• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did Trump initially support the Iraq War?

Did Trump initially support the Iraq War?


  • Total voters
    21
Back then , he was a private citizen . . . so .. his opinion ..and he probably had one .. matters not ..
 
Indeed - see thread title. If Obama an have it both ways then why not Trump?

Why not? It doesn't bother me if Trump did or didn't support the war back in 2003. The vast majority of Americans did also and I think as a Senator then, Hillary Clinton seen that support and voted in favor of the war. But people change over time, so too does political beliefs. I don't hold it against either and as I stated, I think it is irrelevant compared to what each plan on doing today or if elected.

Those who want to make Trump's support of the war back in 2003 are not going to vote for him anyway. The same with Clinton, those who want to make a big thing about her voting in favor of the war aren't going to vote for her. It boils down to scoring political points, at least in their minds. But it is not going to influence any voters one way or the other. We tend to get caught in the minutia with things like this and fail to see the forest for the trees or the grand scheme of things as it is being played out.
 
That is the thing isn't it. The question is what should be done about ISIS now? The invasion is in the history books, no one can change that. Total withdrawal is in the history books, no one can change that either. Placing blame is sort of irrelevant to what happens now and in the future. It is the people in power now who control that, not Bush. He is long gone.

Bush can be blamed for everything that happened prior to 20 January 2009, then the responsibility shifted to Obama or the onus was placed on his shoulders. Obama and his decisions, his actions and or non-actions since that date has brought us to where we are today. Not Bush.

Personally, I think the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam was a mistake. I think the original war or the helping of the northern alliance in Afghanistan was merited and fought the way it should have been. The original war that is. Our air power, a few SF and paramilitary on the ground with the northern alliance troops doing the ground fighting. I also believe the nation building we started in Afghanistan was wrong and another mistake. We should have handled that differently.

I also think the overthrow of Qaddafi was a mistake along with trying to oust Assad. But our number priority is the defeat of ISIS. How can be debated, but ISIS needs to be destroyed. If that means helping the Russians and Assad do it, by all means, join hands. I also think our non-action or limited action in Iraq has driven the present government of that country into close ties with Iran. My two cents.
Monday morning quarterbacking . . .
 
At this point does it really matter what Amnesty Don initially supported? Does anyone really know where he actually stands on anything? His sheeple could obviously care less what position he takes on any issue on any given day.....they defend the master regardless and gladly shift their positions right along with him. :lol:
 
Why not? It doesn't bother me if Trump did or didn't support the war back in 2003. The vast majority of Americans did also and I think as a Senator then, Hillary Clinton seen that support and voted in favor of the war. But people change over time, so too does political beliefs. I don't hold it against either and as I stated, I think it is irrelevant compared to what each plan on doing today or if elected.

Those who want to make Trump's support of the war back in 2003 are not going to vote for him anyway. The same with Clinton, those who want to make a big thing about her voting in favor of the war aren't going to vote for her. It boils down to scoring political points, at least in their minds. But it is not going to influence any voters one way or the other. We tend to get caught in the minutia with things like this and fail to see the forest for the trees or the grand scheme of things as it is being played out.

I think the point is, Trump and his campaign seem to be using this as one of their attacks against Clinton....that she supported the war. Does anyone smell hypocrisy?

And sorry, but yes it will influence voters unfortunately. Many, many voters are simply ignorant. They either wont, or are intellectually incapable of fact-checking on their own and more often than not follow along with mainstream and social media trends in "news".
 
Last edited:
Why not? It doesn't bother me if Trump did or didn't support the war back in 2003. The vast majority of Americans did also and I think as a Senator then, Hillary Clinton seen that support and voted in favor of the war. But people change over time, so too does political beliefs. I don't hold it against either and as I stated, I think it is irrelevant compared to what each plan on doing today or if elected.

Those who want to make Trump's support of the war back in 2003 are not going to vote for him anyway. The same with Clinton, those who want to make a big thing about her voting in favor of the war aren't going to vote for her. It boils down to scoring political points, at least in their minds. But it is not going to influence any voters one way or the other. We tend to get caught in the minutia with things like this and fail to see the forest for the trees or the grand scheme of things as it is being played out.

The Hillary plan is to defeat ISIS without using any US ground troops. That is simply insane.
 
[Sigh]

The "what that has to do with now" is that Trump is lying about it so that he can attack Clinton for authorizing the war. I've already told you that, and don't understand why you're having such a difficult time focusing on that one point.

I fully expect Trump or any other politician to lie about things so they can attack. That is the way politics is played today. In the case of Trump and Clinton, both are disliked by approximately 60% of all America, they have no choice but to lie and sling mud at each other in an attempt to make the voters hate the other one more than they hate you.

