Trump crosses the line – Updated

By 190 Comments 5,960 views

trump slimer


I am sick of Donald Trump. Utterly sick of him. I’m sick of his bullying, I’m sick of his whining, I’m sick of his profanity and I’m sick of his constant repetition.

Now I’m sick of his lying too.

Last night he blamed 9-11 on George W. Bush and he came right out and said that Bush lied the US into the war in Iraq. I think this time he has burned one too many bridges.

Bill Kristol:

Asked to defend his 2008 comment that George W. Bush should have been impeached, Donald Trump said: “They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none, and they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.”

Interviewers should press Trump on this: What evidence does Trump have that George W. Bush and his top advisers knowingly lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? How many other government officials does Trump believe were in on the deception? What does Trump believe would have been the point of such a lie, since the truth would soon come out?

Watch this exchange. Bush does not interrupt Trump but Trump can’t shut up.

BTW, Donald, the official tome on Iraq, the Silbermann-Robb report, says Bush did not lie.

“Even people at the highest level of the Iraqi regime believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction,” Silberman explains. “Saddam was running a bluff. He was bluffing his own people, and he was bluffing Iran. It would have been impossible for any intelligence agency in the world … to have determined that Saddam had destroyed his weapons of mass destruction.”

Even if the intelligence agencies had performed flawlessly, they would therefore have found themselves advising the president of grave dangers. “A first-class [intelligence] opinion would have said, ‘We [the intelligence agencies] know Saddam once had weapons of mass destruction, we know that he proved capable of using them, and we have no evidence that he has destroyed them. Although we cannot prove that Saddam still has weapons of mass destruction, we think it highly likely that he has.’”

Silberman recently addressed the constant lying from the left (and from Trump):

“It is astonishing to see the ‘Bush lied’ allegation evolve from antiwar slogan to journalistic fact.”

He added “as I recall, no one in Washington political circles offered significant disagreement with the intelligence community before the invasion. The National Intelligence Estimate was persuasive — to the president, to Congress and to the media.”

Though it’s politically convenient to constantly repeat the lie that Bush lied, no one from the left really ever bothers to explain why Bush would lie, as Kristol asked above. Trump sure as hell doesn’t offer an explanation.

Never mind the fact that WMD’s were found all over Iraq. I suspect there were far more found than we are left to know. It would be kept quiet so as not to tip off Al Qaeda and ISIS to its existence.

Never mind that a large part of the reason for the Iraq war was the same as the excuses for the war on Libya:

The Bush administration made the argument that in the post-9/11 climate there should be a belated reckoning with Saddam Hussein. He had continued to sponsor terrorism, had over the years invaded or attacked four of his neighbors, and had killed tens of thousands of his own people. He was surely more a threat to the region and to his own people than either Bashar Assad or Moammar Qaddafi was eight years later.

Trump compensates for his lies with increased volume. When Jeb Bush chipped Trump for his reality show history, Trump went  nuts:

While Donald Trump was building a reality TV show, my brother was building a security apparatus to keep us safe. And I’m proud of what he did.”

“The World Trade Center came down during your brother’s reign,” Trump reminded Bush.

As if that wasn’t enough, Trump kept stabbing:

“The World Trade Center came down during the reign of George Bush,” Trump said to a strong reaction from the audience. “That’s not keeping us safe.”

Again- blaming George Bush for 9-11. It’s something I found and do find detestable for a self-proclaimed conservative. This is the mindless throw-away line of a liberal. It was following 9-11 that Bush built the security structure which kept the US safe since and which Obama has enjoyed and in some ways expanded upon. Trump has frequently accused Bush of knowing that 9-11 was coming and ignored the warnings. About that, Politifact says:

We rate this claim False.

Another damn Trump lie. Trump also said:

“Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big fat mistake. Now, you can take it any way you want…The war in Iraq we spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives. We don’t even have it. Iran is taking over Iraq with the second largest oil reserves in the world. Obviously, it was a mistake. George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes, but that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East.”

