Understand why Trump is going after Bush and the GOP about Iraq and the WTC

[rdean]

First of all, Trump is a New York Business man. When he said he had a lot of friends who died in the WTC I believe him. In fact, he could have been one of those who died. I'm sure he visited there many times.

The WTC was attacked nearly a year after Bush became president. Republicans blame Obama for things that happened even before he was sworn in. Katrina, Solyndra, Iraq, the economy among others. And Bush said his brother kept us safe. Clearly he didn't. You can't say that to someone who lost close friends. And especially not on TV to their face.

And, I'm sure Trump has access to a lot of information we don't. He said the Bush administration knew there were no WMD's when they made their claim. He may know that for a fact. If that's the case, he will never like the Bush's.

Then there is Iraq and the tens of thousands of Americans dead and maimed. And we spent trillions outright and will spend more into the future to take care of the harm we caused.

And finally and most important. Strategy. If Donald can go into a GOP stronghold and tell the facts right to the faces of the GOP elite, get booed and still come out a winner, the angry GOP base who finally understand how they have been fucked over again and again by the GOP "establishment", and win, what message is that sending to the Democratic base? I suspect many are thinking, "finally, a serious Republican candidate we can vote for. A Republican who tells the truth. How novel".

 

[SassyIrishLass]

If only Obungles could tell the truth.....how novel

 

[Si modo]

But, WMDs were found in Iraq.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

But, WMDs were found in Iraq.

Don't bother them with pesky facts, it ruins their narrative

 

[beagle9]

First of all, Trump is a New York Business man. When he said he had a lot of friends who died in the WTC I believe him. In fact, he could have been one of those who died. I'm sure he visited there many times.

The WTC was attacked nearly a year after Bush became president. Republicans blame Obama for things that happened even before he was sworn in. Katrina, Solyndra, Iraq, the economy among others. And Bush said his brother kept us safe. Clearly he didn't. You can't say that to someone who lost close friends. And especially not on TV to their face.

And, I'm sure Trump has access to a lot of information we don't. He said the Bush administration knew there were no WMD's when they made their claim. He may know that for a fact. If that's the case, he will never like the Bush's.

Then there is Iraq and the tens of thousands of Americans dead and maimed. And we spent trillions outright and will spend more into the future to take care of the harm we caused.

And finally and most important. Strategy. If Donald can go into a GOP stronghold and tell the facts right to the faces of the GOP elite, get booed and still come out a winner, the angry GOP base who finally understand how they have been fucked over again and again by the GOP "establishment", and win, what message is that sending to the Democratic base? I suspect many are thinking, "finally, a serious Republican candidate we can vote for. A Republican who tells the truth. How novel".

. Obama took us back to the Vietnam nightmares when it comes to Iraq, because when you fight a war you finish that war, not turn coat and run... Obama and company are responsible for the catastrophic loss in Iraq. He is responsible for those lives dying for nothing in that conflict now, because he figured the nation wanted us to leave without finishing what was started there, well he was wrong. The nation is not for leaving a situation vulnerable, and a people vulnerable as became the situation in Iraq under Obama's political resolve. Don't think Trump would want to support your ideas about his loyalties to democrat voters in this way, but I could be wrong.

 

[beagle9]

But, WMDs were found in Iraq.

Don't bother them with pesky facts, it ruins their narrative

. Yes and they (wmd's) ended up in Syria..

 

[my2¢]

But, WMDs were found in Iraq.

So Bush and CIA lied by saying none was found. Let's be clear that found means material not known of and not under supervision of U.N. inspectors prior to invasion.

 

[beagle9]

But, WMDs were found in Iraq.

So Bush and CIA lied by saying none was found. Let's be clear that found means material not known of and not under supervision of U.N. inspectors prior to invasion.

I'll say it like Clinton said it best... It all depends on what the definition of is, is right.?... In the case of Iraq it all depended on what the definition of WMD'S was right. Bad things were found there in Iraq, and Sadam was using chemical weapons on the Kurds remember?. I think that the way the inspectors were operating under Sadam's lying minister of propaganda at the time, could have easily given Sadam plenty of time to move the weapons sought after into Syria possibly. In fact some old weapons (WMD'S),were discovered in Syria a while back weren't they, and it's still a mystery as to where they originated from or is it still ? Sadam himself according to Kuwait could have been considered a weapon of mass destruction. Weapons can come in the human form as well. The liberation of Iraq from Oudai and kudai (Sadam's son's), was enough to go in, and all in order to change those bad dudes out just as well.