Only 35% of all Americans think Clinton is truthful and Honest, 31% think Trump is truthful and honest.

http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1181a12016Election.pdf

That let's you know most Americans expect each to lie about the other. So it is expected by around 70% of Americans that Trump is going to lie and 65% of all Americans that Clinton will also lie. so the whole thing is irrelevant. Trump isn't going to persuade any voters by it as most knows he lies.
 
I fully expect Trump or any other politician to lie about things so they can attack. That is the way politics is played today. In the case of Trump and Clinton, both are disliked by approximately 60% of all America, they have no choice but to lie and sling mud at each other in an attempt to make the voters hate the other one more than they hate you.

Only 35% of all Americans think Clinton is truthful and Honest, 31% think Trump is truthful and honest.

http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1181a12016Election.pdf

That let's you know most Americans expect each to lie about the other. So it is expected by around 70% of Americans that Trump is going to lie and 65% of all Americans that Clinton will also lie. so the whole thing is irrelevant. Trump isn't going to persuade any voters by it as most knows he lies.

The "all politicians lie" thing is so lame.
 
Monday morning quarterbacking . . .

Perhaps, I was against Iraq from the beginning, but working at Ft. McPherson then once the decision was made did my utmost to make sure the invasion succeeded. I was for Afghanistan, but against nation building, but once again once the decision was made for nation building did my best to make sure it worked. I was totally against Libya and am still against trying to remove Assad from power. I am fully for defeating ISIS with whatever it takes Syria.
 
I think the point is, Trump and his campaign seem to be using this as one of their attacks against Clinton....that she supported the war. Does anyone smell hypocrisy?

And sorry, but yes it will influence voters unfortunately. Many, many voters are simply ignorant. They either wont, or are intellectually incapable of fact-checking on their own and more often than not follow along with mainstream and social media trends in "news".

Perhaps, but I think most voters minds are made up which in my opinion give Hillary the edge. Both sides have been more than hypercritical, so much so both candidates belong in the sewer or cesspool. Yeah, I see what you're getting at.
 
The Hillary plan is to defeat ISIS without using any US ground troops. That is simply insane.

If done right, not really. Oh we need FAC's and FO's on the ground much like we had when I was stationed in Laos and in the beginning of Afghanistan when we let the northern alliance do the ground fighting. But we need to use a whole lot more air power. Assad has the troops, ill trained for sure. But as proved in Laos, even with the very poor Royal Lao Army, massive air power can give them courage enough.

The question is one of will. This tit for tat airstrikes aren't going to cut it. What Clinton and Obama fail to see is that the longer one continues a war, the more destruction and death occurs. It is best to get it done and over with as fast as possible even if it means a huge amount of death and destruction at the get go, ala Desert Storm. That doing it that way will save lives in the long run. Again my two cents.
 
The "all politicians lie" thing is so lame.

Lame it may be, but it is the truth. There is a reason politicians fall way below used car salesmen when it comes to trust and telling the truth. They earned it.
 
If done right, not really. Oh we need FAC's and FO's on the ground much like we had when I was stationed in Laos and in the beginning of Afghanistan when we let the northern alliance do the ground fighting. But we need to use a whole lot more air power. Assad has the troops, ill trained for sure. But as proved in Laos, even with the very poor Royal Lao Army, massive air power can give them courage enough.

The question is one of will. This tit for tat airstrikes aren't going to cut it. What Clinton and Obama fail to see is that the longer one continues a war, the more destruction and death occurs. It is best to get it done and over with as fast as possible even if it means a huge amount of death and destruction at the get go, ala Desert Storm. That doing it that way will save lives in the long run. Again my two cents.

That assumes that your goal is to git-r-done and to stop the great Jihad wherever and using whatever it takes to do so rather than to piddle without "destabilizing the region".
 
That assumes that your goal is to git-r-done and to stop the great Jihad wherever and using whatever it takes to do so rather than to piddle without "destabilizing the region".

Destabilizing the region? I don't see how if one defeats and basically destroys ISIS in Syria, ISIS in Iraq if still there will bold. True, it means leaving Assad in charge of Syria which the majority of Syrian's want. As for the rest of the middle east, it is already destabilized so to speak. Perhaps with a bit of peace the middle east might be able to start getting its act together, but then again, maybe not.
 
Destabilizing the region? I don't see how if one defeats and basically destroys ISIS in Syria, ISIS in Iraq if still there will bold. True, it means leaving Assad in charge of Syria which the majority of Syrian's want. As for the rest of the middle east, it is already destabilized so to speak. Perhaps with a bit of peace the middle east might be able to start getting its act together, but then again, maybe not.