Iran taking over Iraq is the work of Barack Obama, not George Bush. Iraq was stable and sovereign, according to Obama. Then he abandoned it. The curious thing is that Trump never went after Obama for any of it.

Trump has had some pretty nasty things to say about George W. Bush, going so far as to call Bush “evil.”

Bush has been so bad, maybe the worst president in the history of this country. He has been so incompetent, so bad, so evil, that I don’t think any Republican could have won.

Trump wanted Bush impeached in 2008. He hasn’t called for obama’s impeachment for the IRS scandal, Fast and Furious or losing Iraq and letting ISIS grow. Not even for doubling the national debt. And all that crap about him being the only one to oppose the war in Iraq? It’s bullshit too.

We could only find one example of Trump commenting on the Iraq War before the invasion, and he seemed apprehensive but not vehemently opposed to the operation. He only started publicly denouncing the war after it started.

Because he far overstated how loudly he declared his position on the Iraq War, we’re cranking the rating on this statement up to False.

Trump really likes obama:

As of October of 2008, the U.S. government reported a $237 billion deficit. The good news is that Obama seems to be well aware of the situation. His comments have led me to believe that he understands how the economy works on a comprehensive level. He has also surrounded himself with very competent people, and that’s the mark of a strong leader. I have confidence he will do his best, and we have someone who is serious about resolving the problems we have and will be facing in the future.

Trump believed Hillary Clinton would be a “great President” and thought Bill was a “great President.”

Trump is all about single payer:

So I’m very liberal when it comes to health care. I believe in universal health care.

I’ve had enough.

Trump is lying son of a bitch bully. He shouts down opponents when he’s faced with facts. He calls opponents liars and then he cries about it being unfair when he’s called a liar. Calling him out for his past statements is unfair while him calling out yours is not. All that’s bad enough, but trying to score the GOP Presidential nomination while shitting all over a past Republican President betrays the dirty liberal in Trump. Trump crossed the line.

Trump is not a conservative. He is a Trumpist. He is for Trump and about Trump and nothing else. All his spew about how he had to get along with everybody because of his company proves that he had one moral compass and it always and only points to the green. He will do what’s in his best interest and not what’s in the best interests of conservatives.

You can bet on it.

There is no team in Trump. There is no selfless in Trump. There is only an I.


Update: This post has been corrected to remove a Tweet of questionable origin. It changes nothing.

Update: And while I’m at it:

Until 2008, Trump Was a Big Democratic Donor

Trump’s donation history shows Democratic favoritism

Donald Trump Donated More to Clintons Than Veterans

Trump has spent years courting Hillary and other Dems

Donald Trump jumped into the crowded and rowdy Republican presidential field on Tuesday, but the business magnate has astutely played both sides of the aisle for years, and has been especially cozy — financially and personally — with Hillary Clinton.
Clinton, the Democratic front-runner and former New York senator who had some say over policy that could have impacted Trump’s vast business dealings, received donations from both him and son Donald Trump Jr. on separate occasions in 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2007, according to state and federal disclosure records.

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

190 Responses to “Trump crosses the line – Updated”

  1. 151


    @George Wells: George I might have responded a little earlier to your comments, but I think I was laughing too hard. Let’s see if I have this right: It was ok to leave hundreds of thousands of troops in Germany and Japan and Korea when the wars got over because they were ‘helping the nice guys to love us’ but it isn’t ok for us to leave a 150,000 in Iraq for a few years, because ‘they don’t like us’.
    For some reason, Obama is ‘suddenly unable to do anything on his own’ he has to abide by what GWB agreed to, but he’s completely able to negotiate a secret agreement with Iran that he doesn’t even have to get approved by the Senate; as required by law. He seems to do anything by executive order that he wants to do, why not just sign one of those and all the Libtards would be thrilled.
    I think you owe it to yourself to go back and read the last 5 or so posts by yourself, on this thread, and I suspect you will roll on the floor laughing at yourself. I can only assume you’re practicing your latest comedy routine.

