Posted on 02/19/2016 6:35:00 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Six days ago in South Carolina, Donald Trump blasted George W. Bush for invading Iraq, claiming that he had opposed the war all along. When pressed for specific instances of public opposition to the war, Trump insisted that he had made his feelings known to people he knew at the time, but that since he wasn’t involved in politics at the time, those conversations were never recorded for posterity. Buzzfeed’s Andrew Kaczynski managed to find one recording from the first anniversary of 9/11 in 2002, and Trump had a very different take on the Iraq war than he now claims:
But in a 2002 interview with Howard Stern, Donald Trump said he supported an Iraq invasion. In the interview, which took place on Sept. 11, 2002, Stern asked Trump directly if he was for invading Iraq.
"Yeah I guess so," Trump responded. "I wish the first time it was done correctly."
Kaczynski also found a passage in a book Trump wrote in 2000 in which he demanded a “principled and tough” policy applied to rogue states, including Iraq. In that passage, he alludes to the same dissatisfaction with the conclusion of the 1991 Gulf War. "But the fact is, if we decide a strike against Iraq is necessary, it is madness not to carry the mission to its conclusion,” Trump wrote. “When we don't, we have the worst of all worlds: Iraq remains a threat, and now has more incentive than ever to attack us."
That was a common criticism of the US policy on Iraq at the time — on the Right, which wanted a conclusion that would have removed Saddam Hussein altogether. That also contradicts another Trump statement, in which he credited George H. W. Bush for his limited intervention.
This story broke while CNN conducted a townhall event with Trump as one of the participants. Anderson Cooper challenged Trump with his 2002 quotes, and Trump responded by saying he may have been for the invasion before it happened, but he opposed it afterward:
COOPER: Again, continuing. I literally was just handed this. There’s a report now out tonight on Buzzfeed that includes – I have not heard it – includes an audio clip of what appears to be you on Howard Stern talking on the radio on September 11th, 2002. He asked you are you for invading Iraq? You said yeah, I guess so. You know, I wish the first time it was done correctly. Is that accurate? Do you remember saying that?
TRUMP: No. But, I mean, I could – I could have said that. Nobody asked me – I wasn’t a politician. It was probably the first time anybody asked me that question.
COOPER: But does that…
TRUMP: But by the time the war started – that was quite a bit before the war started.
COOPER: Yeah, this was 2002.
TRUMP: By the time the war started, I was against the war. And there are articles – I mean, there are headlines in 2003, 2004 that I was totally against the war. And actually, a couple of people in your world in terms of the pundits, said, you know, there’ definite proof in 2003, 2004 Trump was against it.
COOPER: But 2004, the Reuters article, which you pointed to a lot, and there were a couple of comments you made, I think, at a Vanity Fair party and one other comment. Those were, I think, a couple of weeks after the war began.
TRUMP: Which is OK. A lot of people said – you know, it was so early that even if it was a little bit after the war, I mean, he was totally against the war. I was very much against it. That was probably the first time I was ever even asked about the war.
This is a strange answer. “I guess so” isn’t exactly passionate support, but it’s clear that Trump didn’t oppose it before the war started. By September 2002, Congress had begun debating the AUMF that would allow Bush to launch an invasion of Iraq, so it was hardly an esoteric topic at that moment, and one would think especially for New Yorkers. Trump would hardly be alone in the category of people who supported the war initially and then changed their minds later, but that’s not what Trump claimed on Saturday. He claimed that he’d always been opposed to it as a way of presenting his judgment as superior to both Jeb and George Bush. It’s not just a flip-flop, it’s a deliberate misrepresentation. At the very least, it demonstrates an appallingly facile approach to policy even when it is most consequential.
Under normal circumstances, this kind of revelation would damage a politician. These aren’t normal circumstances, however. Trump is giving vent to widespread anger and frustration over the collapse of the Iraq project, even if he’s aiming at the wrong president for that issue. September 2002 won’t be relevant to most of those voters.
You article is all speculation. Evidence says otherwise.
So I should believe you instead of my lying ears, right?
“Trumpinator”.
You’re a completely neutral observer. You’re not biased at all, right?
Ya think? What gave it away? Who said I was neutral?
