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.
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.
[youtube]https://youtu.be/I8cxTaaNZrw[/youtube]
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.
@Bill:
People like what Trump says. They liked what Obama said too.
I can’t get comfortable with either knowing both are liars. This is like a mirror of 2008. I think Trump will win the election if he takes SC. Period. He’ll do to Hillary what he’s done to the rest of the GOP field and the media will eat him up as they ate up obama.
@Bill #50:
“Exactly”?
“EXACTLY”???
Do you support Trump, or don’t you?
If Trump and Obama are so much alike, and you support Trump, why DIDN’T you support Obama?
Oh, I get that your “exactly” referred to Trump supporters being the same people who supported Obama, which in your mind isn’t the same thing as Trump being just like Obama, but your “exactly” DOES equate a Trump supporter (you?) with Obama supporters.
Are you or aren’t you?
Why the fence-sitting?
If you’re as fed up with Trump’s lying as Dr. John (and the rest of us) are, then say so, and quit blaming liberals for objecting to the same Trumpisms that WE are objecting to.
You have to be pretty desperate to resort to applying double-standards in order to vilify your enemies.
@DrJohn: I like what Trump says (policy wise). I also liked some of the things Obama said, early on, about bringing factions together and working for bipartisan cooperation in Congress. I knew his health care proposals were a load of manure. Turns out, he lied about everything. So, I don’t trust him and criticize his mistakes.
@George Wells:
At this juncture, while there are other choices, I don’t believe I do. No, what I want is for hypocritical liberals who seem to LOVE that kind of crap, acting like Trump is the first person to do it when they cannot even admit Obama lied about “if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance”, to keep their worthless opinions to themselves. You don’t object to the lying… you just don’t like the lies.
Anyone that helped put Obama in office does not GET an opinion on Trump.
@Bill #53:
Why are you making up this nonsense?
Even Obama himself acknowledged the error in this statement – OBVIOUSLY if an insurance company cancels a policy (or a whole class of them) there is nothing in the ACA to prevent them from doing so. Neither is there any legislation (something congress would have had to address, which it did not) that discourages insurance companies from cancelling policies. Nor is there anything anywhere that prevents businesses from getting out of the insurance business altogether, and some ARE doing that.
Now, I FULLY admit that what Obama said – your quote – was untrue. I never said otherwise, and I don’t personally know any Democrats who say otherwise, either. Was it an intentional lie or a stupid error? (I don’t believe that they are the same.) Suggesting that Obama was smart enough to intentionally mislead people seems to contradict your position that he’s dumb as dirt. Do YOU think that Obama wrote the entire “Affordable Care Act”? Do you think that he even read it? My answer to both questions is “NO.” If I am right, then it probably WASN’T an intentional lie, but instead a stupid error, in keeping with your low assessment of his intelligence.
Let me remind you that Obama ALSO said that the “ACA would lower insurance costs.” There are a few convoluted ways of rationalizing that statement into a “true” statement, but no reasonable person EVER believed that covering the health care costs of an additional 10 million people (give or take a few) was going to SAVE money. Some people have saved money, and some not. Some institutions have gained, some have lost. I said before that the ACA was in effect an income redistribution device at least as much as an instrument designed to cover the health care costs of a larger proportion of Americans than were already covered. So, bottom line: Obama’s statement about the ACA costs was sloppy, stupidly misleading, and significantly more wrong than right. And again, that doesn’t make it a “lie.” Obama knew the general features of the law, but he didn’t write it. It was his responsibility to explain it accurately, or if he could not, to get someone who COULD. He didn’t, and that’s on him. But without KNOWING what he did or did not know, making the case that he lied about it is about as productive as liberals accusing GW of lying about WMDs in Iraq. Same difference.
Sure they do. Free thought, Free speech, Free voting rights.
You can’t restrict any of those freedoms and you know it.
Ppppfffftttt!
