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.
If we wait long enough he will change his position again. Trump is a code pink republican
How many times does the same thing need tp be posted? Do a search before you post.
Trump is right about Iraq.
Lol Trump is all over the place. I never said he was accurate. What mattets is what policies he pushes in office. Weve been electing so-called conservatives based on what they say they will do on the campaign trail or actions in the past and they have repeatedly failed expectations. For the record, im leaning towards Kasich, but would also support Trump or Cruz. Just cant let a dem win in the fall.
RE: How many times does the same thing need tp be posted?
I can only search the TITLE, it came out empty.
At any rate, there are viewers and readers who missed the original post ( with a different title ). This is for them.
You are free to ignore this post if you wish ( but for some reason, you did not ).
Kasich? Seriously?! Pffffttt
And yours is a good point. But Trump brought this left wing talking point up as his way to bash a Bush. Now, he’s coming up with a lot of diversionary balderdash.
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” Ex-President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” Ex-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.” Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” Senator John Edwards (D-NC), October 10, 2002
“While the distance between the United States and Iraq is great, Saddam Hussein’s ability to use his chemical and biological weapons against us is not constrained by geography - it can be accomplished in a number of different ways - which is what makes this threat so real and persuasive.” Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), October 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
“The essential facts are known. We know of the weapons in Saddam’s possession: chemical, biological, and nuclear in time. We know of his unequaled willingness to use them. We know his history. His invasions of his neighbors. His dreams of achieving hegemonic control over the Arab world. His record of anti-American rage. His willingness to terrorize, to slaughter, to suppress his own people and others. We need not stretch to imagine nightmare scenarios in which Saddam makes common cause with the terrorists who want to kill us Americans and destroy our way of life.” Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), September 13, 2002
“Make no mistake: Saddam Hussein is a ruthless tyrant, and he must give up his weapons of mass destruction. We support the President in the course he has followed so far: working with Congress, working with the United Nations, insisting on strong and unfettered inspections. We must convince the world that Saddam Hussein is not America’s problem alone; he is the world’s problem. And we urge President Bush to stay this course for we are far stronger when we stand with other nations than when we stand alone.” Governor Gary Locke (D-WA), January 28, 2003 Democratic Response to President Bush’s “State of the Union” address
I know he is borning, but i dont see a George Washington in the wings who ran a rather large plantation while fighting our emerging natuons wars. Thats my high bar. lol
March, 2003, shortly after the war began and was going well:
Looking as pensive as a “Nightline” talking head, the Donald concludes, “The war’s a mess,” before sweeping off into the crowd.
********
March 25 would have been 5 days after the war started.
It's important to note when they lie about what they said in the past. What they say today is irrelevant when they're lying.
“What mattets is what policies he pushes in office.”
How can we have any idea what policies he will push when he’s been all over the map switching positions?
“Weve been electing so-called conservatives based on what they say they will do on the campaign trail or actions in the past and they have repeatedly failed expectations.”
Not for the Presidency. We haven’t elected a conservative president in 30 years, and the conservatives we elect to Congress are a minority who can’t do much.
As long as he’s a candidate, the Stern tapes are going to continuously keep popping up to undermine Trump. In his recurring appearances back then, Trump came across as arrogant and sleazy, particularly his attitudes towards the women he was banging. Stern is uniquely talented in getting his guests to reveal their true selves. And Stern archives and indexes every minute of every show he’s ever done. They are a time bomb for team Trump.
Do you just ignore the things he has advocated for?
Universal Health Care?
General fast track Amnesty?
Big Government solutions?
Continued indefinite federal control over most of the land in the Western United States?
Neutrality between Israel and the Palestinians?
What policies do you think he is going to implement that are "conservative"?
He is looked upon by many as the Conservative Messiah, but he is not now nor has he ever been a conservative. In religious parlance he is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Taken out of context, It was 2002, he’s not a politician, had not yet formed his views on the question, had not collected enough information to form a solid opinion, first time asked the question and his response was “I guess, maybe ...”. By 2003/2004, he had collected enough information and was solidly against invading Iraq.
If Trump based his conclusion on data coming from governments that was a false and possibly a lie, then you can’t fault him for his conclusion at the time.
I agree. Everyone on both parties wee pretty much on board except those staking out political identity and campaign funding.
Remind me again why we can’t stand Mitt?
“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’s definite proof in 2003, 2004 Trump was against it.”
So where’s all the headlines?
Here's some campaign advice, Cruz, talk about the issues as they are now. And btw, why don't you talk about bringing jobs back and renegotiating trade. Because your sponsors won't let you? Like TPA maybe:
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.