those claiming to have known that are making that claim in hindsight.

I am not wrong, the record is clear on what was said, who said it, and when. Hillary Clinton is as guilty as Bush. But she did land under sniper fire, so all is well, idiot.

then it should be easy for you to supply a source corroborating all of that hack boi Redfish

 

[Dot Com]

How the **** do you know that? you are one of the biggest morons on this forum.

Spits the idiot who I just busted lying on another thread. Seems you're still butthurt over that. LOL

And I know that because he was president for 8 years and never did when he had the chance, if that was what he wanted to do.

I never lie. You will never "bust" me. You are incompetent and do not have the mental abilities to even participate in a discussion with me.

Bullshit. You claimed there were Democrats who backed Schumer when he suggested Bush nominees be denied confirmation by the Senate.

You then couldn't name a single one.

You claim to know what was in Clinton's head, Bush's head, and Hillary's head. Is that because you want to give head to all of them?

More bullshit. I never said I knew what was in any of their heads. I said Clinton had 8 years to go to war with Iraq had that been the route he cared to take -- and he didn't.

Democrats who agreed with Schumer:

Reid, Pelosi, Durban, Clinton, just to name 4. Now, are you claiming that Schumer was the ONLY democrat who said that no Bush appointee would get a hearing in the senate?

yes, Clinton did not go to war in Iraq, he chose Bosnia. What's your point?

gawd, you are something else when it comes to your lies lies and lies.

Schumer never said any of the Supreme Court or Judge nominees/appointees under Bush should not get a hearing....EVER.

What he said was they needed to VET his candidates better...vetting candidates is through hearings dumbo.

he never sources because he's a lazy uneducated rw PoS.

...back to topic: Trump hammering Jeb! for claiming his bro "kept us safe"

 

[Dot Com]

Spits the idiot who I just busted lying on another thread. Seems you're still butthurt over that. LOL

And I know that because he was president for 8 years and never did when he had the chance, if that was what he wanted to do.

I never lie. You will never "bust" me. You are incompetent and do not have the mental abilities to even participate in a discussion with me.

Bullshit. You claimed there were Democrats who backed Schumer when he suggested Bush nominees be denied confirmation by the Senate.

You then couldn't name a single one.

You claim to know what was in Clinton's head, Bush's head, and Hillary's head. Is that because you want to give head to all of them?

More bullshit. I never said I knew what was in any of their heads. I said Clinton had 8 years to go to war with Iraq had that been the route he cared to take -- and he didn't.

Democrats who agreed with Schumer:

Reid, Pelosi, Durban, Clinton, just to name 4. Now, are you claiming that Schumer was the ONLY democrat who said that no Bush appointee would get a hearing in the senate?

yes, Clinton did not go to war in Iraq, he chose Bosnia. What's your point?

gawd, you are something else when it comes to your lies lies and lies.

Schumer never said any of the Supreme Court or Judge nominees/appointees under Bush should not get a hearing....EVER.

What he said was they needed to VET his candidates better...vetting candidates is through hearings dumbo.

I think you need to look up the quote. that's exactly what he said.

why should she have to do your work for you ASSCLOWN? GO TO THE LOUNGE. YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS DEBATING IN THE GROWN-UP SUB-FORUMS

 

[Dot Com]

stating something that you believe to be true is not lying. But if that's your position, then Hillary lied about Iraq too, .....

No. HRC stated quite publically her opposition to invading Iraq on March 3, 2003 in favor of continuing inspections. Bush chose war over continued inspections. Hillary didn't lie that she had intelligence leaving no doubt that SH was hiding the most lethal wespons ever devised so the inspections must be ended in favor of war. Bush lied about having intelligence as I explained before. HRC made no so lie.

your left wing version of history is interesting, wrong, but interesting.

But, what is W running for this year? why so much focus on him? Trump said what you libs have been saying for years. You should be voting for Trump

Provide a link or STFU. How does that sound?

 

[Jackson]

Spits the idiot who I just busted lying on another thread. Seems you're still butthurt over that. LOL

And I know that because he was president for 8 years and never did when he had the chance, if that was what he wanted to do.

I never lie. You will never "bust" me. You are incompetent and do not have the mental abilities to even participate in a discussion with me.

Bullshit. You claimed there were Democrats who backed Schumer when he suggested Bush nominees be denied confirmation by the Senate.

You then couldn't name a single one.

You claim to know what was in Clinton's head, Bush's head, and Hillary's head. Is that because you want to give head to all of them?