@George Wells:
George, I guess I’m missing something. Just what is Trump ‘lying’ about? Is he really a muslim? Is he a socialist? Can you name a politician that you can actually believe is always telling the truth? While I certainly believe that there were WMD’s in Iraq, for some reason, even GW Bush is now ‘lying’ about that information. Is Trump ‘lying’ if he repeats GW Bush’s denial or is he accepting that GW Bush is telling the truth? To quote Bill Kristol: “What evidence does Trump have that George W. Bush and his top advisers knowingly lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?” The answer is, of course, none. But now the question is, why is GW Bush now ‘lying’ about the WMDs? Who is he serving in this lying? Everyone with half a brain knows that there was WMD’s in Iraq at the time the administration was saying there was. Yes, it is true most of them were from the buildup Saddam did after the Gulf War when he wanted to ensure that they could not do that to him again, but regardless of how old they were, they still existed. There is no way the ‘public’ could know the expiration date of the weapons, but we do know that the ISIS invaders recently used some of them, so I guess that expiration date still had not been reached, even 15 years later.
So, is Trump agreeing with GW Bush to be considered as ‘lying’? Is being a politician ‘lying’? Do all politicians ‘lie’ to win elections? Is this expected of politicians? We can only hope for the best.
@Redteam #55:
You’re trying too hard. You’re going to give yourself a headache.
Even Huff Po thinks there were WMD’s, this quote from 2014
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/14/isis-chemical-weapons-_n_5987106.html
@George Wells: Well, George, do you have a more noble view of politicians? I’d like to hear your opinion as to why GW Bush is now saying there were no WMD’s? What’s in it for him? Why does making himself look bad, help him? Money is usually behind everything, how do we follow the money on this?
@Redteam #58:
“as to why GW Bush is now saying there were no WMD’s?”
“NOW”?
Bush said way back that the INTELLEGENCE – AT THE TIME – suggested strongly that there WERE WMDs, and when “exposed” to that “intelligence,” MOST people ASSUMED it to be accurate, and MOST of them reached the came conclusion that GW did concerning what needed to be done about it. There has been a bunch of back-pedaling among politicians who agreed with the prevailing assessment over what should have been an appropriate time-table for going INTO Iraq, but after we DID go in, considering what we EXPECTED to find, well, we didn’t find THAT. Yes, we found some old “residues,” and perhaps we didn’t look in every last hiding place, but the prevailing sentiment at the time was that what we DID find did not rise to an acceptable standard for verification of what we were looking for.
Somewhere along that road, GW switched his justification for going into Iraq from “looking for WMD’s” to “regime change” (and nation-building) because Saddam wasn’t a nice man and the Iraqi people deserved better. It gave him cover from having failed to produce the evidence he was looking for, and an excuse to not have to “pay damages” for being wrong. That was a “flip,” and a later “flop” would have been too much to bear, so once on course #2, Bush pretty much had to “stay the course,” so-to-speak. Thus his “effort” to remain consistent… and to defend himself – and brother Jeb – from Trump’s unseemly attacks. Being a true DEMOCRAT, it’s understandable why Trump would want to attack GW over Iraq – most liberals like taking that cheap shot. And Trump also wants to make Jeb look bad (bully that he is), and making GW look bad hurts Jeb by familial association.
I don’t think money has anything to do with it this time around. Maybe oil money influenced the initial adventure, and maybe it didn’t, but it has nothing to do with the current cat-fight.
“w” ” we fabricated evidence–war was unnecessary and too costly to justify.”.
” I apologize–pride myself on being able to admit my failures.”
Now Trump piles on.–Is there any wonder Trumps’ negatives continue to build–forget politics–he’s classless.
@Rich Wheeler:
Classless? Since when did that become a pre-requisite? Obama has never had any class, admittedly a drug user…Class?
Trump is learning how to be a politician, which means a ‘certifiable liar’. How is he different than other attempted politicians?
about WMD’s? surely you’re not one of those people that can’t decipher the truth for themselves? There have been so many tons of chemical weapons found in Iraq that it can’t possibly be denied by any sane person without an agenda. Would you like for me to provide you with 20 or 30 links to news stories about WMD’s being found?
@George Wells:
you consider 2500 artillery shells filled with cyanide to be a ‘residue’? So what was Bush’s ‘basis for war’?
Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-new-york-times-reports-wmds-found-iraq/#ixzz40SoD61KC
Seems to me that most, or at least a major part, was that Saddam was not complying with the terms of an agreement to dispose of ‘existing’ WMD’s. These are the WMD’s that he was concerned about being used and is the very same weapons that were found (and hidden) during the ’03 war.. This is the point of my “why is Bush lying about WMD’s now” question, not about how he changed the reasons over time.
You will note that he didn’t mention ‘nuclear’ in his rationale.