  2. 152


    @George Wells:

    Then you have a fait accompli. Congratulations. You are essentially agreeing that there was no point for Obama to have done anything other than what he did.

    So then, what you are now saying is that he should have but because he is so incompetent, he feared failure and decided simply not to try? Whatta guy!!

    There’s this, George, and it is irrefutable: Obama had the option to make sure we kept a security force in Iraq. He was specifically warned of the consequences, which indeed came to pass. He stated that Iraq was in stable condition when he pulled all the troops out. Regarding the conditions existing now, and the one condition that changed, try as you might the responsibility for the growth of ISIS, the chaos all across that region and tens, if not hundreds of thousands of deaths at the hands of ISIS falls squarely upon the shoulders of Barack Hussein Obama.

    Bush DID destabilize Iraq, but he restored stability immediately. He ultimately succeeded in establishing the foundation for a stable Iraq. Obama undid it all.

    Those are the absolute facts.

  3. 156

    George Wells

    @Bill #152:

    “Bush DID destabilize Iraq, but he restored stability immediately.”

    Problem was, the stability Saddam Hussein imposed was sustainable so long as foreign adventurism didn’t intercede. Once Bush DID destabilize Iraq, he turned around and imposed an UNSUSTAINABLE “stability” by installing 150,000 US troops that didn’t belong there save for our RESPONSIBILITY for having destabilized that powder keg in the first place. UNSUSTAINABLE because there was no political will – no PUBLIC support – in America for a prolonged occupation of Iraq. UNSUSTAINABLE because the IRAQIs were not going to tolerate more than a brief occupation of their country by a foreign army.

    “Obama had the option”

    How do you figure?
    Was he going to go against the will of the American people AND the will of the IRAQIs? I guess that you’d have LOVED for him to do that, seeing how it would have insured that he didn’t get elected to a second term. Obama didn’t OWE the IRAQIs anything, much less his own political suicide to TEMPORARILY prop up the desperately weak regime Bush created. Obama DID have other issues he wanted to work on, remember, and throwing it all away for the sake of IRAQ wouldn’t have made a bit of sense. It would have left it to the NEXT US President to extricate us from that cesspool, and our exit by then would have been a good bit MORE disorderly. So we left. The sooner the better. Bush sees that now. Why can’t you?

  4. 157


    @dID: Immediately as when the Iraqi government ceased to be in control, the US military was in control. Later came an insurgency that the US military put down. It was a long, bitter, bloody, costly struggle, which makes the way Obama flippantly squandered it all the more despicable.

    @George Wells: Obama has proven himself to be absolutely gutless. He will not take any actions that goes against his far left, America-hating constituency. Iraq was no different, especially when his failing agenda was costing him political support and he needed some headlines.

    The Iraqis did not want us to leave; they wanted the security the US military provided. However, when the US government showed a lack of commitment, the Iraqis had no choice but to show signs of distancing itself from the US. To do otherwise would be suicide. When the US leaves, someone else is going to fill the vacuum and it would be best to be on friendly terms with those filling the vacuum.

    That’s pretty easy (or should be) to understand.

    Obama has been a foreign policy disaster. The statute of limitations for blaming Bush for Obama’s actions has expired.

  5. 158


    @George Wells: 156

    Was he going to go against the will of the American people

    He has consistently for 7 years, why should that have been different, and are you saying America did not desire to have stability in Iraq? Oh, so Americans were thrilled to keep hundreds of thousands of troops in Japan and Germany for half a century but not to keep a few in Iraq for peacekeeping. Makes sense.

  6. 159

    George Wells

    @Redteam #158:

    “Makes sense.”

