Trump Lied About Iraq War

[eddiew]

Let's be honest here. When he was asked if he was in favor of the war in Iraq, he hedged a while and said, "I guess so. I just wish it was done right the first time." Hardly a resounding "Yes!"

A good little lib can make an orange look like a lemon.

and a good little puke can start wars and give huge tax cuts to billionaires and still get his butt kissed by morons

 

[amrchaos]

Ohh, a Trump lied thread.......

SO!​

Where were you last year? Trump "lying" is old news. It has positive effects on his poll numbers. Give up.

 

[elektra]

Here's a question. Which would you prefer, Saddam Hussein or ISIQ/ISIS/Daesh??? Which is worse for killing?
Saddam played a role in the Middle East, he kept the Iranians and they're rather Conservative form of Islam in check, Bush opened this up and ISIS was a by product of this.

You think it's an outrageous statement, yet Bush 41 and his team agreed with what I said, hence why they didn't invade Iraq in 1991.

I did think before I posted, I know what I'm saying and I stand by what I'm saying. I understand you want to find out what I mean, so ask questions before you condemn what I've said without understanding it.

I know what you said and how you said it, all Saddam did was PUSH PUSH PUSH, and that Saddam was a necessary evil.

A funny way to describe murder rape and torture of the people, a funny way to describe Saddam's offensive war against Kuwait.

ISIS, yes, a creation of Liberal Ideology, that we must not ever win a war against aggressors.

Yes, the Evil of Saddam in Liberal Democrat ideology in necessary, but a stronger force against Saddam, the USA must not be allowed to be the necessary good in the region.

I get it. I understood exactly what you say, Bush Bad, but Saddam's murder and torture and use of chemical weapons is necessary, to control such despicable people.

You seem to think that if you change Saddam you'd just flowers and sunshine, instead of more problems. You don't seem to think that there are certain inherent problems within the Middle East, and that whatever path you choose, you'll get these problems.

This isn't a black and white situation.

Firstly, you say murder. Well, if Saddam was the leader of Iraq and he killed people, it wasn't murder, it was execution. The US executes people too. No doubt it knocks people off before due process too.

Second, you talk about torture. The US is known for torture, you have Trump saying he'd do torture, you had Torture in Abu Grabe, you probably had torture in these secret CIA prisons around the world too.

Third, you talk of rape, as far as I know the US govt doesn't practice this kind of torture, but it does the other two. Yet you say Saddam is so bad and needed to be got rid of. But you don't talk about ridding us of the US govt. Why is that?

Faulty premises on your part.

I was just commenting on your post, which I can let go. I made the point quite effectively.

Murder, the bad guy do not get to decide what murder is, we do, we are the good guys. I know lots of people do not like that. Oh well.

Yes torture, that is certainly a faulty premise as well. You think our leaders are no different than Saddam Hussein? You believe Bush tortured U.S Citizens the same as Saddam, of course not, you are busy throwing out the clever talking points, establishing a shaky strawman argument, on top of a false premise. The USA did not invade Mexico and rape and murder and torture its citizens, although you most likely will now make that argument.

And now you argue that we got rid of Saddam because of torture? So why not get rid of the USA?

I never argued that we got rid of Saddam because he was bad. Had I been asked I would of stated we got rid of Saddam because he refused to abide the terms of his surrender. That by not abiding by the terms of his Surrender, Saddam was still at war.

Much of this was said at the time, I am not some genius thinking this up, Bush kept his mouth shut and really screwed up the political side of war. But either way what I state is fact.

Faulty premise or a premise you just don't agree with.

We're the good guys? Kind of like cowboys and injuns right? The Cowboys the good guys committing genocide, and the Injuns the bad guys defending their land and way of life from those encroaching. Got it.

However, yes, I have noticed that many people in the US do try and define themselves as the good guys. Many people around the world would disagree with your statement. In fact it's a psychological thing that people do to always make sure they're on the right side, no matter how indefensible they have been.

Why did Bush not torture people the same as Saddam did? I'm willing to read your answer to this one.

Why would I make the claim the US invaded Mexico? I'm a little confused at this statement, it just popped up out of nowhere.

Also, Bush didn't get rid of Saddam because he didn't abide by the terms of surrender either. I'm sorry, but this is plain wrong, and not difficult to show otherwise.