@George Wells:
It wasn’t an error; it was a LIE. He made the statement numerous times AFTER there is evidence of White House conversations that show they KNEW when the Obamacare changes to policies were mandated, the policies would be null and void.
The ACA CAUSED the cancellations.
I don’t personally know anyone so ignorant as to claim that either, though I know some I suspect like to think it. However, I have read numerous accounts by apologist liberals that claim “out of context” or just things people say in campaigns… i.e. …. lies.
Obamacare has not lowered costs; it has manipulated them so that people can pay lower premiums and enjoy astronomical deductibles. Trust me… I have personal knowledge of this, as of January 1, 2016. I LOST the plan I was promised I could keep; I never dreamed I had a “Cadillac plan” all along.
In summary, Obama’s lies… great. Trump lies… bad. I get it. No, you don’t get an opinion in adult circles. Stick to the liberal tribe.
Let’s see if I have this sorted out.
Trump says Bush lied about WMD’s
Bush supports Trump by saying he lied about WMD’s
Jeb kept his mouth shut
Bush seemingly admits that Bush’s decision making is not good.
Conclusion: GWB is supporting Trump? Why?
@Redteam: GWB agrees with Trump that he lied about existence of WMD’s
GWB agrees with Jeb that Trump is an asshole—
Jeb’s Father and Mother would like to wring Trump’s neck
Trump “everybody loves me”—-except for the large majority of the electorate.
@Redteam, @George Wells, @Rich Wheeler & whoever else –
If you saw Hannity’s interview with Bush 43 and Jeb on Monday night, Sean broached the point about the WMDs. Bush 43 said “we didn’t find what we were looking for.”
If we were looking for an active CW program, we wouldn’t find one considering there were a significant number of convoys between Baghdad and the Syrian border – all under overwatch by Republican Guard elite units and the Russians. Also, there was considerable air traffic between Russia and Iraq. In Dec 2002 and Jan 2003, Iraq was soliciting advice from Finland and Sweden on how to decontaminate materials exposed to anthrax and GB agent (which was reported by AP, but the story withdrawn within two days of publication). Both the Finns and the Swedes refused to provide any information on decontamination practices and processes.
What we did find was a significant amount of CWs, of varying condition, which were being gathered by a joint CIA-military program known as Operation Avarice. Undoubtedly, Bush 43 would have been briefed about it. The operation utilized a CIA asset who had come into sole possession of a large number of Iraqi CWs. Few details of Operation Avarice were disclosed, and largely remains classified. We also found several, stripped-down mobile biolabs in Mosul. They were decontaminated, but the design was unmistakably configured as a lab.
Because of much was found remains classified, Bush 43 is not going to talk about it. Also, there were likely other materials we found which will not be disclosed any time soon.
Notice how well he does in a one on one against Cruz or Rubio. He best hopes the field doesn’t narrow anytime soon.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ted-cruz-leads-donald/2016/02/17/id/714847/
@Rich Wheeler #65 –
He didn’t agree with Trump on lying about Iraqi WMDs. If you saw Hannity’s interview with Bush 43 and Jeb on Monday night, Bush 43 said “we didn’t find what we looking for.”
If you remember, the convoy traffic between Baghdad and the Syrian border was significant from Jan – Mar 2003. Also, there were considerable amount of Russian technical assistance in Iraq, in addition to air traffic between Iraq and Russia.
You can draw any inference you want (like Trump) but don’t pretend you’re knowledgeable what was and was not found in Iraq. Much of it remains classified because of its sensitivity.
@David: I truly understand and appreciate what you are saying. In #60 I was quoting what Bush actually said. I don’t know the truth.
There is something in the air in S.C–Remember what “w” did to Mac in 2000. The Cruz -Trump dust up may top it.
I had no idea so many Repubs were reality T.V. fans– what else explains appeal of The Apprentice star?—I watch NONE of them—Survivor the worst. If you wanna role in the mud and sleep in the rain in some far off land—JOIN THE MARINES
Semper Fi
@David #66:
George Wells #59:
Not much difference, is there?
I have to give GW credit thrice. First, he didn’t PLANT the evidence he was looking for and THEN find it. There must have been some encouragement to do just that. Maybe he figured that as inefficient as our government is – including the military – it’d be impossible to keep the lid on such a deception. Either way, he gets credit for NOT tampering with the evidence – or lack there-of.
