Posted on 02/18/2016 6:37:53 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Surely, to all but Donald Trump's ardent supporters – which, sadly, probably is all of them – there can be no doubt, after Saturday's Republican debate, that except on the sole issue of immigration, Trump is a Democrat. Space and the need to stay on point preclude listing all of the Democratic talking points Trump parroted in South Carolina, so this essay focuses on the most egregious one – the "Bush lied, people died" libel – and on Trump's view, unfortunately shared by many Republicans, that, the Iraq war was, in Trump's words, a "big mistake" and that "we got nothing out of it."
First, as Powerline's Paul Mirengoff writes, there is no evidence that Trump opposed the Iraq pre-invasion (emphases added):
Last night, Donald Trump repeated his claim that "I'm the only one on the stage that said we should not go into Iraq." As I've pointed out before, however, there is no credible evidence that Trump said any such thing.
Trump voiced public opposition to the war for the first time… in the summer of 2004… [by which time] he was following a fairly large pack.
[O]pposing our actions in Iraq once they went pear-shaped is just Monday morning quarterbacking — a Trump specialty.
Second, the Democrats' (and Trump's, but the writer repeats himself) accusation that Bush ordered the Iraq invasion knowing that there were no WMD is flat-out false. In fact, Bush was skeptical until then-CIA director George Tenet assured Bush that, based on CIA intelligence, Saddam's possession of WMD was "a slam dunk."
As to Trump's criticism that Bush "failed to prevent 9/11" (and was therefore responsible for 9/11?), here is Tenet again (emphasis added):
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Coming from a defender of Bush, whose "compassionate conservatism" was basically just a watered-down version of LBJ-style liberalism, this is a little too much.
This guy also seems to believe that support for the Iraq war is some kind of litmus test for conservatism, which it isn't. For one thing, plenty of liberals (like Hillary) supported the war then, only they hypocritically backtracked because the war became unpopular. Second, support/opposition for wars seems to depend a lot more on whose party is advocating it than on the war itself: most Republicans (correctly) opposed Obama's intervention in Libya, I'm sure that if a Republican President had done the same thing, they would have opposed it and Democrats would have been supportive.
No argument there, just explaining “why” we didn’t “officially” go after Saddam.
RE: Defending W’s record is not the hill to die on for any candidate.
I posted this article NOT to defend or attack Bush.
I simply want to hear both sides of the issue as to why deposing Saddam was a good/bad decision.
“Ok class......One Question Quiz today:
Who would you rather have in-place in IRAQ?
ISIS? or SADDAM?”
Who was President the last 8 years? Bush or Obama?
What year is this? 2008 or 2016?
Because the Saudis told us not to. And when the Saudis say “Jump!” the Bushes say, “How High?”
Think of all the US dollars spent in buying Arab oil... and government dirt worshipers proclaimed Alaskan oil a 'holy site'. Our government whores do the bidding of their donors... and our government whores have sold US out... Government use to be 'We the people'. Our civil society cornerstones, Government/politics, education, Economy, and yes Religion, have been totally corrupted from the top down.
Personally I do not think 'coalition' or not GHWBush should have messed with Iraq under the conditions he allowed to be required... It would seem the person carrying the weight of blood and treasury should have the say about how the action would be done...
We know some sick US serviceman who served over there and they say he got cancer from what was over there. It’s a bit of a sensitive situation so I never try to pry out more information.
There’s lots of blame to go around if one says this.
The Syrian regime allowed Jihadis camps and planning from Syria, the sponsor of the Syrian regime is of course, Russia.
Historic fact, is the Bush admin. complained to Syria and considered expanding the war into Syria.
I find it a bit shocking how many stop thinking critically when somebody challenges a statement made by “their man”.
Iraq, most likely, would have been fine if Obama had followed through on the success we had achieved. He didn’t. He deliberately squandered it. It is what I despise about him the most, he wasted the blood of our men and women in uniform that had given their lives.
To all the geniuses out there, if Obama hadn’t given up and Iraq was stable, would you be saying it was a mistake? What would the alternate consequences have been if Saddam was still in power? Do you forget the jail-of-fear that Iraqi’s were living in? The rape, torture, horror of living in that society. The ties to terrorism he had. The oil for food corruption. That we DID find THOUSANDS of chemical munitions. The hundreds of tons of YELLOWCAKE in his backyard, all “safety” contained by the U.N. (lol).
You can be a Trump supporter without thinking the ground he walked on is now holy.
Bush should have taken into account that fact that a subsequent administration wouldn’t have been so keen on staying in Iraq.
Since W is one of Jeb's sole remaining supporters, I think Jeb would strongly disagree with you.
Well said, a lot of us have had to point out the reasoning on the Iraq war and the ramifications for years before last Saturday’s debate.
But now, it’s all about Trump.
Well Jeb is going to die on that hill.
Biden declared Iraq a victory. So, there is blame to go around but I hope people are fair in their analysis.
Yes, it seems that the Democratically elected government of Shiites did wrong, plenty of it, themselves.
The situation requires reasonable analysis.
Can one imagine blaming LBJ for any wrongs in Viet Nam that occurred after LBJ vacated office?
Always blaming Viet Nam as Johnson’s (or Kennedy’s) war?
They immediately voted for an Islamic Republic in Iraq. And this is what we sent our boys to fight and die for?
Bush’s biggest mistake was assuming that Arabs were “just like us” and wanted our brand of government. The fact is, they are not ready for it, and they need a strongman to keep them in line.
Ask the Christmas there that question and you won’t get an answer.
you are arguing something that is beside the point.. I’m sorry you don’t understand the topic of the thread.. I even posted you a video of Bush himself telling you they didn’t find the stuff he thought was there.. Bush went in there to thwart Saddam’s WMD programs.. and they didn’t exist..Bush is telling you that in that video if you would bother to watch and listen to the man who ordered the invasion.. nobody is arguing there weren’t some old buried gas shells from the Iran/Iraq war era.. the reason some of our troops were hurt by those gas shells is because they were so degradated when unearthed and exposed to the air the fumes got out.. we didn’t go in there for that .. those old shells could not have been weaponized in an real capacity again.. the only danger to anyone was to people who might try to unearth them to sell the scraps of metal
It was a monumental mistake. The timing was also ridiculous.
We were in Afghanistan and we had no reason to invade Iraq at the time.
Trillions of dollars, deaths and horrible injuries later, we have a real mess now.
Foolish and lethal mistake all around.
Meanwhile we were left with open borders and told to call Islam a religion of peace.
Sorry Bushbots, it wasn’t right.
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.