 

[rdean]

If only Obungles could tell the truth.....how novel

He tells the truth. Your kind simply won't accept it.

 

[rdean]

But, WMDs were found in Iraq.

So Bush and CIA lied by saying none was found. Let's be clear that found means material not known of and not under supervision of U.N. inspectors prior to invasion.

I'll say it like Clinton said it best... It all depends on what the definition of is, is right.?... In the case of Iraq it all depended on what the definition of WMD'S was right. Bad things were found there in Iraq, and Sadam was using chemical weapons on the Kurds remember?. I think that the way the inspectors were operating under Sadam's lying minister of propaganda at the time, could have easily given Sadam plenty of time to move the weapons sought after into Syria possibly. In fact some old weapons (WMD'S),were discovered in Syria a while back weren't they, and it's still a mystery as to where they originated from or is it still ? Sadam himself according to Kuwait could have been considered a weapon of mass destruction. Weapons can come in the human form as well. The liberation of Iraq from Oudai and kudai (Sadam's son's), was enough to go in, and all in order to change those bad dudes out just as well.

Still believing it was Saddam that used chemical weapons on the Kurds?

CIA says iran used chemicals on kurds - Google Search

Where did you get your info from? Fox? Or you just listen to right wing propaganda?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

If only Obungles could tell the truth.....how novel

He tells the truth. Your kind simply won't accept it.

Don't make me post his lies, Derp. Now sit down with your nonsense

 

[SassyIrishLass]

But, WMDs were found in Iraq.

So Bush and CIA lied by saying none was found. Let's be clear that found means material not known of and not under supervision of U.N. inspectors prior to invasion.

I'll say it like Clinton said it best... It all depends on what the definition of is, is right.?... In the case of Iraq it all depended on what the definition of WMD'S was right. Bad things were found there in Iraq, and Sadam was using chemical weapons on the Kurds remember?. I think that the way the inspectors were operating under Sadam's lying minister of propaganda at the time, could have easily given Sadam plenty of time to move the weapons sought after into Syria possibly. In fact some old weapons (WMD'S),were discovered in Syria a while back weren't they, and it's still a mystery as to where they originated from or is it still ? Sadam himself according to Kuwait could have been considered a weapon of mass destruction. Weapons can come in the human form as well. The liberation of Iraq from Oudai and kudai (Sadam's son's), was enough to go in, and all in order to change those bad dudes out just as well.

Still believing it was Saddam that used chemical weapons on the Kurds?

CIA says iran used chemicals on kurds - Google Search

Where did you get your info from? Fox? Or you just listen to right wing propaganda?

Halabja, asshole

 

[the_human_being]

First of all, Trump is a New York Business man. When he said he had a lot of friends who died in the WTC I believe him. In fact, he could have been one of those who died. I'm sure he visited there many times.

The WTC was attacked nearly a year after Bush became president. Republicans blame Obama for things that happened even before he was sworn in. Katrina, Solyndra, Iraq, the economy among others. And Bush said his brother kept us safe. Clearly he didn't. You can't say that to someone who lost close friends. And especially not on TV to their face.

And, I'm sure Trump has access to a lot of information we don't. He said the Bush administration knew there were no WMD's when they made their claim. He may know that for a fact. If that's the case, he will never like the Bush's.

Then there is Iraq and the tens of thousands of Americans dead and maimed. And we spent trillions outright and will spend more into the future to take care of the harm we caused.

And finally and most important. Strategy. If Donald can go into a GOP stronghold and tell the facts right to the faces of the GOP elite, get booed and still come out a winner, the angry GOP base who finally understand how they have been fucked over again and again by the GOP "establishment", and win, what message is that sending to the Democratic base? I suspect many are thinking, "finally, a serious Republican candidate we can vote for. A Republican who tells the truth. How novel".

He also pointed out the fact that the Iraq War destabilized the entire Middle East. He was totally against the invasion. Hillary, Bush, Rubio, and Cruz all want to now go in and take out Assad in Syria. Assad has the backing of both Russia and Iran. They probably also have the backing of China and North Korea. Hillary, Cruz, Rubio, and Bush are hell bent on nation building again in the Middle East. They are all in for starting World War III. Hillary was instrumental in the failure in Libya and its takeover by ISIS. We have lost the Middle East. We have spent $2 Trillion dollars in Iraq alone and have absolutely nothing to show for all the lives lost and money expended. Fifteen years of absolute failure. We need to bring our folks home and leave the Middle East alone unless we are absolutely certain we will put forth the ground troops, naval ships, and aircraft necessary to defeat Assad, Putin, Iraq, and whoever else Putin throws against us. We also would need to take the fighting out of civilian hands and put it into the hands of the military with their hands untied so they will be allowed to actually win. Trump has the most common sense of anyone running on either side.