I also give him credit for not trying to – pardon the expression – TRUMP up the significance of the chemical stuff that was eventually found.
And by the way, I read all of the reports on those “portable lab” trucks that some WMD hopefuls were suggesting WERE “sanitized” chemical weapon labs. There is NO way the Iraqis could have “sanitized” those vehicles so well that our best and brightest couldn’t have found a TRACE of either chemical weapons or their chemical precursors. We ARE more than good enough to have proven if ANY such chemicals were EVER present in those vehicles. Maybe they were bought and outfitted, but never used and subsequently stripped down, but the chemicals were never there.
Finally, I give GW credit for WISELY attempting to redirect the rationale for our adventurism away from the search for WMDs. Had that search remained our exclusive purpose in Iraq, the failure to find SIGNIFICANT evidence would have opened us to what would essentially be malpractice litigation, and considering the number of lives involved, that would have been a never-ending proposition.
I get the impression that GW is mindful of his own legacy, and he doesn’t want to get to the end of his life without making a reasonable effort to set the record straight. It’s just a pity that some of HIS revelations – his TRUE confessions – are now contradicting the entrenched dogma of his worshiping cult.
@David: Good info David. It’s clear there was WMD’s, the only question I have is why does GWB deny it? It has to be in his interest to be seen as a liar, manipulator, I just can’t figure out how.
@Rich Wheeler:
You make it a practice of commenting on things you have no clue about. You watch NONE, but know which is the worst? By divine perception? You’ve never watched Trumps reality show but you know what he does on the show? Let me remind you that you said: “I watch NONE of them”
You do keep up with your schedule on rainbow flag parades though, right?
@George Wells: George it’s interesting that you put a lot on what GWB is saying now vs what he said in his speech to the UN in 2002 as I quoted verbatim in 62 above. All of his interest at that time was in the weapons of MD that Saddam had at the end of the Gulf war that he had promised to get rid of and did not do so. None of his speech concentrated on operating CW plants or labs, only what was already known to be there and was all found during the war to actually be there. So both he and you are trying to change actual history. At no time was the claim made prior to the Iraq war that the point of the war was to stop the operation of CW plants at that time, it was all because of Saddam not complying with the destruction of known WMD’s.
As I’ve said. For some reason it is in GWB’s interest to attempt to shoulder the blame for the cause of the war. The country had legitimate reasons for the war and attempts to change history is not going to be successful. Too much was recorded at the time it occurred.
Just like the attempt now to say that there was never a Civil War in the US.
@Redteam: Present tense-I saw enough to believe they are garbage–Being a Trumpist, are you a The Apprentice fan?
CIVIL WAR? –Wasn’t that The War Between The States—Reb
@David: As was pointed out on Word’s thread about Trump’s WMD claim, how many times do you, Word, I, and others need to keep repeating ourselves about the WMD over there? Perhaps if GWB was like HRC he could just reveal it all on his private, unsecure email account.
@Rich Wheeler: Rich, you’re confused.
if you’ve never watched any of them, how did you ‘see enough’ to form any belief about them?
When have I ever said I’m a Trumpist? Haven’t I always said I’m not for anyone in particular, but I would only support the Repub nom if he is actually eligible to be president. Trump is in the category of ‘eligible’. Some of the Repubs I wouldn’t vote for in any case. Kasich, Christie, Ryan, etc………
I don’t usually watch Apprentice, but I won’t say “I’ve never watched it but here is my opinion of it”. I will say I’ve been reading your comments for a while and that I have observed that you often lie..
@Rich Wheeler:
There was no Civil War or War between the States. Aren’t you keeping up?
@Redteam #73:
I work truth in that direction because it just doesn’t work in the opposite direction.
Consider this:
“I lied before but now I’m telling the truth.”
I can think of a number of reasons why someone might say that. Logical reasons. It happens in court every day, and juries often accept the explanation, because they’ve done the same thing themselves at one time or another.
However…
I can’t imagine a sane reason for anyone to ever say:
“I told the truth before but now I’m lying.”
You NEVER hear that in court, for obvious reasons.
“Interesting?”
It shouldn’t be. The declaration of changes between lies and truths really only makes sense in one direction.