Try again later if you like. Your ideas simply don't hold up to scrutiny, no matter how many ways you try to state them differently.

 

[eddiew]

Ohh, a Trump lied thread.......

SO!​

Where were you last year? Trump "lying" is old news. It has positive effects on his poll numbers. Give up.

trump is a natural born liar

 

[candycorn]

Its impossible to keep all of the lies straight from Mr. Trump.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Here's a question. Which would you prefer, Saddam Hussein or ISIQ/ISIS/Daesh??? Which is worse for killing?
Saddam played a role in the Middle East, he kept the Iranians and they're rather Conservative form of Islam in check, Bush opened this up and ISIS was a by product of this.

You think it's an outrageous statement, yet Bush 41 and his team agreed with what I said, hence why they didn't invade Iraq in 1991.

I did think before I posted, I know what I'm saying and I stand by what I'm saying. I understand you want to find out what I mean, so ask questions before you condemn what I've said without understanding it.

I know what you said and how you said it, all Saddam did was PUSH PUSH PUSH, and that Saddam was a necessary evil.

A funny way to describe murder rape and torture of the people, a funny way to describe Saddam's offensive war against Kuwait.

ISIS, yes, a creation of Liberal Ideology, that we must not ever win a war against aggressors.

Yes, the Evil of Saddam in Liberal Democrat ideology in necessary, but a stronger force against Saddam, the USA must not be allowed to be the necessary good in the region.

I get it. I understood exactly what you say, Bush Bad, but Saddam's murder and torture and use of chemical weapons is necessary, to control such despicable people.

You seem to think that if you change Saddam you'd just flowers and sunshine, instead of more problems. You don't seem to think that there are certain inherent problems within the Middle East, and that whatever path you choose, you'll get these problems.

This isn't a black and white situation.

Firstly, you say murder. Well, if Saddam was the leader of Iraq and he killed people, it wasn't murder, it was execution. The US executes people too. No doubt it knocks people off before due process too.

Second, you talk about torture. The US is known for torture, you have Trump saying he'd do torture, you had Torture in Abu Grabe, you probably had torture in these secret CIA prisons around the world too.

Third, you talk of rape, as far as I know the US govt doesn't practice this kind of torture, but it does the other two. Yet you say Saddam is so bad and needed to be got rid of. But you don't talk about ridding us of the US govt. Why is that?

Faulty premises on your part.

I was just commenting on your post, which I can let go. I made the point quite effectively.

Murder, the bad guy do not get to decide what murder is, we do, we are the good guys. I know lots of people do not like that. Oh well.

Yes torture, that is certainly a faulty premise as well. You think our leaders are no different than Saddam Hussein? You believe Bush tortured U.S Citizens the same as Saddam, of course not, you are busy throwing out the clever talking points, establishing a shaky strawman argument, on top of a false premise. The USA did not invade Mexico and rape and murder and torture its citizens, although you most likely will now make that argument.

And now you argue that we got rid of Saddam because of torture? So why not get rid of the USA?

I never argued that we got rid of Saddam because he was bad. Had I been asked I would of stated we got rid of Saddam because he refused to abide the terms of his surrender. That by not abiding by the terms of his Surrender, Saddam was still at war.

Much of this was said at the time, I am not some genius thinking this up, Bush kept his mouth shut and really screwed up the political side of war. But either way what I state is fact.

Faulty premise or a premise you just don't agree with.

We're the good guys? Kind of like cowboys and injuns right? The Cowboys the good guys committing genocide, and the Injuns the bad guys defending their land and way of life from those encroaching. Got it.

However, yes, I have noticed that many people in the US do try and define themselves as the good guys. Many people around the world would disagree with your statement. In fact it's a psychological thing that people do to always make sure they're on the right side, no matter how indefensible they have been.

Why did Bush not torture people the same as Saddam did? I'm willing to read your answer to this one.

Why would I make the claim the US invaded Mexico? I'm a little confused at this statement, it just popped up out of nowhere.

Also, Bush didn't get rid of Saddam because he didn't abide by the terms of surrender either. I'm sorry, but this is plain wrong, and not difficult to show otherwise.

Try again later if you like. Your ideas simply don't hold up to scrutiny, no matter how many ways you try to state them differently.