    I don’t give a flying F__K whether or not it makes sense to you.
    You know what the American people wanted, and it sure wasn’t John McCain’s 100-year occupation of Iraq.
    And in spite of Bill’s efforts to squeeze Iraq’s NOT wanting us in THEIR country any longer into being Obama’s fault – EVEN THOUGH OUR AGREEMENT TO LEAVE WAS GEORGE BUSH’S AGREEMENT – it wasn’t Obama’s fault.
    Neither of you have explained on whose authority Obama could have reneged on Bush’s agreement with Iraq to leave. How would he accomplish it, by executive order???? Just tell the Iraqis that “Oops, I know we SAID we’d leave, but I’VE changed OUR mind, and now we’re going to stay against your wishes – you can take it up with the United Nations if you have a problem with that…”

  7. 160

    another vet

    @Richard Wheeler: So, you criticize Bush on Iraq but think what Obama did with Libya was a roaring success? I take it then, you being a former USMC officer, are in full disagreement with the Marine Corps University’s Center for Advanced Cultural Learning’s study on ISIS? You have read it correct? Given the gains ISIS and AQ made in Iraq and Libya, thanks to Obama’s policy, they would probably be in complete agreement with you.

  8. 161

    another vet

    As for all of these Xenophobia comments I would offer up this:

    George Wells
    @Retire05 #16:

    Thank you for acknowledging your error. I really didn’t think that you were stupid enough to believe your own math, thus my pointing out your mistake, which you might have checked yourself instead of first shooting off your usual “deranged mind” insults.

    I’m not sure what hair you are attempting to split by making an issue over the difference between 57,000 and 60,000 illegal children. They’re not passing through a turn-style on their way here, and the estimated numbers vary according to the conflicting interests of the people doing the counting. I’m happy to stipulate that your numbers (aside from not knowing the difference between a billion and a trillion) are correct. I did not say otherwise.

    I’m also not arguing with your assessment of the downward pressure illegals have on the wage scale. If you look back, you will see that I made the same point – that they are CHEAP labor. Applying a simple supply-and-demand principle gets you from what I said to what you said. The statements are not in conflict.

    More to the point: You are simply bickering over the irrelevant details. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have the heart to do anything effective about this problem.

    All of our borders, not to mention our coastlines, are ridiculously porous. Stopping illegals from entering the country by interdiction is a fools fantasy. Instead, we need a REAL deterrent, say, DEATH? Yes, make illegal entry punishable by summary execution, and see how fast the illegals disappear, and how fast children stop arriving.

    Don’t you EVER get tired of simply blaming the other political party for the problems that NOBODY has the stomach to correct?

    ReplyJULY 31ST, 2014 AT 10:42 AM

    Rich, do YOU agree with this solution?

  9. 162

    Richard Wheeler

    @another vet: I didn’t say what Obama did in Libya was a “roaring success” I said I don’t miss the American killing Mad Colonel. Bush and Obama both made mistakes in Iraq–difference is Bush admits his–kudos to him..
    Believe George had tongue firmly in check or was on his 3rd martini when he penned that ridiculous statement.

  10. 163

    another vet

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Bush and Obama both made mistakes in Iraq–difference is Bush admits his–kudos to him..

    Mistakes were definitely made with Iraq. By Bush, Obama, the military, the State Department etc. The difference in between the two Presidents is that Bush admitted to it. Obama didn’t. Adult vs. child.

    Believe George had tongue firmly in check or was on his 3rd martini when he penned that ridiculous statement.

    He made reference to it after that when he argued that he was a conservative. If it was easier to do a search here, I’d reference them for you. It was however the response I was expecting from you just like when you bashed Cheney and Trump for their deferments saying they were essentially scum but then came out in support of a Biden run despite the fact, as Mata pointed out to you before, he had more deferments during the war than Cheney.

  11. 164


    @George Wells: 159

    I don’t give a flying F__K whether or not it makes sense to you.

    And what do you give ‘flying F__K’s’ for?

    You know what the American people wanted, and it sure wasn’t John McCain’s 100-year occupation of Iraq.