I find it interesting that the bunch of you arguing over Bush’s “concern over Iraqi WMDs are all ignoring the blow-up over Saddam’s supposed efforts to develop nuclear capabilities. Did you forget that dust-up over Iraq’s attempts to purchase wholesale quantities of aluminum pipes of a sort that Bush’s State department insisted could ONLY be used in the construction of centrifuges that were essential to the concentration of fissionable uranium? Are we to believe that there was NO pilot project in-house BEFORE that order was placed? Yet no evidence of ANY nuclear activity was found, and credible defectors admitted that the initial interest in developing nuclear capabilities was abandoned a decade BEFORE Bush attacked.
As has been pointed out above by others, a lot of WMD-type material WAS disposed of before we went in. Some was destroyed, some sold, loaned or given to Syria and Russia. Either way, by the time we got there, we DIDN’T find what we were looking for, because either it was NEVER there OR it wasn’t there NOW, either option being sufficiently embarrassing to compel us to re-invent our reason for going there in the first place.
@George Wells:
Not only was it clearly there ‘during’ the war, much of it is still there today. US military have been injured by the CW’s within the last 5 years. Tell them it’s not there.
I never saw any actual claims about the existence of Nuclear activity, everything I saw in real time was always listed as speculation or suspicion. No proof was ever given of actual activity, only suspicion. Yes, there was ‘evidence’ that Saddam was ‘attempting’ to get into the nuke business, but no proof that he ever did. It was never claimed to be a ‘fact’, At least I’ve never seen it claimed as ‘fact’.
But your question: I was telling the truth then, but I’m lying now, doesn’t make sense because clearly he was truthful in 2002 and is clearly lying now. As I said, the prime motivator of mankind is money with power being an accessory. Does he see making Jeb president as an ‘opportunity’. I don’t see how. Besides, by lying about what’s going on, if we attribute those characteristics as hereditary, then who would vote for someone with inherited ‘lying genes’?
:Redteam Where did I say I NEVER watched any of them? I saw The Donald's show and realize now, he was practicing for his POTUS run, by being an obnoxious jerk.
Are you watching this Cruz-Trump street fight on Fox?—great entertainment–with Kelly having a ball.
You calling me a liar? You learn that tactic from your man crush The Donald?
@Redteam:
Hey! What happened to Retire05? Bet she’d be bashing Trump and pumping Cruz…
@Rich Wheeler: 80
Did I say you NEVER watch any of them? in 69 you said:
Maybe you should have put a little more effort into ‘grammar’. If you state: “I watch NONE of them” the meaning is you have never seen ANY of them, it doesn’t mean, I watched ‘some’ of them. NONE does not include ‘some’.
Actually what I said was: ” I have observed that you often lie.. ”
How did Trump get to be my ‘man crush’? I’m not the guy lolly gagging around the gay pride parade in my chaps
Why would I care if Kelly is having a ball? She’s just a lib trying to be in disguise. One thing about being a lib, you can’t keep it hidden. Trump usually makes Cruz look rather childish, and I’d probably tire of the Canadian trying to make points. How did Kelly get Trump back on her show?
@George Wells:
Is there a reason you’re asking me that question?
@Redteam: You’ve proudly mentioned you won a grade school spelling bee.– However when I say ” I watch none of them.”,that infers currently. Not the same as saying I’ve never watched any of them. Got it.
Where have you been—any interesting trips? 05 has also been scarce.
Bill’s been blasting away in your absence
BTW I have observed you often lie—-A softer approach. I like it–Maybe Trump should try it–nah he’s a proud hard ass.
@Redteam #71 –
I don’t know if this is the reason, but it is possible Bush 43 was briefed the WMDs found were far more extensive than we know. It should be remembered Iraq’s VX weapons were not found, and only a portion of their cyclosarin stocks were found. The open ended question is where are the missing weapons. It is one of those things you do not want to talk about openly.
@Rich Wheeler #69 –
Haven’t watch a reality show ever. I did enough mud crawling while I was in.
Semper Fi, Marine.
@Rich Wheeler:
Any interesting trips? yes. And didn’t have to smell the stink of Africa in the process.
That has nothing to do with spelling. All grammar. If you ‘watch none of them’ that means you have not seen ‘any of them’ which means you are not qualified to judge their content.
So let’s get this straight. Is your comment “I watch none of them” correct? Have you, in fact, watched some of them? If the answer is yes to the second one then the first one can not be correct. The sentence “I watch none of them” should mean that you watch NONE of them, therefore you can’t have watched ‘some’ of them. The domain of NONE does not contain a subsection titled SOME of them.