More bullshit. I never said I knew what was in any of their heads. I said Clinton had 8 years to go to war with Iraq had that been the route he cared to take -- and he didn't.

Democrats who agreed with Schumer:

Reid, Pelosi, Durban, Clinton, just to name 4. Now, are you claiming that Schumer was the ONLY democrat who said that no Bush appointee would get a hearing in the senate?

yes, Clinton did not go to war in Iraq, he chose Bosnia. What's your point?

gawd, you are something else when it comes to your lies lies and lies.

Schumer never said any of the Supreme Court or Judge nominees/appointees under Bush should not get a hearing....EVER.

What he said was they needed to VET his candidates better...vetting candidates is through hearings dumbo.

he never sources because he's a lazy uneducated rw PoS.

...back to topic: Trump hammering Jeb! for claiming his bro "kept us safe"

Trump: Bush lied about reason for invading Iraq
Dude, you are having serious neurological problems if you think the topic is "Trump hammering Jeb!" The topic was "Bush Lied about hammering Jeb!" Now get your act together! Posters are just shaking their heads thinking you are too stupid to start a thread and discuss it!

 

[Dot Com]

Read the thread before you post missy. Trump destroyed Jeb! on the stage for the statement "he kept us safe".

Oh right!!! you don't care because rw media told you to stop supporting trump. Jackson the Establishment Sheeple

 

[flacaltenn]

Incorrect. He slaughtered half a million Iraqis, including a couple hundred thousand Kurds, and another 300 thousand during the rebellion of 91. AND, another 300 thousand in Iran war. So, just for shits, we'll call it a cool million, give or take...

I'm not sure why this is even being debated.

Bush did not go into Iraq to save the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. Had this been Bush's policy, then he'd have invade other countries with evil dictators that like to kill their own people. He didn't. Simple as.

You are correct FW -- he wasn't saving the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. He was TRYING to save them from over a decade of CRIPPLING economic sanctions (more strict than Iran or NK sanctions) and daily bombing by the USA...

Do you think he actually gave any consideration to the Iraqi people? I mean, he didn't give them any consideration AFTER he had invaded and put Bremer in charge of everything and then turned Iraq into a petri dish for Islamic terrorism.

He didn't care about the US soldiers, he didn't care about the people who have been impacted all over the world by Islamic terrorism, and he didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people. Simple as.

I actually think he got it. He felt a sense of urgency to do something because of

1) the toll it was taking on the Iraqi people. And our sanctions should never be designed that way for so long.

2) the mess at the UN with the resignations criticizing the policy from weapons inspectors and humanitarian officials.. And the corruption.

3) the urgency to stop persecuting and killing an entire COUNTRY of Muslim Arabs in a time when he wanted to run a general "War on Terrorism". Looked bad to be bombing Iraq daily and saying we weren't at war with all of Islam..

But you're right. We arrived to NAG the Iraqi people into Democracy and running stuff our way. We became super nannies to a people who were not in the mood to be feeling the love. We ran off their military and govt and tried to make replacements in own image. THAT -- was tone deaf -- to say the least. AND -- it's Bush's fault for taking that advice. But I DON'T fault him for having the balls to do SOMETHING to end 12 VERY BAD years of former US policy. He should have figured out what it was gonna cost us in lives and money before his first term was up...

because Halliburton/KBR was standing in the wings. Remember the whole "Join us or you won't get any Reconstruction contracts"? Of course you don't.

CNN.com - Transcripts

But first, our top story tonight -- should countries that opposed the war in Iraq be able to bid on lucrative reconstruction contracts? No way, says the Bush administration, today moving to keep billions of dollars from trading partners like France, Germany, Russia, even Canada. Those countries are outraged, and the European Union may take action. Senior White House correspondent John King has details.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The president welcomed members of the Iraqi National Symphony to the Roosevelt Room, happy to talk music but not about another major diplomatic dustup. At issue, a White House decision to block Iraq war opponents from nearly $20 billion in U.S.-funded reconstruction contracts. Bush critics call it hardball retaliation. The White House prefers to call it rewarding allies.

SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: These are countries that have been with us from day one. These are countries that are contributing forces, that have been making sacrifices.

KING: This Pentagon memo says restricting the big contracts to Iraqi war allies should encourage the continued cooperation of coalition members. But the administration also hopes the lure of big reconstruction contracts might convince other nations to offer troops, or as the memo put it, "limiting competition for prime contracts will encourage the expansion of international cooperation in Iraq."

