Posted on 02/19/2016 12:16:11 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Donald Trump, who has made his opposition to the Iraq invasion one of the bedrocks of his campaign, was left scrambling during a CNN town hall when confronted with a newly uncovered interview in which he supported the conflict.
The interview, reported by Buzzfeed, was from 2002 when the real estate mogul sat down with radio shock jock Howard Stern and was directly asked whether he advocated invading Saddam Hussein's country.
Trump replied: "Yeah I guess so. I wish the first time it was done correctly."
Asked by CNN moderator Anderson Cooper about the statement, the Republican frontrunner simply responded:"I could have said that."
Trump then insisted that his past support for the war did not matter because "by the time the war started I was against it".
His comments came during the second of a two-part town hall in Columbia featuring the remaining candidates in the Republican field. Ohio governor John Kasich and former Florida governor Jeb Bush preceded Trump in Thursday night's instalment, whereas Ben Carson and Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz participated the prior evening.
Trump stumbled when asked if he thought George W Bush had deliberately lied to the country about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction. Both a voter and Cooper repeatedly asked him if he stood by his comments in the last Republican presidential debate when he insisted that was the case.
"They said there were weapons of mass destruction, there were none. And they knew there were none," Trump said in the debate, held in Charleston on Saturday.
During Thursday's town hall, just five days later, he backtracked, saying:"There are a lot of people that think that. Bottom line is there were no weapons of mass destruction."
Pressed further, Trump said of Bush, "I don't know what he did". Trump added that he would have to "look at some documents."
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
Yeah?
I repeat : And your Fuhrer is losing to Bernie Sanders the communist by a massive 15 points.
It also makes him look somewhat unpredictable to hostile foreign leaders: except that they note that he is always advancing *somewhere*, which is an excellent trait to have in a President.
“Trumps positions on present day issues is what attracts me to him. Is there a candidate for president that did not support the Iraq war? Rand Paul is out so he does not count.”
*************
Which one of the other candidates (besides Donny Kardashian) is lying about supporting the war? There’s 2 pieces of evidence (Stern Show and his own book) stating he wants to invade Iraq but only his 20/20 hindsight bloviating now that says he was against it. If he was so anti-war then where are those stories? He wants to use left-wing talking points to trash Bush but hold on to the mantle of building “the greatest military evah.” You think his “positions” today are ones he’ll keep? If so, he probably has a bridge to sell you too.
What positions are those?
Even after he declared he was running for president, he’s been all over the map on every issue from illegal immigration to Planned Parenthood and abortion. One minute he is going to deport illegals, next minute he is going to bring em right back. One minute he is against Planned Parenthood, next minute he is fully in support of funding Planned Parenthood because they do “good stuff”. Trump is fundamentally a liar and charlatan.
Advancing to hell more like.
No. I think Trump is winning a plurality because the field remains divided. I do not think most of the non-Trump voters will find Trump an easy second choice, and this will become increasingly difficult if Trump continues to do his unhinged maniac routine. Trump benefits from a divided field, which creates the perception of a Trump bandwagon. If the field consolidates in time, I continue to believe Trump will lose in a two man race.
Please explain.
That is a reasoned observation, but as people have been dropping out, Trump’s polling numbers have have gone from 32-34 to 36-40.
I believe some of the other candidates have benefitted too, but I don’t think all the drop out support went to them.
I don’t see a reason to think that will change much.
35-40% is fairly impressive when you consider the six people Trump is running against.
One ex Governor
One ex Governor sitting Senator
One sitting Governor / ex Senator
One other sitting Senator
Wrong Iraq war, you GOPe morons. Trump is talking about the first Gulf War.
----
Or we can disagree with your spin on the positions being pro Bush or pro code pink. It is you who are characterizing it as such based on snippets here or there that you cut and paste.
Ike Eisenhower ran and won on the promise of ending the Korean war and returning the boys home. Bob Dole declared Democrats start wars and are the war monger party not Republicans. I guess the GOP was code pinkish back then.
You have clearly shown no understanding of GOP history, history in general or politics in your numerous posts. So your views have no weight with me and I assume others.
Trump’s history is out there for everyone to see.
If you don’t like, complain to Trump.
I can now see djt charm he speaks at rah grade level so his worshippers may be able to almost grasp his rhetorical hugeness /sarc..... I hope
I see nothing wrong with Trump’s history. I do see attempts to spin it because Trump has made the rest of the GOPe field look like the life time govt employee chumps they really are.
Look, if you don’t like Trump that’s fine with me.
I will support him when I think an appropriate comment is called for.
Later...
Could you give me a list of say 5-10 things that have been unfairly reported about Donald Trump?
And do you think that Trump is the only candidate who has been treated this way?
Thanks ahead for taking the time.
If you listen to Trump's statement correctly on Stern - it shows no real support for the second Iraq Bush war and was a statement as part of a free flowing conversation at a time when the war was not even a sure thing.
I have to add - the GOPe us trying to find some evidence that Trump was against the war - but what this shows is that the official George Bush party line that the War is a good thing is dead. Because it took political smarts and guts to stand up and decry the war in Iraq that W insisted on.
So all you people trying to attack Trump by saying he was not against the Iraq war - does that mean being against the Iraq war like Trump stated is the correct and smart position to take?
Trump's position that to have been against the second Iraq war is now the winning position and he has shown his judgement on that war as a layperson was superior to Hillary Clinton's and the rest of the GOP field (except Rand Paul) and that is why the GOPe are trying to minimize it and take that narrative away from Trump.
Thank you for giving your view on that.
Do you think Trump holds any responsibility at all for what you see as a “smear campaign against him?”
I will give you an easy hit - I also critique Trump for using foul language on stage. I don't like it. But to me it is a small thing a mole hill but to to others it is a mountain to overcome and accept and you will never see me defend Trump on that and try and minimize it.
But this other stuff - using a Howard Stern "I guess so" as an endorsement for a war that had yet to happen as an attack against Trump - is just Karl Rove style attack BS. But it shows now that being against the war is the right winning decision by the GOP doing this.
The GOP should be attacking Trump for being against W's war at any point in time. That is the official party line. So for them to try and find when exactly Trump was against the Iraq war means being against the Iraq war is the smart choice.
You're expecting a lot from someone who was, at the time 16 years ago, very much in the real estate business, not running for office and not privy to Security Council or Senate Foreign Relations Committee intelligence.
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.