I don't see much scrutiny here. You're throwing nonsense at me and then saying my ideas don't hold up. I'm not playing this game. It's boring and a waste of time. If you want to believe nonsense, then go ahead, it's no skin off my nose.

If you want to discuss properly, then I'm willing, but this crap, no.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Its impossible to keep all of the lies straight from Mr. Trump.

But there are enough people who will accept them, that's why the US is on the way down. Logic and sense doesn't matter any more, people want to be entertained and they don't care about anything else.

 

[Avatar4321]

He changed his mind. So big deal. Hillary and her husband defrauded millions from taxpayers in the Whitewater debacle and left behind a trail of dead bodies to cover it up.

Changing ones mind isn't a big deal

Lying about it is

 

[Liminal]

Ohh, a Trump lied thread.......

SO!​

Where were you last year? Trump "lying" is old news. It has positive effects on his poll numbers. Give up.

I'll bet you even think you have a point to make.

 

[Liminal]

Ever see the movie Zelig? Trump comes off more and more like that chameleon like character, always reinventing himself and trying to fit into X, Y or Z group. He's slimy and slippery and has no integrity what so ever. NONE.

He's not the only one.

 

[candycorn]

Its impossible to keep all of the lies straight from Mr. Trump.

But there are enough people who will accept them, that's why the US is on the way down. Logic and sense doesn't matter any more, people want to be entertained and they don't care about anything else.

Once the fad is over, its gone in lieu of the next distraction. No worries.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Its impossible to keep all of the lies straight from Mr. Trump.

But there are enough people who will accept them, that's why the US is on the way down. Logic and sense doesn't matter any more, people want to be entertained and they don't care about anything else.

Once the fad is over, its gone in lieu of the next distraction. No worries.

The problem is, will the next distraction come before the November elections?

 

[candycorn]

Its impossible to keep all of the lies straight from Mr. Trump.

But there are enough people who will accept them, that's why the US is on the way down. Logic and sense doesn't matter any more, people want to be entertained and they don't care about anything else.

Once the fad is over, its gone in lieu of the next distraction. No worries.

The problem is, will the next distraction come before the November elections?

Yes

 

[SmokeALib]

Its impossible to keep all of the lies straight from Mr. Trump.

But there are enough people who will accept them, that's why the US is on the way down. Logic and sense doesn't matter any more, people want to be entertained and they don't care about anything else.

Once the fad is over, its gone in lieu of the next distraction. No worries.

The problem is, will the next distraction come before the November elections?

We should have a natural disaster soon enough. I predict it will be caused by global warming.

 

[elektra]

I know what you said and how you said it, all Saddam did was PUSH PUSH PUSH, and that Saddam was a necessary evil.

A funny way to describe murder rape and torture of the people, a funny way to describe Saddam's offensive war against Kuwait.

ISIS, yes, a creation of Liberal Ideology, that we must not ever win a war against aggressors.

Yes, the Evil of Saddam in Liberal Democrat ideology in necessary, but a stronger force against Saddam, the USA must not be allowed to be the necessary good in the region.

I get it. I understood exactly what you say, Bush Bad, but Saddam's murder and torture and use of chemical weapons is necessary, to control such despicable people.

You seem to think that if you change Saddam you'd just flowers and sunshine, instead of more problems. You don't seem to think that there are certain inherent problems within the Middle East, and that whatever path you choose, you'll get these problems.

This isn't a black and white situation.

Firstly, you say murder. Well, if Saddam was the leader of Iraq and he killed people, it wasn't murder, it was execution. The US executes people too. No doubt it knocks people off before due process too.

Second, you talk about torture. The US is known for torture, you have Trump saying he'd do torture, you had Torture in Abu Grabe, you probably had torture in these secret CIA prisons around the world too.

Third, you talk of rape, as far as I know the US govt doesn't practice this kind of torture, but it does the other two. Yet you say Saddam is so bad and needed to be got rid of. But you don't talk about ridding us of the US govt. Why is that?

Faulty premises on your part.

I was just commenting on your post, which I can let go. I made the point quite effectively.

Murder, the bad guy do not get to decide what murder is, we do, we are the good guys. I know lots of people do not like that. Oh well.

