Posted on 02/19/2016 1:44:06 PM PST by SoConPubbie
If he is lying about building a great big wall, then and only then will I stop supporting him. Until then, my most ideal candidate I’ve seen in my 70 years is unelectable, for the same reason that I am (both of us have spoken in church pulpits, on tape, about the exclusivity of Born-Again Christianity, and the absolute certainty of Armageddon and the end of the world as we know it). Cruz has it all, for me; unfortunately, 67% of this country are viscerally repulsed by the evangelical Christian tenets which are sure to come out in the general campaign. We are that marginalized. Game over.
Meanwhile, my biggest hope for the next 2 years is that a wall will be started, and finished expeditiously. That would be the first step in getting our country back.
Go Trump!
He had already become a politician having run for the reform party nomination. So your point is weaker than it was before.
So what??? That was 8 years ago...It wasn't LAST NIGHT as the article falsely accuses...Trump didn't lie last night...The article is a lie...
Big, Big money involved with the Bush Family and the Saudis via the Carlyle Group while little George was the President...The Bushes were making massive profits from their investments in Bahrainian oil wells...
Probably just a coincidence tho...
Actually he was thinking about it but never actually ran.
no one’s disagreeing with that. Wake up. Pay attention. You’re having a debate by yourself.
>>Wow, I am so glad I am not a Trump supporter. <<
Read this article and you’ll see Trump didn’t lie. Start with this paragraph. “I say this for an important reason.” It’d about one third of the way down.
Nope he ran
On October 19, 1999 Donald Trump announced he would file to appear on the California primary ballot.[11] During the California primary, he received 15,311 votes.
Trump lost it in that debate.
He never filed and dropped out.
What fine lines you draw. So he really wasn’t the politician when announced they would run that was just you know joshing around or something. And when he actually got votes in the primary that’s because people were confused because he’s not really a politician who announced he was going to run. I guess to be kind he is a politician depending on what the meaning what is is
Let’s cut the crap, hair splitting ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
The point is Bush may not have actually publicly said the words that there were WMD’s but there is certainly an inference of misrepresentations coming from the gov’t.
And even that is kind of missing the point here really. Bush’s own Treasury Secretary has said that one of the the first things on Bush’s agenda as the new President in 2001 was to invade Iraq and get Saddam and Bush charged his staff to go get a good reason to do it. Bush went into the presidency having already made up his mind to invade Iraq regardless.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/
Trump isn’t wrong about GWBush. I find the “hair splitting” and deflection with those that argue about it.
Said like a true CT fan. The fact that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq during and after the war seems to not dent the opinion of djt supporters 1 iota. That the President of the United States would set forth a policy to find good reason to deal with a known bad actor on the world stage one that had very recently used weapons of mass destruction and invaded a neighboring country may well seem abhorent to the 20/20 hindsight, and highly revisionist views of DJ T and his supporters for those of us who actually were adults at the time and watching what was happening and not Pollyannaist it was just good policy.
I don’t know what a CT fan is and I’m not saying this because I may support DJT. I’m not like a lot of folks around here who have symptoms of all-or-nothing thinking which is a pretty dysfunctional way of thinking. When I disagree with Trump and someone else I have no problem expressing my disagreement. Truth isn’t a personal, subjective issue, it is objective.
I’m saying this because I believe it to be true and I thought it BEFORE Bush decided to invade Iraq. I saw it right before my eyes. Bush seemed determined to go in and get Saddam regardless of if he could or could not come up with any valid reason and evidence seems to support that.
And America isn’t about invading a country because of a “known bad actor.” You should know that. That isn’t what America is about that. As O’Neill says, nobody on Bush’s staff asked Bush why he wanted to invade Iraq. Very likely it was because Bush was pissed because Saddam had tried to take his dad out a few years earlier in Kuwait. To me, it was Bush’s own private war that screwed a lot of things up. I’m pleasantly surprised that Trump gets that, but I’ve thought and said this long before knowing anything about Trump’s position.
I’m going to try to say this as politely as possible. Your statement is or at least seems to me to be I believe something I found evidence to back me up and all other evidence contrary to my belief is immaterial. Additionally somehow you know every single question comment and discussion made within the bush cabinet over multiple years I find that highly unlikely. For the most part our discussions although heated have been thoughtful I hope we can continue this.
Of course I don’t KNOW what went on behind closed doors but I had what I felt was a good idea and A LOT of evidence came out later that seemed to support what I was thinking.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/
Not just what O’Neill is saying, but the whole thing.
Not sure there’s much else to talk about. I feel I’ve exhausted my reasoning with you. If you still believe Bush invaded Iraq because he genuinely believed there were live and usable WMD’s that were a threat to America’s interests, then you have every right to believe that. For the myriad of reasons I’ve given, I think that is a fantasy. But that’s OK - it’s OK to disagree.
I do not believe that the WMD where the sole reason I think Saddam Hussein’s previous use of WMD made the many violations of the ceasefire he committed a far more salient threat. That he had in the past supported various forms of international terrorism was also part of the reason. The left has created a illusory worl d in which WMD were the sole reason for the invasion and removal of the government of a Iraq. I am NOT claiming nor implying that you are on the left just that you are using in part their argument.
Dictated with Voice
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.