- Joined
- Jun 30, 2015
- Messages
- 13,914
- Reaction score
- 4,086
- Location
- Oregon
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Yesterday, Trump said Obama "founded" ISIS and re-iterated his colossal lie about his opposition to the Iraq War before the war started. Here's the truth about this lying POS:
Donald Trump and the Iraq War
Highlights:
"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.” "
"Jan. 28, 2003: Trump appears on Fox Business’ “Your World with Neil Cavuto,” on the night of President Bush’s State of the Union address. Trump says he expects to hear “a lot of talk about Iraq and the problems,” and the economy. He urges Bush to make a decision on Iraq. “Either you attack or you don’t attack,” he says. But he offers no opinion on what Bush should do. "
Two days after the invasion:
"March 21, 2003: Neil Cavuto of Fox Business interviews Trump about the impact of the Iraq war on the stock market. Trump says the war “looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint,” and he predicts the market will “go up like a rocket” after the war. But Cavuto does not ask Trump whether the U.S. should have gone to war with Iraq and Trump doesn’t offer an opinion."
Even in July, when it was becoming obvious that the war was arleady not going as advertised, Trump's only concern was the financial cost not the adverse consequences of a failed war in the region:
"July 1, 2003: Trump appears on “Hardball with Chris Matthews” and expresses concern about money being spent in Iraq rather than in the U.S. He made his comment when he was asked about a quote Trump gave in February 2000 about the possibility of running for president."
And as late as Dec. 2003, Trump was praising the fall of Saddam:
"Dec. 15, 2003: Neil Cavuto of Fox Business interviews Trump two days after the capture of Iraq President Saddam Hussein. Hussein was captured on Dec. 13, 2003, a Saturday when the markets were closed. Trump says Hussein’s capture was a “great thing” for the country, but he mentions that “a lot of people [are] questioning” the wisdom of going to war with Iraq in the first place."--Note: even then he refers to "a lot of people" instead of his own views, a habit he still loves today.
I know it's part of the rightwing's value system to elevate and encourage lying at all levels of their politics but it's always good to review just how dedicated they are to the lie.
Do you really think it's just right-wingers that lie?
Have you ever heard about Hillary Clinton?
Moderator's Warning: |
Yesterday, Trump said Obama "founded" ISIS and re-iterated his colossal lie about his opposition to the Iraq War before the war started. Here's the truth about this lying POS:
Donald Trump and the Iraq War
Highlights:
"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.” "
"Jan. 28, 2003: Trump appears on Fox Business’ “Your World with Neil Cavuto,” on the night of President Bush’s State of the Union address. Trump says he expects to hear “a lot of talk about Iraq and the problems,” and the economy. He urges Bush to make a decision on Iraq. “Either you attack or you don’t attack,” he says. But he offers no opinion on what Bush should do. "
Two days after the invasion:
"March 21, 2003: Neil Cavuto of Fox Business interviews Trump about the impact of the Iraq war on the stock market. Trump says the war “looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint,” and he predicts the market will “go up like a rocket” after the war. But Cavuto does not ask Trump whether the U.S. should have gone to war with Iraq and Trump doesn’t offer an opinion."
Even in July, when it was becoming obvious that the war was arleady not going as advertised, Trump's only concern was the financial cost not the adverse consequences of a failed war in the region:
"July 1, 2003: Trump appears on “Hardball with Chris Matthews” and expresses concern about money being spent in Iraq rather than in the U.S. He made his comment when he was asked about a quote Trump gave in February 2000 about the possibility of running for president."
And as late as Dec. 2003, Trump was praising the fall of Saddam:
"Dec. 15, 2003: Neil Cavuto of Fox Business interviews Trump two days after the capture of Iraq President Saddam Hussein. Hussein was captured on Dec. 13, 2003, a Saturday when the markets were closed. Trump says Hussein’s capture was a “great thing” for the country, but he mentions that “a lot of people [are] questioning” the wisdom of going to war with Iraq in the first place."--Note: even then he refers to "a lot of people" instead of his own views, a habit he still loves today.
I know it's part of the rightwing's value system to elevate and encourage lying at all levels of their politics but it's always good to review just how dedicated they are to the lie.
Is it possible for you to address the questions that arise based on what the OP wrote? Hillary's been grilled for the last 25 years by the GOP; a quarter century of crying wolf by making false accusations and conducting disingenuous investigations, none of which have ever resulted in a fine or indictment. At this point, until she's found guilty of something, the only reasonable thing to do is wait and see if anything like that actually occurs. So in the meantime, what about Trump?