Yes torture, that is certainly a faulty premise as well. You think our leaders are no different than Saddam Hussein? You believe Bush tortured U.S Citizens the same as Saddam, of course not, you are busy throwing out the clever talking points, establishing a shaky strawman argument, on top of a false premise. The USA did not invade Mexico and rape and murder and torture its citizens, although you most likely will now make that argument.

And now you argue that we got rid of Saddam because of torture? So why not get rid of the USA?

I never argued that we got rid of Saddam because he was bad. Had I been asked I would of stated we got rid of Saddam because he refused to abide the terms of his surrender. That by not abiding by the terms of his Surrender, Saddam was still at war.

Much of this was said at the time, I am not some genius thinking this up, Bush kept his mouth shut and really screwed up the political side of war. But either way what I state is fact.

Faulty premise or a premise you just don't agree with.

We're the good guys? Kind of like cowboys and injuns right? The Cowboys the good guys committing genocide, and the Injuns the bad guys defending their land and way of life from those encroaching. Got it.

However, yes, I have noticed that many people in the US do try and define themselves as the good guys. Many people around the world would disagree with your statement. In fact it's a psychological thing that people do to always make sure they're on the right side, no matter how indefensible they have been.

Why did Bush not torture people the same as Saddam did? I'm willing to read your answer to this one.

Why would I make the claim the US invaded Mexico? I'm a little confused at this statement, it just popped up out of nowhere.

Also, Bush didn't get rid of Saddam because he didn't abide by the terms of surrender either. I'm sorry, but this is plain wrong, and not difficult to show otherwise.

Try again later if you like. Your ideas simply don't hold up to scrutiny, no matter how many ways you try to state them differently.

I don't see much scrutiny here. You're throwing nonsense at me and then saying my ideas don't hold up. I'm not playing this game. It's boring and a waste of time. If you want to believe nonsense, then go ahead, it's no skin off my nose.

If you want to discuss properly, then I'm willing, but this crap, no.

monkey see monkey do, I said goodbye, I have seen enough of your ideas and hypocrisy, I have pointed it out so others can read it.

You thought I was here to have a discussion with you, ha, you made up your mind to trash the USA, which it seems you hate, so I more than understand simple hate, simple denigrating what you do not believe in.

So, like I said before you repeated my post as yours, bye, bye.

 

[Liminal]

He supported it from the beginning and here's the proof. What a fucking peice of shit liar Trump is.

Of course he did. He is just a salesman trying to win gullable voters.

To say that Trump followers have extremely low expectations for a Presidential candidate would be a real understatement.

 

[elektra]

He supported it from the beginning and here's the proof. What a fucking peice of shit liar Trump is.

Of course he did. He is just a salesman trying to win gullable voters.

To say that Trump followers have extremely low expectations for a Presidential candidate would be a real understatement.

You dont think they put a lot of thought into who trump is?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Did you people even LISTEN to this clip before you replied to the OP? Did the OP author listen to it first?

Trump's answer was clearly equivocal. Go listen to it. When asked if he supports the Iraq War, he pauses, and then says, "I guessssssss so." So even at the height of war fever, Trump was far from being an ardent supporter of the war. He was clearly unsure about the war. Again, go LISTEN to his answer.

And the record is clear that Trump turned against the war long before many others did.

 

[Camp]

As long as Trump supporters accept his lies and can make up excuses for him, he is allowed to mislead and lie as much as he deems necessary to increase and maintain his ratings. Politics is just a reality show, so anything is fair.

 

[rdean]

He supported it from the beginning and here's the proof. What a fucking peice of shit liar Trump is.

I believe fair is fair. And just because Republicans lie about everything doesn't mean we have to. Trumps "Uhhh, well, I guess so" is hardly an endorsement. And saying, the day after the invasion, militarily, it was an amazing success, is also in no way an endorsement. Iraq had been under observation and under sanctions for years and years so we knew exactly what they did or didn't have. They were a devastated military and were defeated in one day. But they were, leadership wise, a strong military. Once Bush disbanded the Iraqi military and so much of the top brass joined Isis, suddenly Isis became a real military force. That didn't happen by accident without that infusion of experienced leadership the Bush administration was stupid enough to hand over to them. All he had to do was pay them and put in American advisers to watch them. He would have had a home grown and loyal fighting force. That's what happens when tards run wars.