If they ever tire of fighting each other then Israel would be very nervous.
 
If they ever tire of fighting each other then Israel would be very nervous.

There are times when the shia vs. sunni feud over rides their hate of Israel. All this trouble in the middle east is a consequence of the western powers drawing up the country boundary lines after WWI of the old Ottoman Empire. It was done without regard to religion and tribes. Only a strongman can rule some of these countries. Saddam is a prime example in Iraq. He kept peace in Iraq with an iron fist.

But having a strongman as a ruler keeping a country together and at peace isn't confined to the middle east. Remember Tito did the same for Yugoslavia. Without Tito Yugoslavia broke apart and you had the Balkan's War. Qaddafi did the same with Libya. With strongmen in charge, being brutal at times there was relative peace.

There are times when removing one of these strongmen leads to chaos and more war and killings than if leave the strongman well enough alone. That is one lessen we will never learn.
 
So what has one's opinion 13 years ago have to do with one opinion now? Do you hold Hillary Clinton's vote to go to war against her? I don't, circumstances and people change. Perhaps what is more important is knowing why. Did they change due to convictions and changing circumstances and situations or did they do so to curry favor with voters and put forth a facade because it is convenient to do so at this time? Only Trump and Clinton know that answer for sure. The rest of us can only make an educated guess.

The problem is not so much whether Trump supported the Iraq War, even though he did. The problem is his flagrant dishonesty in refusing to admit that support. By contrast, HRC has been very candid about how she views the authorization of force vote as a mistake.
 
The problem is not so much whether Trump supported the Iraq War, even though he did. The problem is his flagrant dishonesty in refusing to admit that support. By contrast, HRC has been very candid about how she views the authorization of force vote as a mistake.

Yeah, I understand that now. I think I glossed right over that. But I am a cynical old fart who has become used to political candidates telling lies that I basically ignore them. Not being all that ideological, I tend to go with my gut when evaluating candidates. I think it has worked out most of the time. Not always, but most of the time.
 
Yeah, I understand that now. I think I glossed right over that. But I am a cynical old fart who has become used to political candidates telling lies that I basically ignore them. Not being all that ideological, I tend to go with my gut when evaluating candidates. I think it has worked out most of the time. Not always, but most of the time.

To tell you the truth, I wish that the media would trade their sensationalist coverage for hard scrutiny of the candidates of all parties--yes, including the Democrats. For instance, I didn't have a hard time with Matt Lauer's grilling of HRC last week, although he didn't manage his half hour efficiently by spending too much time on the emails issue. But then he goes and practically gives Trump a free pass--letting him get away with yet another lie about the Iraq War, not one time cutting him off like Lauer did to HRC, and tossing him some of the softest questions in the history of journalism.

Trump has not faced media pressure. He does not know what pressure is. That's why some people are predicting that he will wilt in the debates--IF the moderators actually do their jobs.
 
Donald Trump wasn't a member of Congress. There's no way he could support, or not support the decision to invade Iraq.
 
To tell you the truth, I wish that the media would trade their sensationalist coverage for hard scrutiny of the candidates of all parties--yes, including the Democrats. For instance, I didn't have a hard time with Matt Lauer's grilling of HRC last week, although he didn't manage his half hour efficiently by spending too much time on the emails issue. But then he goes and practically gives Trump a free pass--letting him get away with yet another lie about the Iraq War, not one time cutting him off like Lauer did to HRC, and tossing him some of the softest questions in the history of journalism.

Trump has not faced media pressure. He does not know what pressure is. That's why some people are predicting that he will wilt in the debates--IF the moderators actually do their jobs.

I too think elections should be about ideas, solutions to our problems, a vision of where each candidate wants to take America. Not as you put it, this sensationalism and the horse race. But we have a media that is interested in ratings and the bigger the viewership, the more money they make from their commercials. The media should be running clips from speeches showing each candidates stances on foreign policy, ISIS, the economy and jobs, etc. Not just emphasizing the latest poll of whom is leading who. I agree, the media is not doing their job of informing the people.

I don't know what the answer is.
 
I don't know if he did or didn't and I think it is irrelevant what one thought back in 2003. The same goes for Hillary Clinton back in 2003. People evolve and can change their minds as circumstances warrant and situations change. It is what they think today that is important. It would be nice for them to explain why they changed their minds, but I do think one should go by what they believe in or stand on the issues today, not 13 years ago.

Trump wasn't in power or running for anything in 2003 and any views or statements back then was as a private citizen. Clinton was a senator from New York and had a say in the resolution to use military force to oust Saddam or not. Clinton was in power, abet one of one hundred. Trump as I stated, only a private citizen expressing his views one way of the other.