Did Trump say this on Tuesday or a Wednesday and which way was the wind blowing that days?
We need someone who can think clearly but alas we only have Donald Trump.
Hoping he appoints smart people to keep him in check.
We could end up with Hillary or Donald.
Both are complete BS-ers. There is no disputing that Donald “speaks his mind.” The problem is that he changes that mind every time he goes around the block.
I guess the GOP refused to stop Obamacare in 2009 & 2014 because Trump was polling at 5%.
If the GOP starts taking orders from Trump now when he’s at 35% there might be a point.
A felon who attempts to purchase a firearm is still in violation of his parole. That is what Saddam was doing with the ‘peace agreement’ from the first Gulf War, he was violating the peace and returning to war, even if he did not obtain the weapons he sought.
“I’d guess” would be a good campaign slogan for tRump. He has no conservative convictions that he wouldn’t immediately abandon if he guessed some other position would be more advantageious....as he has done throughout his public life depending the on the way the wind blew.
RE: The more Trump talks, the more these historical cartoons apply to him ... as much as they once did to Mitt
Absolutely
You post that often. Illumination, not argument!!
Cruz - TPA
“Enough is enough. I cannot vote for TPA unless McConnell and Boehner both commit publicly to allow the Ex-Im Bank to expire—and stay expired. And, Congress must also pass the Cruz-Sessions amendments to TPA to ensure that no trade agreement can try to back-door changes to our immigration laws. Otherwise, I will have no choice but to vote no.
There’s too much corporate welfare, too much cronyism and corrupt dealmaking, by the Washington cartel. For too long, career politicians in both parties have supported government of the lobbyist, by the lobbyist, and for the lobbyist – at the expense of the taxpayers. It’s a time for truth. And a time to honor our commitments to the voters.”
Take care.........pilgrim
Cruz knows what's in TPP yet he actively worked for fast track to grease the skids for TPP which threatens our sovereignty, freedom, and trade. Even has a Intellectual Property chapter to shut down Drudge.
Cruz knew this when he along with Paul Ryan argued for TPA.
Ted Cruz joins the establishment
Ted's good at making a side issue very public as in the Ex-Im Bank argument but it's Kabuki theater. Obamatrade is a disaster, possibly worse for the country than Obamacare because you're bringing foreign regulators into it yet both Cruz and Rubio supported it along the way. In fact, Cruz only got out of the final vote because they no longer needed him. Rubio took the dive:
Marco Rubio Casts Deciding Vote For Obamatrade Without Even Reading It
This is how Washington has played us for years, time to wake up.
Did he or did he not vote against it?
Wow, did you read any of the links I’ve ever posted.
Cruz wrote an article arguing for TPA, wanted to give Obama increased powers and pushed hard for fast track. Then, when needed, he voted to bring it out of cloture.
The fact that he got out of the final vote doesn’t clear him. That’s like Pontius Pilate washing his hands after he set every thing in motion.
Wasn’t trying to change your mind, know that will not happen. Have read the articles.
“Since the Senate first voted on TPA, there have been two material changes.
First, WikiLeaks subsequently revealed new troubling information regarding the Trade in Services Agreement, or TiSA, one of the trade deals being negotiated by Obama.
Despite the administration’s public assurances that it was not negotiating on immigration, several chapters of the TiSA draft posted online explicitly contained potential changes in federal immigration law. TPA would cover TiSA, and therefore these changes would presumably be subject to fast-track.”
They knew until WikiLeaks leaked.
Some candidates are allowed to change positions and others are not. That is clear.
Thanks for the “Pontius Pilate” comparison, clears things up more.
Hope your day is a great one.
Take care.........pilgrim
Appreciate the civil discourse. Can’t say I’m not trying to change your mind though as I’m desperate to change Washington.
Anyway, thanks again for a reasonable discussion.
Thanks, the last sentence from you consider a compliment.
Know the feeling re: Washington!!!
(I see people post a lot of things that are not true. One was
Cruz stole building a wall position from Trump.
Trump was first on the wall. Etc. I ask for confirmation and there is none.)
Just want the full account or picture, to be the reason for support, not just half.
Thanks again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.