 

[Si modo]

But, WMDs were found in Iraq.

So Bush and CIA lied by saying none was found. Let's be clear that found means material not known of and not under supervision of U.N. inspectors prior to invasion.

I'll say it like Clinton said it best... It all depends on what the definition of is, is right.?... In the case of Iraq it all depended on what the definition of WMD'S was right. Bad things were found there in Iraq, and Sadam was using chemical weapons on the Kurds remember?. I think that the way the inspectors were operating under Sadam's lying minister of propaganda at the time, could have easily given Sadam plenty of time to move the weapons sought after into Syria possibly. In fact some old weapons (WMD'S),were discovered in Syria a while back weren't they, and it's still a mystery as to where they originated from or is it still ? Sadam himself according to Kuwait could have been considered a weapon of mass destruction. Weapons can come in the human form as well. The liberation of Iraq from Oudai and kudai (Sadam's son's), was enough to go in, and all in order to change those bad dudes out just as well.

Still believing it was Saddam that used chemical weapons on the Kurds?

CIA says iran used chemicals on kurds - Google Search

Where did you get your info from? Fox? Or you just listen to right wing propaganda?

....

The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq’s favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration’s long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn’t disclose.

U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein’s government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture.

"The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn’t have to. We already knew," he told Foreign Policy.

According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.

....

Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

 

[LOGIXX]

First of all, Trump is a New York Business man. When he said he had a lot of friends who died in the WTC I believe him. In fact, he could have been one of those who died. I'm sure he visited there many times.

The WTC was attacked nearly a year after Bush became president. Republicans blame Obama for things that happened even before he was sworn in. Katrina, Solyndra, Iraq, the economy among others. And Bush said his brother kept us safe. Clearly he didn't. You can't say that to someone who lost close friends. And especially not on TV to their face.

And, I'm sure Trump has access to a lot of information we don't. He said the Bush administration knew there were no WMD's when they made their claim. He may know that for a fact. If that's the case, he will never like the Bush's.

Then there is Iraq and the tens of thousands of Americans dead and maimed. And we spent trillions outright and will spend more into the future to take care of the harm we caused.

And finally and most important. Strategy. If Donald can go into a GOP stronghold and tell the facts right to the faces of the GOP elite, get booed and still come out a winner, the angry GOP base who finally understand how they have been fucked over again and again by the GOP "establishment", and win, what message is that sending to the Democratic base? I suspect many are thinking, "finally, a serious Republican candidate we can vote for. A Republican who tells the truth. How novel".

. Obama took us back to the Vietnam nightmares when it comes to Iraq, because when you fight a war you finish that war, not turn coat and run... Obama and company are responsible for the catastrophic loss in Iraq. He is responsible for those lives dying for nothing in that conflict now, because he figured the nation wanted us to leave without finishing what was started there, well he was wrong. The nation is not for leaving a situation vulnerable, and a people vulnerable as became the situation in Iraq under Obama's political resolve. Don't think Trump would want to support your ideas about his loyalties to democrat voters in this way, but I could be wrong.

US govt is world's biggest terrorist organisation. It killed innocent civillians men , women and children in iraq for securing its own goals .

Are americans retards or evil or both if they can't see that ?

 

[beagle9]

But, WMDs were found in Iraq.

So Bush and CIA lied by saying none was found. Let's be clear that found means material not known of and not under supervision of U.N. inspectors prior to invasion.

I'll say it like Clinton said it best... It all depends on what the definition of is, is right.?... In the case of Iraq it all depended on what the definition of WMD'S was right. Bad things were found there in Iraq, and Sadam was using chemical weapons on the Kurds remember?. I think that the way the inspectors were operating under Sadam's lying minister of propaganda at the time, could have easily given Sadam plenty of time to move the weapons sought after into Syria possibly. In fact some old weapons (WMD'S),were discovered in Syria a while back weren't they, and it's still a mystery as to where they originated from or is it still ? Sadam himself according to Kuwait could have been considered a weapon of mass destruction. Weapons can come in the human form as well. The liberation of Iraq from Oudai and kudai (Sadam's son's), was enough to go in, and all in order to change those bad dudes out just as well.

