Trump: Bush lied about reason for invading Iraq

[Jackson]

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

not

 

[Dot Com]

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

not

have you read all 26 pages, let alone the last 10?

this applies to flacaltenn as well and the other deflectors

 

[Faun]

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?

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?

LOLOLOLOL

Just have 'LIAR' tattooed across your forehead. This way, you won't even have to speak (or type) for everyone to know you lied.

 

[Faun]

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.

Nothing in there either about Reid, Pelosi, Durban, Clinton supporting Schumer.

 

[Faun]

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"

He can't link his lies.

 

[Dot Com]

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?

LOLOLOLOL

Just have 'LIAR' tattooed across your forehead. This way, you won't even have to speak (or type) for everyone to know you lied.

^ that

Ina a word, he's a pile. Not worth anybody's time.

 

[Dot Com]

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"

He can't link his lies.

True. Thats prolly why he doesn't supply links.

 

[Dot Com]

This is why Jeb! is at 1% after spening MILLIONS. He took 3 days to come to the conclusion that invading Iraq was not a good idea.

 

[Faun]

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"..

The alternative was to let the inspectors continue the job they were doing.

Had that occurred, we would have discovered there were no WMD or WMD programs, just as we did using Bush's method of taking us to war.

Only there would be about 5,000 more Americans, 100,000+ Iraqis, trillions of dollars less in debt, the Middle East wouldn't be exploding like an active volcano, and no one would have ever heard of ISIS

 

[Faun]

This is why Jeb! is at 1% after spening MILLIONS. He took 3 days to come to the conclusion that invading Iraq was not a good idea.

Jeb is toast. Have you seen what Trump did to Jeb's website?

www.jebbush.com

Brilliant!

 

[Jarhead]

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"..

The alternative was to let the inspectors continue the job they were doing.

Had that occurred, we would have discovered there were no WMD or WMD programs, just as we did using Bush's method of taking us to war.

Only there would be about 5,000 more Americans, 100,000+ Iraqis, trillions of dollars less in debt, the Middle East wouldn't be exploding like an active volcano, and no one would have ever heard of ISIS

you are poorly informed.

Not going to make it my problem.

 

[bravoactual]

Trump says George W. Bush ‘lied’ to get U.S. into Iraq

I agree w/ him

Any Trump- supporters care to chime-in, agreeing? I don't expect this thread to have many responses given all Trump-supporters on this forum are rw'ers

This is not exactly news.

 

[Jarhead]

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

Actually, Care 4 all is dead wrong. Redfish is spot on....so why should he have to do her research for her? She wants to live in a dream world of misinformation, that is her problem and explains her ridiculous poorly informed posts.
I saw the video. Schumer said exactly what Redfish said.

Sadly, MSNBC does not see the need to show it.

 

[Dot Com]

This is why Jeb! is at 1% after spening MILLIONS. He took 3 days to come to the conclusion that invading Iraq was not a good idea.

Jeb is toast. Have you seen what Trump did to Jeb's website?

SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR DONALD J. TRUMPy

Brilliant!

i don't see it

 

[Jarhead]

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?

well...to be honest...it sounds like you are a child.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Trump says George W. Bush ‘lied’ to get U.S. into Iraq

I agree w/ him

Any Trump- supporters care to chime-in, agreeing? I don't expect this thread to have many responses given all Trump-supporters on this forum are rw'ers

This is not exactly news.

While not exactly news to some.
It is news when the top Republican pesidential candidate trashes and blames the complete ME mess we are in on the last Republican President.

Now that is news. And funny as all get out.

 

[Jarhead]

Trump says George W. Bush ‘lied’ to get U.S. into Iraq

I agree w/ him

Any Trump- supporters care to chime-in, agreeing? I don't expect this thread to have many responses given all Trump-supporters on this forum are rw'ers

This is not exactly news.

While not exactly news to some.
It is news when the top Republican pesidential candidate trashes and blames the complete ME mess we are in on the last Republican President.

Now that is news. And funny as all get out.

except for one thing..

True GOP supporters are well aware that, when we had 17 candidates...trump had 35+ percent. When we had 10 candidates, Trump had 35+ percent. When we have 6 candidates, trump has 35+ percent. In other words, he peaked at the beginning and the only reason why he is leading is because there are still 5 other candidates spilitting the remaining 65%.

Anyone who is following this with any intelligence is well aware that. in the end, Trump will have 35=% and the only other remaining candidate will have 65%.

In other words....he is the leader statistically.....but not really the leader.

 

[Dot Com]

Trump says George W. Bush ‘lied’ to get U.S. into Iraq

I agree w/ him

Any Trump- supporters care to chime-in, agreeing? I don't expect this thread to have many responses given all Trump-supporters on this forum are rw'ers

This is not exactly news.

is is to all Repub- voters and their war corporatism politicians

 

[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?

well...to be honest...it sounds like you are a child.

thanks for adding zero to the discussion

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Redfish 13547688

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

It is not a 'version of history' - it is history based upon real time quotes and real documents created to be forever a part of the true history of Iraq. So how is it wrong to quote what the Clintons and Bush actually said in the weeks prior to invasion of Iraq.

The myth that you treated this conversation to is pure fiction. And there is nothing to support your decade long claim that Bush and the Clintons said the same exact words as Bush favoring war over diplomatic and peaceful means to disarm Iraq and thereby remove the sanctions.

You've been caught spewing a myth that must of been long apart of your disturbing support of the Republican President that lie to you and all of us to start a major war for reasons that were lies and by ignoring the clear cut peaceful alternative.