    And, I’d say that was aptly demonstrated when they didn’t vote for John McCain.
    But I also don’t believe that what they really wanted was for BHO to throw in the towel and let ISIS and Iran take over Iraq.

    Neither of you have explained on whose authority Obama could have reneged on Bush’s agreement with Iraq to leave.

    As you well know, BHO is not and has not been constrained by anything that he didn’t want to be constrained by. He regularly violates the constitution, he regularly violates many federal laws, he writes illegal executive orders. In short, he just does whatever the hell he wants to do and has always gotten by with it. So why should he be constrained by some little agreement for troops to leave Iraq if Iraq is still unstable?
    Oh wait, his little experiment of ‘doing whatever the hell he wanted to’ blew up in his face, so there was ‘no way he could have just changed GWB’s agreement. As if he hasn’t violated dozens of other agreements.

    I don’t think you should be attempting to make since when you’re squeezing the dew of the grapes.

  12. 165

    George Wells

    @Redteam #164:

    You STILL haven’t given a legal justification for Obama to have used to go against Bush’s agreement with Iraq. I take that as an admission that there IS none.

    Just because Obama has made bad, legally-justifiable, unilateral decisions on behalf of the United States doesn’t mean that he MUST make such bad decisions all of the time.

    Had he broken Bush’s agreement, you’d have crucified him for it. You haven’t yet passed up the opportunity, and Obama gives you plenty work with. I just wonder why you’re making such an effort here, where Bush has more or less confirmed that Obama was right.

  13. 166

    Richard Wheeler

    @another vet: Biden had 5 same as Cheney–point taken–I’ll look closely if he runs. I know he’s a proud father re his son’s service in Iraq. Trump’s kids hunt animals for sport—IMO Cowardly–join the Marines like Mac’s son and Jim Webb’s son

  14. 168


    @another vet –

    I don’t know about the three man race between Trump, Cruz and Rubio. Trump, I will not vote for under any circumstance. If I do a write-in, may be my cat fill receive my vote. Cruz and Rubio, toss-up – I’m very wary of those who talk very smoothly like these two guys. They remind me a tad of Bill Clinton and Obama.

    AV, this is part of my very real concern –

    Clearly, many on both sides of the political divide are underestimating ISIS, AQ and their affiliated organizations. They are not a ragtag collection, but they are a very intelligent enemy. They’ve shown their ability to think and understand at both the tactical and strategic levels. And, they’ve shown their ability to stand fast on the battlefield. They will back down when we apply a significant amount of military power on their forces. In A-stan and Iraq, they did not run away as some have alleged in FA threads to avoid losses.

    Trump – all talk. Cruz/Rubio – open question mark.

    The ISW blog, it’s a very good read if you haven’t subscribed. I’m a regular subscriber.

  15. 169

    George Wells

    @David #168:

    Thank you for the ISW link. I agree with the ISW assessment. I wonder how many other countries in both Africa and the Middle East are not also susceptible to ISIS or ISIS-like radicalism and the consequential disruption to regional stability.

    I am not sure that there is any way for the United States to single-handedly address – or counter – this sort of development in the Islamic World. Western Civilization has NEVER succeeded in attracting enough Muslims to our sense of how democracy and self-governance should work to make a difference. The only sort of regimes in these countries that have shown the ability to control Muslim extremism have been repressive dictatorships, and our attempts to replace such dictatorships with democratically elected governments have had disastrous results in which our perpetual military support is required for them to remain viable. We cannot afford that effort.

    It is not clear that every nation deserves or can afford democratic self-determination. It may be that these countries in which radicalism takes root can support nothing better, and we may just have to accept that Muslim countries are and forever will remain unstable. Their effect on the rest of the World will obviously need to he controlled, but that job must fall on the rest of the World, not just on the United States.

  16. 170

    another vet

    @David: Thanks. Awesome link. I saved it to my favorites and will forward it to those who are still in and who I served with who got out. It pretty much strengthens the arguments we have made here which have been dismissed by those on the other side.

