Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Fat hurts wrote:

Racket wrote:

Who do you mean when you say "we?" The general public or the US intelligence? And what's the timeline for "And it wasn't that hard to see what was going on with the Bush administration's lies?" A lot of people bought in when Colin Powell staked his reputation on it in front of the entire UN. Seemed like a reasonable idea at the time until the Plame affair which was more or less after we had already invaded

I mean the general public.

There were lots of signs that the administration was lying before the invasion happened on 3/20/2003:

* We knew Iraq was not a nuclear threat. Rumsfeld had told us so on 2/11/2001.

* We knew Iraq did not have WMD. Colin Powell told us so on 2/24/2001.

* On 9/24/2002 we found out that the administration was lying about the aluminum tubes.

* The administration kept talking about chemical and biological weapons, but never offered convincing proof.

* Knight Ridder did several stories on how White House insiders were saying the administration was ignoring evidence and opinions that did not support the WMD narrative.

* Hans Blix provided a UN report rebutting Colin Powell's UN presentation.

* When administration officials testified to congress about the estimated cost and scope of the an Iraq invasion, they weren't asked to justify their estimates. Instead, they were fired for telling the truth.

* Iraq met deadlines for destroying missiles. This was confirmed by weapons inspectors before the invasion.

* The UN security council was publicly informed that the Bush administration was lying about mobile bioweapons facilities.

* On 3/7/2003, the IAEA reported that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program.

* The "yellowcake" statement in the State of the Union was widely discredited.

* The UN refused to authorize use of force.

Let's face it. At the time it was pretty clear that Bush and Cheney were working extra hard to convince us to go to war. The general public should have seen that as a big red flag.

For something this monumental, it should be a slam dunk case. It simply was not.

Fat hurts wrote:

Racket wrote:

Who do you mean when you say "we?" The general public or the US intelligence? And what's the timeline for "And it wasn't that hard to see what was going on with the Bush administration's lies?" A lot of people bought in when Colin Powell staked his reputation on it in front of the entire UN. Seemed like a reasonable idea at the time until the Plame affair which was more or less after we had already invaded

I mean the general public.

There were lots of signs that the administration was lying before the invasion happened on 3/20/2003:

* We knew Iraq was not a nuclear threat. Rumsfeld had told us so on 2/11/2001.

* We knew Iraq did not have WMD. Colin Powell told us so on 2/24/2001.

* On 9/24/2002 we found out that the administration was lying about the aluminum tubes.

* The administration kept talking about chemical and biological weapons, but never offered convincing proof.

* Knight Ridder did several stories on how White House insiders were saying the administration was ignoring evidence and opinions that did not support the WMD narrative.

* Hans Blix provided a UN report rebutting Colin Powell's UN presentation.

* When administration officials testified to congress about the estimated cost and scope of the an Iraq invasion, they weren't asked to justify their estimates. Instead, they were fired for telling the truth.

* Iraq met deadlines for destroying missiles. This was confirmed by weapons inspectors before the invasion.

* The UN security council was publicly informed that the Bush administration was lying about mobile bioweapons facilities.

* On 3/7/2003, the IAEA reported that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program.

* The "yellowcake" statement in the State of the Union was widely discredited.

* The UN refused to authorize use of force.

Let's face it. At the time it was pretty clear that Bush and Cheney were working extra hard to convince us to go to war. The general public should have seen that as a big red flag.

For something this monumental, it should be a slam dunk case. It simply was not.

According to a Gallup poll, support for the war was up to 72 percent on March 19, the day the fighting began. Positive opinion on the war was not only present, it was strong. Out of the 72 percent who reported supporting the war, 59 percent reported supporting the war strongly, and although allied commanders said they had not yet found evidence of weapons of mass destruction days after the initial invasion, 9 out of 10 Americans believed it was "at least somewhat likely" that the United States would find evidence of these weapons

Racket wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

I mean the general public.

There were lots of signs that the administration was lying before the invasion happened on 3/20/2003:

* We knew Iraq was not a nuclear threat. Rumsfeld had told us so on 2/11/2001.

* We knew Iraq did not have WMD. Colin Powell told us so on 2/24/2001.

* On 9/24/2002 we found out that the administration was lying about the aluminum tubes.

* The administration kept talking about chemical and biological weapons, but never offered convincing proof.

* Knight Ridder did several stories on how White House insiders were saying the administration was ignoring evidence and opinions that did not support the WMD narrative.

* Hans Blix provided a UN report rebutting Colin Powell's UN presentation.

* When administration officials testified to congress about the estimated cost and scope of the an Iraq invasion, they weren't asked to justify their estimates. Instead, they were fired for telling the truth.

* Iraq met deadlines for destroying missiles. This was confirmed by weapons inspectors before the invasion.

* The UN security council was publicly informed that the Bush administration was lying about mobile bioweapons facilities.

* On 3/7/2003, the IAEA reported that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program.

* The "yellowcake" statement in the State of the Union was widely discredited.

* The UN refused to authorize use of force.

Let's face it. At the time it was pretty clear that Bush and Cheney were working extra hard to convince us to go to war. The general public should have seen that as a big red flag.

For something this monumental, it should be a slam dunk case. It simply was not.

Wow, it's almost as if hindsight is 20/20.

According to a Gallup poll, support for the war was up to 72 percent on March 19, the day the fighting began. Positive opinion on the war was not only present, it was strong. Out of the 72 percent who reported supporting the war, 59 percent reported supporting the war strongly, and although allied commanders said they had not yet found evidence of weapons of mass destruction days after the initial invasion, 9 out of 10 Americans believed it was "at least somewhat likely" that the United States would find evidence of these weapons

Powell sold out to the UN and it convinced a bunch of people in the US who were on the fence. When the war started people thought it surely wasn't because an idiot president let his VP walk all over him and because it was something we needed to do.