This thread is VERY poor form.
The distinctions between the candidates have been set and quite clear for a while. Trump is the buffoon, walking gaffe, unethical businessman, and bigoted blowhard. Hillary Clinton is the lying and corrupt insider. Once we start allowing either candidate to move in on the other's turf it totally screws up the well established narratives an this whole election cycle will get thrown into chaos.
Do you really think it's just right-wingers that lie?
Have you ever heard about Hillary Clinton?
Do you really think it's just right-wingers that lie?
Have you ever heard about Hillary Clinton?
This thread is VERY poor form.
The distinctions between the candidates have been set and quite clear for a while. Trump is the buffoon, walking gaffe, unethical businessman, and bigoted blowhard. Hillary Clinton is the lying and corrupt insider. Once we start allowing either candidate to move in on the other's turf it totally screws up the well established narratives an this whole election cycle will get thrown into chaos.
After the vacuum of Iraq, there was Libya which I know were air strikes but I am sure there were arming of a group that followed American interests. The same thing happened with Syria. We armed the rebels, and we even hired mercenaries, to fight the establishment of Syria, Hassad I believe. Well, considering all the hardware we left after the Iraq war, meaning mortars, humvies, what-have-you - compounded with the fact that we armed these groups of people, they eventually started to control and learned how to refine oil. This oil is even bought today by western nations, the very nations they have attacked. And ISIL is born. Weapons manufacturer's dream, no? We are spending money to financially aid your enemy that you are being paid to blow up.
In essence, Obama did start ISIL, but it wasn't his intention.
Obama in 2011 bragged about Iraq being " stable, Democratic and Sovereign ", amd then he pulled out all US forces and did NOTHING as ISIS ran roughshod through once liberted Iraqi cities killing men, women and children.
Trumps right on the money .
Oh, I'm certainly aware of the FACT that there are far, far more lies ABOUT Clinton from rightwing liars than she may have ever told. If you want a world in which no politician has ever told a lie, you'll need to create it in your imagination.
Oh, it's all about the money. You got something right for once. Notice in the summary of Trump's comments about the war before and after it started had only to do with how the war might affect his finances. But to the point of Obama completing the pull out of US forces (started during the Bush years and demanded by the Iraqi government) what was your alternative? How many troops would you have left in Iraq and how many of them dead would you take responsibility for?
The standard is that Obama should have been able to clean up the Republican mess in Iraq without a hitch. Here's how:
1. He should have dishonored the agreement made by the U.S. government with the Iraqi government and kept 150,000 troops there.
2. He should have upped the intelligence apparatus in Iraq to be on the lookout for potential new terrorist groups, or his intelligence should have been able to predict that ISIS was going to become what it did.
2A: Based on that, we should have been capable of stopping it before it began
3. Obama should have also made sure that American soldiers didn't get killed while exercising 1 & 2
4. He should have made sure no money was spent on 1 & 2.
5. Etcetera
In short, the bar isn't just set at one high place. It's a movable bar that is continually raised. For example, ISIS has suffered tremendous losses, been pushed back, and they are, for U.S. purposes, contained (while suffering minimal American losses in the process). But that's still an utter failure because ISIS has not become totally nonexistent.
Perhaps this will help you.
Not at all like the bombasting. It's lying about actual facts.
But then again, perhaps it won't help you.
Comey's just about the worst back up you could have picked. In his congressional testimony he said things that he completely reversed on in his comments on July 5 and thereafter. But, of course, it's just that duplicity that would make him a "trusted" rightwing source.
Comey's just about the worst back up you could have picked. In his congressional testimony he said things that he completely reversed on in his comments on July 5 and thereafter. But, of course, it's just that duplicity that would make him a "trusted" rightwing source.
The Clinton Crime family got to him, of course he changed his tune, now we can add witness tampering to the litany of charges that should be brought up against Hillary.
Your diversion away from how terribly Hillary lied about the whole thing is noted.
Before you is video of Comey's press statement and video of Hillary's lies, yet you don't accept what's before you own very eyes.
Perhaps your eyes are blinded by partisanship or something?
Even your beloved republican flying monkeys in congress couldn't come up with anything on Hillary in either of their kangaroo "investigations" (i.e., Benghazi and the emails). And it's hilarious that you think you're not partisan because that comment indicated rampant hyperpartisanism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?