Posted on 08/25/2015 10:21:05 AM PDT by justlittleoleme
Business mogul Donald Trump told CNN Wednesday House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should have sought to impeach President Bush when she had the chance.
In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Trump said the president and his administration deliberately lied about the Iraq war, and congressional Democrats missed an opportunity to impeach him when the party took control of Congress in 2006.
"I was surprised that she didn't do more in terms of Bush and going after Bush," Trump said. "It was almost - it just seemed like she was going to really look to impeach Bush and get him out of office, which personally I think would have been a wonderful thing."
Pressed why he feels Bush deserved the punishment faced by only two other commanders-in-chief, Trump said the president misled the country in the run-up to the Iraq war, and that his actions were considerably more objectionable than those which led to the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.
"He lied. He got us into the war with lies," Trump said. And I mean - look at the trouble Bill Clinton got into with something that was totally unimportant. And they tried to impeach him, which was nonsense. And yet Bush got us into this horrible war with lies, by lying, by saying they had weapons of mass destruction, by saying all sorts of things that turned out not to be true."
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
Or Reichland security.
I see a lot of cognitive dissonance among GW Bush supporters. On the one hand, they (rightly) dismiss Romney, McCain, and even Jeb as RINO trash, and yet they defend someone as liberal as Romney and MCain until they're blue in the face.
Those quotes in bold type are eye-opening and sobering.
Still trying to keep an open mind about this guy.
What I’m beginning to see is folks are willing and eager to make excuses for Trump’s past views that would be unthinkable were they held by another Republican.
It’s a cost/benefit decision we primary voters need to make. What do we want, and what are we willing to give up to get it?
I think the president sexually assaulting someone and then lying about it under oath is pretty important.
Because in our country, even the “little people” are supposed to count.
Found an old post on this on FR from 2008:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2705802/posts
Wonder what Trump’s du screen name was then?
I had two brothers who were there. It was definitely not an after the fact story.
Not that I’m defending the actions or Bush, but accuracy is important.
It’s all relative, you know?
I don’t think the Saudis will quite own The Donald like they did the Bushes tho.
My pro-Trump stand is the exact same as Sarah Palin’s pro-Trump stand.
The more I get reminded of this stuff, the more I wonder what best fallback/alternative candidate we have.
If it weren’t for their all being squishy-deceptive on illegal immigration (that is, if the GOPe hadn’t rigged the race), we’d have some good options.
For example, I want to like Jindal and thought his first debate performance was as impressive as anyone’s, but then he puts this cryptic mush of an immigration ad in the last 24 hours:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bobby-jindal-unveils-new-immigration-web-ad/article/2570760
I mean, it sounds like he’s trying to get tough by telling the law-breaking illegals to learn English, not commit felonies, and keep doing those jobs that Americans don’t want to do.
A McCain/Kerry ticket in the middle of the Iraq war, both of them veterans, running against the AWOL Bush and chicken hawk Cheney, was formidable. They were polling 14 points ahead of Bush in ‘04.
Rove made a deal with McCain to loan him the Bushbots Nicolle Wallace, Mark Wallace and Steve Schmidt if he would not run with Kerry in 04, but rather, wait until 08.
Sure ‘nuff — McCain called Schmidt the night after the ‘06 mid terms to start his ‘08 campaign.
It has nothing to do with being there.
The idea that the Iraq invasion was only about Iraqi WMDs was promoted after the fact. That is a fact. Before the invasion there were a number of reasons given for doing it. So much so that Bush was criticized by the press for not focusing on a single compelling reason.
When they decided to go to the UN, they had to decide how to make the case, and for the purposes of UN buy-in they made a decision to only focus on the WMDs. That was a conscious decision, covered in the press at the time. That can only be a decision if there were other reasons too, which there were.
Since then people have acted like WMDs were the whole story, but it never was. Just because that was the focus of the UN presentation doesn't mean the other reasons went away.
My stance on Trump is -- as long as his voice about dealing with the problem with illegals is useful, more power to him. But trust him with the levers of Presidential power... no way.
“Caitlyn Trump 2016! “
Well Bruce-Caitlyn did say he/she was a conservative-Republican
Whaaat? He actually said that? That Clinton was the best President in his lifetime?
Was he HIGH?
Their policies in office would have been exactly the same as Bush’s.
I know.
You do understand that there were WMD, that the CONGRESS funds Planned Parenthood, and that calling for a President to be impeached because “he lied” is only parroting liberal talking points that have been categorically disproven?
Right. Horrible.
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.