You're welcome

Stop going full-retard in attempting to derail the thread

it's not going "full blown retard" to point out that the SAME LIES being discussed in that silly debate moment were the SAME LIES used to justify 12 years of killing and abusing the Iraqi people under containment. The policy that MOST of Bush's "opposition" would allow to tacitly continue.. It's COMPLETELY germane to the topic . In fact -- I would expect by now that SOMEBODY running for President would recognize that. And that a problem needed to solve and NO ONE in that era had the courage to do anything. At least W "did something" to change the previously mad policy.

All the players in that history relied on the EXACT SAME LIES to continue disastrous and deadly US foreign policy. And our CURRENT national debate and dialogue should reveal candidates who RECOGNIZE exactly what went wrong. And not just the sling the poo you crave to consume...

Never answered the question Dottie.. What were the ALTERNATIVES to invading Iraq?? The alternatives that were NOT based on "lies"??? I'm not buying your premise that the exchange between Bush and Trump had the LEAST bit of leadership, knowledge or policy in it. Not convinced that EITHER idiot has a grasp of the magnitude of mistakes that were made.

Do us all a favor Dottie.. Next time you start a thread that you want to micromanage --- send us all scripted responses that fit your preconceived notions of "proper on-topic responses"..

 

[flacaltenn]

13534847

. I said that the resolution would not have passed without dem votes, that is true.

That resolution passed in October 2002. Bush was not necessarily lying about WMD in October 2002. That is except the fact that he said he wanted to have the UNSC disarm Iraq PEACEFULLY.

That means because UN inspectors were not in Iraq in October 2002, there was justification to threaten war in order to get the inspectors back. Those were not lies to get Dem support for the authorization. Guess what? Saddam Hussen allowed the inspectors back in and the vast majority of nations by March 2003, wanted continued inspections not US invasion.

So the vote in October 2002 had nothing to do with Bush's LIE on March 17, 2003. That's when Bush committed the big WMD lie. (See my previous post)

The front runner in the GOP field knows Bush lied. Why don't you? The vote in October 2003 had nothing to do with Bush's WMD lie. Why try to defend him based on the October vote? He was not lying about WMD in Iraq then.

The GOP can't stop Trump from telling the truth about the Iraq invasion. Your storyline blaming Dems five months before Bush decided to invade doesn't work anymore. Bush lied, peopled died. Trump is right, you are wrong.

If Bush lied then so did both Clintons because they both said the exact same things at the exact same time.

I am not defending Bush, he screwed up, but you are trying to defend the dems who spoke the exact same "lies" at the exact same time.

My only point is that they all have blood on their hands. To put it all on Bush is just partisan bullshit.

Bill Clinton never invaded Iraq. His containment strategy worked for 8 years
Hillary was one vote out of 100 Senators, it does not reach the level of culpability of ordering an invasion

Bubba Clinton invaded Bosnia. Hillary said the exact same things about Iraq and WMDs that Bush said. She voted to authorize and fund the foolish invasion. Sure Bush was CIC and gave the order, if Hillary was CIC at that time she would have done the same thing, and you fricken well know it.

Bernie should ASK her that question!!!!. Also ask her if she liked her husband's 8 yrs of pummeling Iraq. I think that would be entertaining. Because then Bernie would SMASH her wanting for to continue all the fraud and abuse that the containment brought on..

THAT would be PRODUCTIVE debate..

 

[whutTHEYsay]

I never lie. You will never "bust" me. You are incompetent and do not have the mental abilities to even participate in a discussion with me.

Bullshit. You claimed there were Democrats who backed Schumer when he suggested Bush nominees be denied confirmation by the Senate.

You then couldn't name a single one.

You claim to know what was in Clinton's head, Bush's head, and Hillary's head. Is that because you want to give head to all of them?

More bullshit. I never said I knew what was in any of their heads. I said Clinton had 8 years to go to war with Iraq had that been the route he cared to take -- and he didn't.

Democrats who agreed with Schumer:

Reid, Pelosi, Durban, Clinton, just to name 4. Now, are you claiming that Schumer was the ONLY democrat who said that no Bush appointee would get a hearing in the senate?

yes, Clinton did not go to war in Iraq, he chose Bosnia. What's your point?

gawd, you are something else when it comes to your lies lies and lies.

Schumer never said any of the Supreme Court or Judge nominees/appointees under Bush should not get a hearing....EVER.

What he said was they needed to VET his candidates better...vetting candidates is through hearings dumbo.

he never sources because he's a lazy uneducated rw PoS.