Ivy league schools? All libs, grammar not important, lying is.
At least you didn’t deny it.
@Redteam: You are one strange guy RT–very entertaining though. Glad you’re back.
David—Should have figured you a Marine–to the point–no B.S. Thanks for your intelligent input.
Semper Fi RW
@Rich #87 –
Wasn’t a Marine; I was a Navy guy with most of my days in NSW. But, I do have plenty of friends in the Corps. A couple of them even earned a Trident.
Have a good Thursday.
@David: Sister Service RT was Navy
Skooks and Curt Marines
Randy, Another Vet and Greg Army
@Rich Wheeler:
There you go again. Trump wasn’t on Kelly’s show. I fast forwarded through her last two shows just to check out what you said. I don’t think he’s going to go back on Kelly’s show. Her Dimocratic liberalism is showing a little too much. By the way, how do you like Kelly’s new ‘butch’ hair-do? You think she’s telling us something? She’s having a real problem keeping her roots color matching the other hair.
@David: Trying to decide what NSW stood for. Since I spent some time there, I assumed New South Wales, but since you were talking Navy I decided it must be Naval Special Warfare. I was a Radarman on the USS Forrestal in the 50’s-60’s when it was the Show ship of the Navy. Enjoyed my time in the Navy very much.
@Redteam: @Redteam: Kelly a lib?-never happen.
She’s married–didn’t know you were an expert on women’s hairstyles and coloring.—hmmm
@Richard Wheeler:
Married? is that significant? Expert? you think it takes an ‘expert’ to identify a hair style or color? Well, maybe with the rainbow crowd………….
@Redteam: Gotta admit I know nothing about women’s hair styles –“butch”-what is that?-how do you know her hair color?–“rainbow crowd”-??is that a code? Wizard of Oz.maybe?.
Pope says Trump not a Christian—should “build bridges not walls.”
Not a Christian? Just last week-he brought out a Bible and started quoting from it.
@Richard Wheeler:
Geez, RW, you give me too much material.
Let’s see, rainbow crowd? you have no clue? You walk in a parade, in your chaps, under a rainbow flag and you are not a part of ‘the crowd’. Well, ok –if you say so.
‘butch’ hair style? You’ve never seen Elena or Ellen, it’s a distinctive style worn by the butch group. And lastly, how do I know her hair color? I have this thing called ‘color television’ and it usually shows the color of a person’s hair. While it might now show hair color accurately, it does usually show differences in color as in blond hair with dark roots.
Just think about that, RW. Do you know where the pope lives? Do you know what is particularly distinctive about Vatican City? Don’t you think it strange that a man who lives behind huge walls doesn’t think others should live behind walls, that Christians don’t build walls,,,,,no wait…surely that’s not what he meant. Or maybe he just didn’t say it right. That’s kind of like Obozo, who lives behind men with guns, who can’t even leave his living quarters without a man with a gun…doesn’t want others to be able to have a gun to protect themselves. Oh….hypocrisy…do we know you by another name?
Ok, RW.. more material…
Oh, and RW, you do realize that the pope is originally from South America and his motive on the southern border not having a wall is so that ‘his people’ have less restrictions or obstacles to getting here?
@Redteam: What is butch?? Who are Elena and Ellen?–you gotta step away from all that reality T.V crap RT. It’s no wonder you’re a Trumpist. What are chaps? You’ve mentioned them before–something you like to wear?
BTW Pope–capitalized– like President.
For this thread, the season’s over.
Redteam is showing re-runs of his last 2 season’s favorite – his now-perennial “Rich-Wheeler-marching-in-a-“pride”-parade-wearing-assless-chaps” drone, which evidently is a masterpiece in Redteam’s own mind.
I shudder at the thought of what he does each night with that image burned into his psyche.
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW.
Time to change the channel.
See y’all later.
P.S. RW:
6 Vietnam years in Uncle Sam’s Canoe Club, A.K.A. the USN.
Anchors Away.
@George Wells:
reminds me of that old saying Anchors aweigh. –
at no time in this thread did I say ‘assless’, must be on your mind.
@George Wells:Thanks for the laugh George.
Thanks for your V.N. service—saw the New Jersey in action—incredibly accurate massive fire power