Racket wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

I mean the general public.

There were lots of signs that the administration was lying before the invasion happened on 3/20/2003:

* We knew Iraq was not a nuclear threat. Rumsfeld had told us so on 2/11/2001.

* We knew Iraq did not have WMD. Colin Powell told us so on 2/24/2001.

* On 9/24/2002 we found out that the administration was lying about the aluminum tubes.

* The administration kept talking about chemical and biological weapons, but never offered convincing proof.

* Knight Ridder did several stories on how White House insiders were saying the administration was ignoring evidence and opinions that did not support the WMD narrative.

* Hans Blix provided a UN report rebutting Colin Powell's UN presentation.

* When administration officials testified to congress about the estimated cost and scope of the an Iraq invasion, they weren't asked to justify their estimates. Instead, they were fired for telling the truth.

* Iraq met deadlines for destroying missiles. This was confirmed by weapons inspectors before the invasion.

* The UN security council was publicly informed that the Bush administration was lying about mobile bioweapons facilities.

* On 3/7/2003, the IAEA reported that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program.

* The "yellowcake" statement in the State of the Union was widely discredited.

* The UN refused to authorize use of force.

Let's face it. At the time it was pretty clear that Bush and Cheney were working extra hard to convince us to go to war. The general public should have seen that as a big red flag.

For something this monumental, it should be a slam dunk case. It simply was not.

Wow, it's almost as if hindsight is 20/20.

WTF^n wrote:

Racket wrote:

Wow, it's almost as if hindsight is 20/20.

Powell sold out to the UN and it convinced a bunch of people in the US who were on the fence. When the war started people thought it surely wasn't because an idiot president let his VP walk all over him and because it was something we needed to do.

I don't think that it is reasonable to dismiss things as "hindsight". What was going on at the time was indeed quite obvious to me and to many people I know.

At the same time it is true that the war was initially supported by most. It is shockingly and terrifyingly easy to rile up the general public into losing whatever critical capacities they may possess simply by talking about "monsters", "terrorists", "WMDs", "invaders", . . .

But that doesn't mean some did not keep their heads and see the war build-up for what it was. And dismissing their foresight as hindsight does not do them justice and does excuse others for losing their heads at the time.

Fat hurts wrote:

Racket wrote:

Who do you mean when you say "we?" The general public or the US intelligence? And what's the timeline for "And it wasn't that hard to see what was going on with the Bush administration's lies?" A lot of people bought in when Colin Powell staked his reputation on it in front of the entire UN. Seemed like a reasonable idea at the time until the Plame affair which was more or less after we had already invaded

I mean the general public.

There were lots of signs that the administration was lying before the invasion happened on 3/20/2003:

* We knew Iraq was not a nuclear threat. Rumsfeld had told us so on 2/11/2001.

* We knew Iraq did not have WMD. Colin Powell told us so on 2/24/2001.

* On 9/24/2002 we found out that the administration was lying about the aluminum tubes.

* The administration kept talking about chemical and biological weapons, but never offered convincing proof.

* Knight Ridder did several stories on how White House insiders were saying the administration was ignoring evidence and opinions that did not support the WMD narrative.

* Hans Blix provided a UN report rebutting Colin Powell's UN presentation.

* When administration officials testified to congress about the estimated cost and scope of the an Iraq invasion, they weren't asked to justify their estimates. Instead, they were fired for telling the truth.

* Iraq met deadlines for destroying missiles. This was confirmed by weapons inspectors before the invasion.

* The UN security council was publicly informed that the Bush administration was lying about mobile bioweapons facilities.

* On 3/7/2003, the IAEA reported that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program.

* The "yellowcake" statement in the State of the Union was widely discredited.

* The UN refused to authorize use of force.

Let's face it. At the time it was pretty clear that Bush and Cheney were working extra hard to convince us to go to war. The general public should have seen that as a big red flag.

For something this monumental, it should be a slam dunk case. It simply was not.

_its_baddude wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

I mean the general public.

There were lots of signs that the administration was lying before the invasion happened on 3/20/2003:

* We knew Iraq was not a nuclear threat. Rumsfeld had told us so on 2/11/2001.

* We knew Iraq did not have WMD. Colin Powell told us so on 2/24/2001.

* On 9/24/2002 we found out that the administration was lying about the aluminum tubes.

* The administration kept talking about chemical and biological weapons, but never offered convincing proof.

* Knight Ridder did several stories on how White House insiders were saying the administration was ignoring evidence and opinions that did not support the WMD narrative.

* Hans Blix provided a UN report rebutting Colin Powell's UN presentation.

* When administration officials testified to congress about the estimated cost and scope of the an Iraq invasion, they weren't asked to justify their estimates. Instead, they were fired for telling the truth.

* Iraq met deadlines for destroying missiles. This was confirmed by weapons inspectors before the invasion.

* The UN security council was publicly informed that the Bush administration was lying about mobile bioweapons facilities.

* On 3/7/2003, the IAEA reported that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program.

* The "yellowcake" statement in the State of the Union was widely discredited.

* The UN refused to authorize use of force.

Let's face it. At the time it was pretty clear that Bush and Cheney were working extra hard to convince us to go to war. The general public should have seen that as a big red flag.

For something this monumental, it should be a slam dunk case. It simply was not.

Just because you post this nonsense does not make it true. Nothing was debunked, everything you post it here is nonsense.

The UN is anti US, anti Semitic and corrupt. UN members nominated Libya to head the UN human rights commission.

The WMD ended up in Syria, or do believe Obama lied about that. It is amazing how crazy liberals are.