Lester Holt caught lying about Trump

*Democrats claim it was over WMD

**Bush stated Saddam is a grave, gathering danger and said Saddam can get WMD

*PNAC got what it wanted from Bill Clinton
** They did not need to write to Bush since Clinton had done it

*PNAC never had much power in Bush's admin
**Rumsfeld to this day defends the invasion and says Bush was right. Rumsfeld had been a member of PNAC which was just one more think tank. Nothing special about it other than it contained some very experienced people who had served government.

*Even now Rumsfeld says we lost our leadership in the world. That others filled the vacuum.

**There is this silly talk that PNAC was neocons. They really did not follow the actual neocon agenda.

**Few dare mention that the father of Neocon views laid it all out and it was not what PNAC laid out.

*It is not as if Saddam was zero problem until Bush became president. Clinton did to Saddam what the Japanese did to the US as president.

*There is too much authoritative works on record to accept that Bush wanted war.

Bush is sharp enough had he wanted conquest, Iraq would be a new territory of the USA and not a country with a parliament that elects leaders.

The UN was at odds with Saddam over more than WMD. So was Bush at odds, as had Clinton been over multiple issues.

You really made your own case that Bush did not do it over WMD by commenting he simply had a war like nature and had came to office to conquer Iraq. That is a story but does not match what is well known.

I have never heard that Saddam had safe sanctuary or that Bush would hunt him down like a yellow dog. Bob means well but I never heard he said that.

Bush really wanted not to invade.

Here Bush discusses most of your points.

[video=youtube;WdTrSm-FIfo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdTrSm-FIfo[/video]

 

- you can read Powell on what he said when he went to administration sources of intel on WMDs. It's scathing. And, yes, Tenet contributed to that. The administration as a whole is well known for working to make it clear that Iraq had WMDs, not to verify whether he did.

- We have actual law on what constitutes justification for conquest. Being "sick of Sadam's regime" is NOT a justification for war.

- The joint resolution gave Bush only two possible justifications for war. Remember that we have actual law on what constitutes justification for war. What you mention above is not good enough. We don't conquer nations simply because they

- You say it was not about freedom, then you ask why the invasion was termed "Iraqi Freedom". The fact is that freedom is not a justification for US conquest.

- Read the joint resolution. It gives Bush only two possible reasons for him to conquer Iraq. It's obvious that Bush would need to cast is decision as one of those reasons. And, since the UN wanted to complete the inspections, not start a war, Bush had only one option left - declaring that Sadam was such an imminent threat that we needed to conquer Iraq. Since WMDs were the only possible threat, one can come to no other conclusion - unless you want to suggest Bush broke the law.

 

It does the dumb public no good to see his tax returns. They won't even look at the FEC records. So far, no Democrat on this forum has so much as examined the FEC report to find out what is there.

And they who can't do their own taxes want to study Trumps?

 

So your claiming that he was servicing in the State Senate and the US senate at the same time? He was in the Illinois State Senate from 1997 to 2004. Seven years. He served in the US Senate 2005 to 2008, but most of that time was spent running for presidency. Again you zombies fail. It was 7 years as a State Senator which is not much of an accomplishment, and two years as a US Senator. The other three years was running for office.

read this post:
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=477025&page=4&p=1066677688#post1066677688

I hate repeating myself.

 

Before you continue

Did you read

Decision points by Bush
Soldiers Story by Franks
A General speaks out by DeLong
Known and Unknown by Rumsfeld
My year in Iraq by Bremer
In my time by Cheney

I need to know your base of knowledge to see if it matches mine

I find it difficult to believe you read those books since they are by actual authorities.

 

You can pretend as you wish. The record shows that, before being elected President twice - both times with over 51% of the vote - he had been elected to and served January 8, 1997 – November 4, 2004 in the Illinois State Legislature and January 3, 2005 – November 16, 2008 in the US Senate.

You can deduct bathroom breaks if you wish, but the American public obviously deemed his elective experience adequate for the presidency.

Since the "Birther" lunacy fizzled, do you think you can discredit him by now whining about his resumé?

I suggest you let it go and move on.

 

All modern presidential nominees have come clean with their tax returns.

If he feels he needs to hide them, that is his right. It's the electorate's right to insist that he comply with the normal disclosure.

 

What did voters learn on the FDR returns?

Actually this is a mere custom

Since Hillary has shown hers, why don't we chat about what you learned on her returns?

How many sources of income did she have?

 

Having spent years using Roberts Rules of order, quite similar to those used by Congress and used all over America in meetings, I credit Obama for his time in Ill and in DC since he would know a lot about the rules of the Senate.

This is a great advantage over those who pay no attention to such rules.

But being part of a committee is not the same thing as running things. A Senator has a tiny staff he directs. Presidents have multiple cabinet posts and others who feel his directives up and down the line.

And just as you want your airline pilot to have piloted to airports before, we want presidents who have managed large enterprises before.

Trump fits that bill.

