Trump: Bush lied about reason for invading Iraq

[JimBowie1958]

I explain why we can know that Bush lied when he said that in an earlier post today.

No one has tried to refute the point I made. It can't be refuted must be why.

Well, such offhand references are kind of hard to refute.

 

[ninja007]

i guess that means we will get a lot of libs voting for trump then, right OP?

 

[Mertex]

i guess that means we will get a lot of libs voting for trump then, right OP?

Just because Trump leans a lot to the left doesn't mean we want him for President.........he's entertaining, though.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Ninja 13538038

i guess that means we will get a lot of libs voting for trump then, right OP?

Why in the hell would it mean that? Just because Trump expressed the truth about Bush43 it does not mean I want or have to become an imbecile Trump supporter.

Admitting to a known fact does not make any of Trump's policies attractive to intelligent and decent Americans.

 

[Redfish]

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.

 

[Faun]

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.

Clinton didn't get 4,000+ American troops killed over it.

 

[Dot Com]

i guess that means we will get a lot of libs voting for trump then, right OP?

the purpose of this thread is to awaken conservatives from their big lie slumber that vietraq was related to 9/11

 

[Dot Com]

Why in the hell would it mean that? Just because Trump expressed the truth about Bush43 it does not mean I want or have to become an imbecile Trump supporter.

Admitting to a known fact does not make any of Trump's policies attractive to intelligent and decent Americans.

^ that

he just happens to be right about the worst foreign policy disaster in living memory

 

[bendog]

Why in the hell would it mean that? Just because Trump expressed the truth about Bush43 it does not mean I want or have to become an imbecile Trump supporter.

Admitting to a known fact does not make any of Trump's policies attractive to intelligent and decent Americans.

^ that

he just happens to be right about the worst foreign policy disaster in living memory

It's old news though. What's new is he can beat Jeb over the head with it in SC, which is about the redest of all red states.

 

[gipper]

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.

Clinton didn't get 4,000+ American troops killed over it.

He would have had he been POTUS.

 

[Dot Com]

Why in the hell would it mean that? Just because Trump expressed the truth about Bush43 it does not mean I want or have to become an imbecile Trump supporter.

Admitting to a known fact does not make any of Trump's policies attractive to intelligent and decent Americans.

^ that

he just happens to be right about the worst foreign policy disaster in living memory

It's old news though. What's new is he can beat Jeb over the head with it in SC, which is about the redest of all red states.

old news? It created the instability necessary for Iran to move in and ISIL to form

 

[Faun]

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.

Clinton didn't get 4,000+ American troops killed over it.

He would have had he been POTUS.

No, he wouldn't have since he wouldn't have launched a ground invasion into Iraq as Bush idiotically did.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Clinton didn't get 4,000+ American troops killed over it.

she voted to authorize and fund it, so yes, she is responsible, as they all are.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Clinton didn't get 4,000+ American troops killed over it.

He would have had he been POTUS.

No, he wouldn't have since he wouldn't have launched a ground invasion into Iraq as Bush idiotically did.

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

 

[Faun]

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.

Clinton didn't get 4,000+ American troops killed over it.

she voted to authorize and fund it, so yes, she is responsible, as they all are.

Nope...

"As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - George W. Bush, December, 2005

 

[Faun]

13534847That 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.

Clinton didn't get 4,000+ American troops killed over it.

He would have had he been POTUS.

No, he wouldn't have since he wouldn't have launched a ground invasion into Iraq as Bush idiotically did.

How the fuck 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.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Clinton didn't get 4,000+ American troops killed over it.

she voted to authorize and fund it, so yes, she is responsible, as they all are.

Nope...

"As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - George W. Bush, December, 2005

of course, he was CIC, he had to make the call. BUT, he could not have made that call unless congress (both parties) had authorized and funded it.

I never said that Bush is blameless, only that he is not the only one responsible.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Clinton didn't get 4,000+ American troops killed over it.

He would have had he been POTUS.

No, he wouldn't have since he wouldn't have launched a ground invasion into Iraq as Bush idiotically did.

How the fuck 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.

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?

 

[Dot Com]

Oh great. the shit stain Redfish who couldn't supply a link to save his life is back

Meh, at least that 'tard will keep the thread moving along w/ his speed bump posts

 

[rightwinger]

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