...back to topic: Trump hammering Jeb! for claiming his bro "kept us safe"

Trump: Bush lied about reason for invading Iraq
Dude, you are having serious neurological problems if you think the topic is "Trump hammering Jeb!" The topic was "Bush Lied about hammering Jeb!" Now get your act together! Posters are just shaking their heads thinking you are too stupid to start a thread and discuss it!

Trump is the GOP front-runner and he
Harasses Jeb for sticking up for his brother who lied us into a disastrous war and quagmire and caused the rise of ISIS. The younger brother can't escape the lies of his brother unless he renounces him as the liar that he is.

 

[Jackson]

Bullshit. You claimed there were Democrats who backed Schumer when he suggested Bush nominees be denied confirmation by the Senate.

You then couldn't name a single one.

More bullshit. I never said I knew what was in any of their heads. I said Clinton had 8 years to go to war with Iraq had that been the route he cared to take -- and he didn't.

Democrats who agreed with Schumer:

Reid, Pelosi, Durban, Clinton, just to name 4. Now, are you claiming that Schumer was the ONLY democrat who said that no Bush appointee would get a hearing in the senate?

yes, Clinton did not go to war in Iraq, he chose Bosnia. What's your point?

gawd, you are something else when it comes to your lies lies and lies.

Schumer never said any of the Supreme Court or Judge nominees/appointees under Bush should not get a hearing....EVER.

What he said was they needed to VET his candidates better...vetting candidates is through hearings dumbo.

he never sources because he's a lazy uneducated rw PoS.

...back to topic: Trump hammering Jeb! for claiming his bro "kept us safe"

Trump: Bush lied about reason for invading Iraq
Dude, you are having serious neurological problems if you think the topic is "Trump hammering Jeb!" The topic was "Bush Lied about hammering Jeb!" Now get your act together! Posters are just shaking their heads thinking you are too stupid to start a thread and discuss it!

Trump is the GOP front-runner and he
Harasses Jeb for sticking up for his brother who lied us into a disastrous war and quagmire and caused the rise of ISIS. The younger brother can't escape the lies of his brother unless he renounces him as the liar that he is.

I can;t understand Trump. Jeb is so far down in the polls, he is irrelevant. He should be focused on Cruz and Hillary.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

flacaltenn 13549962

Because then Bernie would SMASH her wanting for to continue all the fraud and abuse that the containment brought on..

You and Redfish refuse to accept those Clinton quotes I provided that show both of them in early March 2003 publicly stating their opposition to invading Iraq while UN Inspections were functioning quite well.

So both were opposed to Bush making war to end containment ("containment" in your contorted conclusion expressed here) which was within months of being lifted peacefully and fully in accordance with international law and the UN Charter and Resolution 1441.

So it's odd of you to profess a theory that Bush invaded Iraq to end containment and its dishonest for you to twist the Clinton's public words in March 2003 to mean that they favored war over ending containment through peaceful means of inspections, just like Bush.

That's why no response to the Clinton quotes from you or Redfish.

 

[Dot Com]

Democrats who agreed with Schumer:

Reid, Pelosi, Durban, Clinton, just to name 4. Now, are you claiming that Schumer was the ONLY democrat who said that no Bush appointee would get a hearing in the senate?

yes, Clinton did not go to war in Iraq, he chose Bosnia. What's your point?

gawd, you are something else when it comes to your lies lies and lies.

Schumer never said any of the Supreme Court or Judge nominees/appointees under Bush should not get a hearing....EVER.

What he said was they needed to VET his candidates better...vetting candidates is through hearings dumbo.

he never sources because he's a lazy uneducated rw PoS.

...back to topic: Trump hammering Jeb! for claiming his bro "kept us safe"

Trump: Bush lied about reason for invading Iraq
Dude, you are having serious neurological problems if you think the topic is "Trump hammering Jeb!" The topic was "Bush Lied about hammering Jeb!" Now get your act together! Posters are just shaking their heads thinking you are too stupid to start a thread and discuss it!

Trump is the GOP front-runner and he
Harasses Jeb for sticking up for his brother who lied us into a disastrous war and quagmire and caused the rise of ISIS. The younger brother can't escape the lies of his brother unless he renounces him as the liar that he is.

I can;t understand Trump. Jeb is so far down in the polls, he is irrelevant. He should be focused on Cruz and Hillary.

Thats what happens when people (you in this instance) jump into a thread before reading it. I've already gone over the reason 3x