    The U.S. and its allies lack both the partner and the will to carry out a campaign the scale needed to defeat ISIS in Libya.

    That statement isn’t limited to ISIS in Libya.

    This primary will be unique as my vote will actually count this time around. Normally by the time Illinois has its primary, the nominee is pretty much a done deal. As for the GE, Gary Johnson could be an option. As a Libertarian he is weak on National Security but at least he understands the Constitution and has a record to back it up. He actually balanced budgets. If Webb goes third party he would probably be the best choice assuming Cruz or Rubio don’t get in.

  17. 171


    @George Wells:

    Had he broken Bush’s agreement, you’d have crucified him for it. You haven’t yet passed up the opportunity,

    Not true, I was ‘for’ him keeping troops in Iraq. In my opinion there should, even now, be troops in Iraq.

  18. 175


    @another vet: I think if they would guarantee them 8 hours a day of video game access to the internet, 2 hours training and work time and 3 meals a day plus snacks, they would get a lot more recruits.
    Yes, back in my time, it was considered an honor to be allowed to serve in the military. But we were Americans back then.

  19. 177

    Richard Wheeler

    @another vet: You mean hosting a Reality show isn’t sufficient?—there’s a lot of Kardasians who’d like to be on a Trump ticket- Let’s not forget Sarah–even though The Donald has made her disappear.

  20. 179


    @George Wells: The Pope helped him out the last primary, not on purpose but got him the air time anyway. Trump has no knowledge of the issues his one trick pony is chucking the illegals out of the country. He said liked the AHCA mandate not knowing what it was. He has no idea what the issue is on the vast holdings of federal land, and his PP does good things statement.

  21. 181


    @another vet:

    Not really. It’s about as qualifying as being a community organizer.

    I’d put being a successful business man that had become a billionaire slightly above the qualification of community organizer. Who wouldn’t trade positions with him? (and i’m only talking financial positions, not personal)

  22. 183

    George Wells

    @Rich Wheeler #182:


    Not so, Weed-hopper!
    Didn’t you catch that spot they ran where a woman from the audience was asked to check for herself to see if that orange-dyed butt-hair come-over was in fact REAL? She checked – I saw her do it! – and her conclusion was that it IS real. Even had remnants of old TP attached, confirming the $h_t-head diagnosis.
    Ya gotta get your facts… straight?

  23. 187


    I guess you listened to Obozo and his speech backing out of his threat to close Gitmo during his term. I think he went into this speech determined to order it closed but got cold feet when he recognized it would be a clear criminal act for him to do so. Had congress not passed a law specifically prohibiting him from doing so, which he even signed into law, I think he would have just signed an Executive order. I guess even he didn’t want to be convicted of a crime.

  24. 188

    Richard Wheeler

    @Redteam: Are you suffering from dementia RT?
    Yesterday you said to my friend Common Sense–“You can’t believe lies RW puts out”
    Same thread ” RW you are clearly lying—”
    Trump continuously calls Cruz a liar–You and Trump. Hope you got better hair.

  25. 189

    another vet

    @Redteam: I wasn’t referring to his successful business career but him being a reality TV host. Personally, I never paid much attention to Trump until he threw his hat in the ring for the nomination. I never paid too much attention to Steve Forbes either, but I do know he had a track record of backing conservative causes before he threw his hat in the ring in ’96 and continues to back those causes today. Not too sure abut Trump’s past “commitment” to conservative causes. I’m guessing if he would have thrown his hat in the ring in ’04 he would have touted his “commitment” to liberal causes.

  26. 190

    George Wells

    One thing is certain:
    The winner of the 2016 presidential election in the USA will be a Democrat with a first name of either Hillary or Donald.
    I’m wondering how, if it’s Donald, will conservatives pin the blame on the MSM?
    It’s not like they weren’t warned…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *