Posted on 02/19/2016 1:44:06 PM PST by SoConPubbie
Some of them are too emotionally involved to ever give Trump credit for something they would otherwise agree with.
Besides, in 2 years, the Dr’s will just be starting to think about lowering their dosage of Thorasine
Source link? Vanity?
Hillarys minions are too busy praying they don’t get Berned
Common - you get the point. He’s running for public office which he obviously wasn’t doing back then - he was running a private business. I can’t believe the confusion people have about that.
Trump lies about everything. Don’t trust anything Trump says about anything.
They didn’t lie immediately. At first, they used the given definition of WMD, e.g. nuclear bomb, yellow cake, yadda. But then later, they realized Saddam didn’t have yellow cake. It was “yellow cake! yellow cake!” on and on. Then they realized, no yellow cake.
But yet, later when they realized no yellow cake, they still said yellow cake. So that was the liar phase.
Now it’s, Saddam gassed his people. Yeah, they do that.
That is not yellow cake.
Going after the Taliban in Afghanistan was what the American people figured is the response to 911. But then it became, take out Saddam of Iraq. It was a mistake, now we have a vacuum full of “Arab spring” terrorists, and elements worse than Saddam. It was a mistake.
Was I for going into Iraq, personally? Yeah, I guess so, but also maybe not. It didn’t fit, I mean, it seemed more about the Bush family and Saddam’s insults to the Bush family. So, really, “I guess” was my response then, but “I guess” really meant, “something isn’t right here”.
Damn Trump is good. That’s why I am voting for him. I suppose I will be told by the Trump haters I am hiding yellow cake in my yellow cake on my birthday.
Thursday 7 October 2004 06.35 EDT
There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
1,625 UN and US inspectors spent two years searching 1,700 sites at a cost of more than $1bn. Yesterday they delivered their verdict
Saddam Hussein destroyed his last weapons of mass destruction more than a decade ago and his capacity to build new ones had been dwindling for years by the time of the Iraq invasion, according to a comprehensive US report released yesterday.
The report, the culmination of an intensive 15-month search by 1,200 inspectors from the CIA’s Iraq Survey Group (ISG), concluded that Saddam had ambitions to restart at least chemical and nuclear programmes once sanctions were lifted.
However, concrete plans do not appear to have been laid down, let alone set in motion. Nor did Saddam issue direct verbal orders to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The main evidence of his intentions are his own cryptic remarks, and the meaning his aides inferred from them.
The ISG conclusions, delivered to Congress yesterday, are badly timed for George Bush’s re-election bid, as they starkly contradict his pre-war claims as well as statements he has made on the campaign trail.
Even in recent days the president has insisted that, although Iraq had no WMD at the time of the war, it was a “gathering threat” which had to be confronted. Instead the ISG found Saddam represented a diminishing threat.
However, Charles Duelfer, the head of the ISG and the report’s chief author, said that by late 2001, when the international embargo on Iraq was tightened, it was clear sanctions would not have contained Saddam for much longer.
Mr Duelfer told a Senate committee yesterday the Saddam regime “had made progress in eroding sanctions, and had it not been for September 11, things would have taken a very different turn for the regime”. He pointed out the report was comprehensive but “not final” as a team of 900 linguists were still sifting through a mountain of documents.
But Mr Duelfer, a former UN weapons inspector, added: “I still do not expect that militarily significant WMD stocks are hidden in Iraq.”
Tony Blair said that the report showed Saddam was seeking to develop weapons of mass destruction and had retained key scientists to do so.
Mr Blair said in Ethiopia that the report showed that “the situation is far more complicated than many thought. Just as I have had to accept that the evidence now shows that there were not stockpiles of actual weapons ready to deploy, I hope others will have the honesty to accept that the report also shows that sanctions were not working. On the contrary Saddam was doing his best to get round those sanctions”.
Iraq had pesticide plants and other chemical facilities which could have been converted to the production of chemical weapons, the ISG found, but there was no clear evidence of such plans.
Meanwhile, Saddam appears to have lost interest altogether in biological weapons. “ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW [biological warfare] programme or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes,” the report concluded, adding that “there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the presidential level”.
Iraq would therefore “have faced great difficulty in re-establishing an effective BW agent production capability”.
As far as making a nuclear bomb was concerned, Mr Duelfer said Saddam “was further away in 2003 than he was in 1991. So the nuclear programme was decaying steadily”.
Mr Duelfer’s team did find evidence that Saddam wanted to restart his weapons programmes if the United Nations embargo on his country was lifted. However, none of that evidence was on paper. The primary source was the imprisoned dictator himself.
According to Mr Duelfer, Saddam saw WMD primarily as a counterbalance to Iran’s programmes. The ousted dictator reportedly told his interrogators “he would do whatever it took to offset the Iranian threat, making it clear he was referring to Iran’s nuclear capability”, Mr Duelfer said.
He suggested that only the ousted leader knew what his weapons plans were and that even close aides were uncertain whether Iraq had WMD or not.
The Duelfer report found that there had been no “identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam.
“Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.”
In the 12 years between the first and second Gulf wars, however, an American official who helped compile the report said, it was clear that UN sanctions had been effective in persuading Saddam to disarm.
Mr Duelfer said Saddam’s “prime objective was the termination of UN sanctions on Iraq. And he weighed all policy actions and steps for their impact on this overarching objective”.
Saddam apparently believed WMD had stopped the US marching on Baghdad in 1991 and had prevented defeat by Iran.
A separate CIA report, leaked to the US press this week, severely weakened the Bush claim of a link between Baghdad and al-Qaida. It found no clear evidence of Iraq harbouring Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist believed to be behind many of the attacks and now holding the British hostage, Kenneth Bigley.
In all, 1,625 US and UN inspectors were working in Iraq for two years - from November 2002 to September 2004 - at a cost of over $1bn. They searched nearly 1,700 sites.
Bush didn’t lie, he had his flunkies do it for him. Thanks W for the wars, deficits and Obama! Oh and thanks George for your “service”.
You know what is happening? Trump is a pathological liar. Not many have every word they say scrutinized and played back to them.
I don’t know what happens when a pathological liar can no longer accept that they can’t manipulate people and I will research it, but I doubt it’s pretty and I pity his wife.
So ehen one runs for office...all statments made before that become non operative? How convenient.
Do you know what a non sequitur is?
Have you forgotten the stories about the chemical weapon cache discoveries and disposals? I haven't. Or are only nukes WMDs now?
Depends on how long ago he said it and why. He’s in a totally different ballgame here. BTW, did Trump actually say Bush lied?
“They” did lie. Rove and bunch said there were no WMDs AFTER the NY Times said that there were WMDs.
So, did they lie in the beginning? Or did they lie later?
Oh really? No yellow cake, huh? You ought to research things just a little before you make such definitive statements:
This report, from 2004:
http://legacy.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/world/iraq/20040115-1419-netherlands-uranium.html
(The scrap metal was removed from the site of a bombing in Iraq.)
And a supporting article, also from 2004, from USA Today, which was no friend of the Bush administration:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-01-16-netherlands_x.htm
Note that this one, from 2008, is from NBC: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/
(See the reference to the Iraqi nuclear program, which wasn’t in Iraq and, like the Iranian nuclear program, wasn’t about nuclear power.)
Read this article and let me know what you think...
http://blogs.psychcentral.com/caregivers/2014/09/6-subtle-characteristics-of-the-pathological-liar/
Ok. So how long is the statue of limitations on a statement ?do you have to be an adult is it 10 years 15 years 18 years 34 months just curious. And yes he did when you say they lied you are calling them liars since part of them he was speaking of was George W Bush yes he called GW Bush a liar
Saying the Bush Administration lied is not the same thing as saying Bush lied. Did Trump actually call Bush a liar?
Not to be confused with Non sequitur (literary device).
Non sequitur (Latin for ‘it does not follow’), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.
In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.
All invalid arguments are special cases of non sequitur.
The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many types of logical fallacies.
And so that’s your point?
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.