Still believing it was Saddam that used chemical weapons on the Kurds?

CIA says iran used chemicals on kurds - Google Search

Where did you get your info from? Fox? Or you just listen to right wing propaganda?

. LoL... In your links I saw where there is an accusation of Regan supplying Sadam with chemical weapons... So which is it with you people, did he have chemical weapons or not ? You want to accuse him through Regan that he does, but wait he didn't have no WMD'S right ? Now which is it ?

 

[beagle9]

But, WMDs were found in Iraq.

So Bush and CIA lied by saying none was found. Let's be clear that found means material not known of and not under supervision of U.N. inspectors prior to invasion.

I'll say it like Clinton said it best... It all depends on what the definition of is, is right.?... In the case of Iraq it all depended on what the definition of WMD'S was right. Bad things were found there in Iraq, and Sadam was using chemical weapons on the Kurds remember?. I think that the way the inspectors were operating under Sadam's lying minister of propaganda at the time, could have easily given Sadam plenty of time to move the weapons sought after into Syria possibly. In fact some old weapons (WMD'S),were discovered in Syria a while back weren't they, and it's still a mystery as to where they originated from or is it still ? Sadam himself according to Kuwait could have been considered a weapon of mass destruction. Weapons can come in the human form as well. The liberation of Iraq from Oudai and kudai (Sadam's son's), was enough to go in, and all in order to change those bad dudes out just as well.

Still believing it was Saddam that used chemical weapons on the Kurds?

CIA says iran used chemicals on kurds - Google Search

Where did you get your info from? Fox? Or you just listen to right wing propaganda?

....

The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq’s favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration’s long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn’t disclose.

U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein’s government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture.

"The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn’t have to. We already knew," he told Foreign Policy.

According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.

....

Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

Did Sadam gas the Kurds or was it that they poured acid on their positions using helicopters ?

 

[beagle9]

First of all, Trump is a New York Business man. When he said he had a lot of friends who died in the WTC I believe him. In fact, he could have been one of those who died. I'm sure he visited there many times.

The WTC was attacked nearly a year after Bush became president. Republicans blame Obama for things that happened even before he was sworn in. Katrina, Solyndra, Iraq, the economy among others. And Bush said his brother kept us safe. Clearly he didn't. You can't say that to someone who lost close friends. And especially not on TV to their face.

And, I'm sure Trump has access to a lot of information we don't. He said the Bush administration knew there were no WMD's when they made their claim. He may know that for a fact. If that's the case, he will never like the Bush's.

Then there is Iraq and the tens of thousands of Americans dead and maimed. And we spent trillions outright and will spend more into the future to take care of the harm we caused.

And finally and most important. Strategy. If Donald can go into a GOP stronghold and tell the facts right to the faces of the GOP elite, get booed and still come out a winner, the angry GOP base who finally understand how they have been fucked over again and again by the GOP "establishment", and win, what message is that sending to the Democratic base? I suspect many are thinking, "finally, a serious Republican candidate we can vote for. A Republican who tells the truth. How novel".

. Obama took us back to the Vietnam nightmares when it comes to Iraq, because when you fight a war you finish that war, not turn coat and run... Obama and company are responsible for the catastrophic loss in Iraq. He is responsible for those lives dying for nothing in that conflict now, because he figured the nation wanted us to leave without finishing what was started there, well he was wrong. The nation is not for leaving a situation vulnerable, and a people vulnerable as became the situation in Iraq under Obama's political resolve. Don't think Trump would want to support your ideas about his loyalties to democrat voters in this way, but I could be wrong.

US govt is world's biggest terrorist organisation. It killed innocent civillians men , women and children in iraq for securing its own goals .

Are americans retards or evil or both if they can't see that ?

. Spoken like a true Bill Ayers and Barack Obama supporter.

 

[LOGIXX]

I don't give a damn about Obama or Bill Ayers , the fact is americans have been supporting their criminal governments in killing innocent people , yet they cry like hell when another terrorist killed one american.

 

[beagle9]

I don't give a damn about Obama or Bill Ayers , the fact is americans have been supporting their criminal governments in killing innocent people , yet they cry like hell when another terrorist killed one american.

I repeat, sounds like an apology your to me.