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 ...
The only thing wrong with it is that Trump seems to have a habit of making a strong statement that is way over the top and then walking it back. It shows that he speaks without thinking through the consequences of what he is going to say. I don’t think this would be a good trait in a President - it also leaves me wondering what position he really holds.
I posted this earlier to another thread in response to a commenter’s suggestion that “Trump wasn’t a politician back then” [so he’s excused from past political dealings].
*********************************************
It’s telling to me how Trump’s fans carve out a special world for him. A world where he’s elevated and protected against any discussion or criticism for the political associations and alliances he’s had for years, yet everyone else is fair game.
Trump’s been involved in politics for a very long time - he cannot hide behind “businessman.”
But that can’t be looked at or vetted because for Trump to be what you want him to be, an “outsider” and champion against “special interests,” you must ignore those facts.
So Trump parrots left wing propaganda that contradicts his earlier pro-war position, and you get upset that the report appeared in a left wing newspaper. For you, it’s not about truth. It’s about how do we hide the Trump’s falsehoods by attacking the politics of the messenger, which again are ins synch with Trump’s current position on the war. If anything, this makes Trump look even worse since it shows how mercurial and unprincipled he is. Like his pal Hillary, whom he praised and funded, he wants to have it both ways. Vehemently for the war before it starts, and then vehemently opposed to it afterward for political gain. You must be happy to support such an unprincipled opportunist. The problem is, though, fact matter. Words matter. Character matters.
Yes, I confess it did.
Mock me if you wish, you big cwuel lib. But once I've learnt the code of conduct on these 'forums' you can expect a moderately stern rejoinder!
The Romans crucified Jesus. Did that make the Romans right?
He’s a privilege Pommie.
I think a Jonestown reference is more descriptive.
There is a very strong conservative case that Trump is not the candidate that we should support and many conservatives like myself support Sen. Cruz and not Trump. I see no reason that this makes us hateful or relegates us to Huffpo and Salon. Honestly your reply pretty much made no sense to me.
Glad you went to all the trouble, but I’m still voting for Trump. :-D
I thought Australians spoke English?
When posters call others "lib," etc, red flags go up - since it's usually the case that what they're accusing someone else of, describes them to a T.
Well, at least you admit your delicate sensibilities. No safe spaces for you!
Yep, classic projection.
By 'support' you mean attacking the other guy, no matter how often that blows up in your face.
Cincy, please don't hoist your red flags, hammers, sickles etc over here.
Keep them stored over at The Guardian.
Donald should never have brought up the Iraq war or blamed Bush. That was a mistake.
Using four letter words is a mistake also.
I've got work to do, Art. Can you keep this bunch occupied for an hour? Waving something shiny around works.
It could hurt indeed, until you look at the understudy of most polls that show the head to head of conservatives results show that about everyone beats Trump. Trump has hit is roof of support. All that is needed is for others to drop out of the race.
First, you called me a lefty, now you are claiming CW is a communist?
Sorry Kangaroo Jack, spewing random false insults at conservatives here is damaging your credibility beyond repair. Why don't you just go sit on your "Stern Rejoinder"
“And heâs beating your flunkie two to one.
Dang thatâs gotta hurt.”
No what really hurts is that Trump could actually be the leader of this country someday!
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.