Trump > Bush 43 - War Crimes?

[JakeStarkey]

One, Trump will not be listening to Sassy anymore than the Joint Chiefs listened to her despite her assurances otherwise.

Two, Bush was referring to nukes as WMDs (mushroom clouds was the expression) the reason fro invasion.

Three, the US had no legal right to respond to the resolution violations because those were UN resolutions not US, which alone makes the invasion illegal.

Four, Trump is considering putting Bush into an orange jump suit and shipping to The Hague.

 

[Preacher]

Trump just said it again - at his Ohio rally:

Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

Trump has said Bush lied about Iraq/ WMDs.

4,000+ Americans died in Iraq, and the Middle East was destabilized for generations, making Bush's lie a war crime of the highest order.

A question for Republicans.

Is Trump right about Bush? Did George Bush lie and thereby commit a war crime?

or

Is Trump an uninformed moron who says things without sufficient evidence, thus making him an untrustworthy commander in chief?

or

Is Trump a liar who merely says things for personal gain, making him unfit for office?



Either Trump is an uninformed moron or a liar or George Bush should be prosecuted for war crimes,

Which is it?

Trump is right and a segment of voters have said that since BEFORE Bush invaded Iraq. I NEVER supported that war but I sure in the hell support our troops that were unfortunately forced to go.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The Hague has no authority to sort shit out in this casee.

Oddly enough, we all already know that W did not "lie." Even if we assume (without proof) that Saddam had no WMD, it would still only be a "lie" if W knew that for a fact in advance but said he did despite that knowledge.

He could call the former (impeached and disgraced) President, Bubba, as a witness to establish that he didn't know the claim was "false" even if it was ultimately incorrect. And he could call our present incompetent Secretary of State (John F'n Lurch Kerry). And the former incompetent Secretary of State (Shrillary).

And no. There is also no valid evidence that when W spoke of Saddam's WMD, he was alluding to any claim that Saddam had nukes.

After all this flailin' and failin', are you going to answer the OP?

Zzz. A dipshit dork motherfucker of your low repute is hardly in a position to ever accuse anybody of failin' and flailin'.

Further, there is no intelligent question posed in the vapid OP. When the idiot speaks of "war crimes," it would help if he could offer any evidence that W ever committed any war crime. Baseless irresponsible partisan hack bullshit claims don't count.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ilar is a liability welch, so anything he offers can be ignored.

It simply has no worth.

 

[Synthaholic]

Your "link" says there are 66 "violations" but fails to list a single one.

Are you claiming there aren't 66 violations?

Would you like to stake your membership here at USMB on that?

 

[Synthaholic]

There were WMDs and WMDs were not the only reason we went into Iraq.

Yeah - "rape rooms".

Uday: career of rape, torture and murder

Yeah - who gives a shit? Not the conservatives who slam Obama for removing Gaddafi, who had child rape rooms for the little boys and girls he raped.

It certainly wasn't a reason to go to war with Saddam. But when no one was buying Bush's bullshit, all the RW flunkies started shouting "rape rooms!". You're all fucking assholes.

 

[Synthaholic]

The Hague has no authority to sort shit out in this casee.

Oddly enough, we all already know that W did not "lie." Even if we assume (without proof) that Saddam had no WMD, it would still only be a "lie" if W knew that for a fact in advance but said he did despite that knowledge.

He could call the former (impeached and disgraced) President, Bubba, as a witness to establish that he didn't know the claim was "false" even if it was ultimately incorrect. And he could call our present incompetent Secretary of State (John F'n Lurch Kerry). And the former incompetent Secretary of State (Shrillary).

And no. There is also no valid evidence that when W spoke of Saddam's WMD, he was alluding to any claim that Saddam had nukes.

After all this flailin' and failin', are you going to answer the OP?

Zzz. A dipshit dork motherfucker of your low repute is hardly in a position to ever accuse anybody of failin' and flailin'.

Further, there is no intelligent question posed in the vapid OP. When the idiot speaks of "war crimes," it would help if he could offer any evidence that W ever committed any war crime. Baseless irresponsible partisan hack bullshit claims don't count.

Still trying to wipe Bush's ass, I see.

 

[Tom Horn]

There were WMDs and WMDs were not the only reason we went into Iraq.

That's correct...Saddam was harboring Abu Nidal and Zarqawi who had a poison munitions lab close to the border with Iran, away from where Saddam's forces patrolled. Hussein also had a major counterfeiting operation going on in US hundred dollar bills. And of course he tried to assassinate Bush41 during a visit to Kuwait after Desert Storm. If somebody had come after my Pop, I'd have gone after his ass without a second thought. You leftists might recall we took Baghdad in the fastest military operation ever recorded. If our NATO ally Turkey hadn't reneged on their promise to let 4th ID come down through the sunni-triangle, that war wouldn't have lasted a month. I put that on Rumsfeld. He should have called off the operation until he'd beaten Turkey into compliance.

 

[Stephanie]

ok then, they can charge Obama and Hillary with war crimes too. Obama went into Libya without Congress and screwed the place up. Hillary screwed up and got an unarmed civilian Ambassador Killed with three others. And because of that countries are being invaded with fighting aged men calling themselves refugees. and they both lied about it so it wouldn't hurt the liar Obama chances of being re-elected. SO lets get these war criminals rounded up. Heck we could have a mass hanging with them too.