I really do not care where each stood on Iraq back then. I will not vote for either.

But here's the problem with letting Trump off the hook for his past position on Iraq even as a private citizen.

Many people take it for granted that it is the Republican Party who is strong on national defense, vigorously supports our military and project decisive military power abroad. It's that last part that's important to this issue at-large.

By claiming that he was against the War in Iraq from the start, Trump is trying to convince voters that he was smarter than everyone else running for the position of Command-in-Chief, including most members of Congress which would include then Sen. Hillary R. Clinton. But he has a record verified through a few media sources that tell a completely opposite story.

So, if you allow him to have this pass, if the voters let him off the hook for this what you're really saying is his judgement in such matters where committing our troops to war or any other military conflict is perfectly okay because his views on such matters have simply "evolved" over time. NO! I'm not letting him off the hook so easily, especially when he's claimed to have access to better intelligence gathering as a private citizen than our government has. Alright, so he was really talking about business-related intelligence gathering against his business rivals or in the case of campaigning, against his political rivals rather than military intelligence. Still, because he left the matter so vague as he generally does I'm holding his feet to the fire.

Trump is trying to convince people not only that his instincts are better but also that he called the outcome of the War in Iraq long before anyone else and that's a bunch of bull! Not only did he not see it coming, he had no idea how things would end up any more than the next guy. Fact is, he's never said anything about the War in Iraq until the war had already started.
 
What difference does anybody's political lean make? He didn't initially support the Iraq war based on whether the person answering the poll is Republican, Democrat, or Zoroastrian. He simply did.

And the Queen of Corruption didn't? I think her vote in the United States Congress to go to war had more weight than an off hand remark by Trump.

Spin.....From factcheck.....Donald Trump and the Iraq War

There is no evidence that we could find, however, that he spoke against the war before it started, although we did find he expressed early concerns about the cost and direction of the war a few months after it started.

Others have looked, but no one else — including PolitiFact and the Washington Post Fact Checker — has been able to find any evidence to support his claims, either. Now, BuzzFeed reports that Trump indicated his support for war in a radio interview with shock jock Howard Stern on Sept. 11, 2002 — a little more than six months before the war started.

Stern asked Trump directly if he supported going to war with Iraq, and Trump hesitantly responded, “Yeah, I guess so.”

The left using the quote "Yeah, I guess so" as evidence that he was supporting the Iraq invasion when their candidate, Hillary Clinton actually voted to go to war is absurd. For god sake....Trump wasn't even in government service unlike the Queen of Corruption who lead the charge.
 
And the Queen of Corruption didn't? I think her vote in the United States Congress to go to war had more weight than an off hand remark by Trump.

Spin.....From factcheck.....Donald Trump and the Iraq War



The left using the quote "Yeah, I guess so" as evidence that he was supporting the Iraq invasion when their candidate, Hillary Clinton actually voted to go to war is absurd. For god sake....Trump wasn't even in government service unlike the Queen of Corruption who lead the charge.

So he supported it. And he lied.
 
But here's the problem with letting Trump off the hook for his past position on Iraq even as a private citizen.

Many people take it for granted that it is the Republican Party who is strong on national defense, vigorously supports our military and project decisive military power abroad. It's that last part that's important to this issue at-large.

By claiming that he was against the War in Iraq from the start, Trump is trying to convince voters that he was smarter than everyone else running for the position of Command-in-Chief, including most members of Congress which would include then Sen. Hillary R. Clinton. But he has a record verified through a few media sources that tell a completely opposite story.

So, if you allow him to have this pass, if the voters let him off the hook for this what you're really saying is his judgement in such matters where committing our troops to war or any other military conflict is perfectly okay because his views on such matters have simply "evolved" over time. NO! I'm not letting him off the hook so easily, especially when he's claimed to have access to better intelligence gathering as a private citizen than our government has. Alright, so he was really talking about business-related intelligence gathering against his business rivals or in the case of campaigning, against his political rivals rather than military intelligence. Still, because he left the matter so vague as he generally does I'm holding his feet to the fire.

Trump is trying to convince people not only that his instincts are better but also that he called the outcome of the War in Iraq long before anyone else and that's a bunch of bull! Not only did he not see it coming, he had no idea how things would end up any more than the next guy. Fact is, he's never said anything about the War in Iraq until the war had already started.

FYI all the wars started in the 20th Century started when a democrats was President...Wilson...WWI, Roosevelt....WWII, Korean War...Truman, Vietnam....Kennedy, Johnson....
 
Back
Top Bottom