Fortunately for presidents, knowing house or senate rules is not quite as vital. Still they should know said rules to understand the working of congress.

 

You are the one making this about experience. Obama was inexperienced when he ran for President. You have claimed that the same is true about Trump. You voted for Obama, but you will not vote for Trump. It stands to reason that it is not experience that you are worried about, but the fact that he is running as a Republican. In the end, all you have is that. Your hatred of anyone Republican. It is a good thing that those like you are shrinking in numbers. Soon to be relegated the third party status.

 

I have no idea. Most voters, including Republicans, have come to expect disclosure since all modern nominees have come clean in the matter.

If the reality tv performer believes it would hurt him more to share them than hide them, he'll continue to hide them.

 

I am not pleased to say that from what I observe, few of the public have the knowledge or skill sets to correctly evaluate presidents.

Even though I know the process, even i lack knowledge of what we have on the docket to vote for as to why they are qualified.

I surmise Trump with very long term CEO experience at least has the knowledge of management. And it is said his workers like working for him. Hillary has too many fallen bodies of people who detested working for her.

 

PNAC did NOT get what it wanted from Clinton. Clinton was happy to keep Sadam in a box. That is not even close to what PNAC wanted.

Rumsfeld was a founder of PNAC, which stated that Iraq should be conquered in order to provide space for US military bases.

Being a "problem" is not a justification for conquest. LOTS of nations are "problems".

What Bush did with Iraq after the war was a disaster - and, not what PNAC wanted. The very first major move, "deBaathification" was a beginning of the sectarian warfare that continued through the Maliki administration and has resulted in gigantic loss of life and THE major opening for ISIS to be born and grow.

I did NOT say that "Bush had a war like nature". Not in ANY way.

Bob Woodward's book was vetted by the Bush administration. It states that Sadam offered to leave Iraq and that Bush stated that we would hunt for him wherever he went.

Bush had massive opportunity to not invade. The UN inspections were still on-going and the UN wanted there to be no military action taken against Iraq other than support for the inspectors. Also, far too little WMD evidence was available to consider Sadam a threat. Without him being a threat, there just wasn't a legal justification for war.

He had to leave the UN and plead his case to congress to get permission to conquer Iraq - that simply does not square with your comment that Bush didn't want to invade.

 

Obama had twelve years of elective experience when he ran for the presidency. The reality tv performer doesn't have a New York minute.

You can dismiss experience if you need to, but that's the documented truth.

 

Yes, he has done well on TV. But the man has vast holdings. And he manages a huge enterprise.

I don't think you know about Hillary's tax returns either to be blunt. I tend to doubt you rely on her tax returns in selection of her on the ballot.

 

That is not what Wikipedia says about PNAC

See, when it was still functioning, I studied that group. I also studied neocons very closely. I could tell the group was not really what Kristol had in mind. Kristol founded it and since his father is the father of neoconservatives, that has to be why it was called neoconservative. But all in all, it is conservative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#Statement_of_Principles

BTW. I was not aware that PNAC also wrote to Bush.

But Clinton not only bombed Saddam, a clear act of war, but signed a law designed to remove Saddam.

I will revisit this and comment on mistakes you made.

 

Woodward is an actual authority, too.

And, his book was vetted by the Bush administration.

Sorry, but the books you mention are attempts at self defense. As such, I certainly do NOT consider reading those books as being an adequate base of knowledge. I've read plenty from all those except DeLong. Not necessarily the entire books. So much has been written about these books that it is absolutely unnecessary to read them, by the way. In fact, you should read analyses of those books, as they include significant amounts of fiction. I certainly hope you have not limited yourself to these authors.

What I've stated is factual.

 

You really need to go back to school. 7+4=11 not 12. Additionally, I had a talk with my State Senator yesterday. The conversation tool place at his Insurance Sales Office. You see, state legislature is a part-time position. I do not count State Legislature as being experience for running for President. I do believe that running a multi-national country is.

You might discount real world experience in favor of political experience, but I don't. Given the alternative of a liar and cheat that Hillary is, I will vote for the real world experience.

 

The Democrats term "in a box" makes as much as sense as saying they now have Assad in a box. They had Gaddafi in that box yet conquered that country using our military. Being in that box seems to include being bombed as a normal matter of fact.

Clinton agreed to regime change and that is what PNAC wanted.

Before you trip up again, check the public law signed by Clinton to get Saddam removed.

Rumsfeld a founder ey?

Funny Wikipedia gives him no credit for being a founder.

Why not read Rumsfeld's book and learn what he had to say about Iraq rather than invent things?

Did you watch the video explaining why Bush invaded?

Did I just waste my time?

What I hate about Democrats is no matter the facts, they keep repeating over and over again the same failed stories.

If not Democrats, their defenders.

I truly resent that it was up to Bush to decide for Iraq. I believe his goal was for Iraq to decide. Saying it was up to Bush is a gross mistake.

For instance, you one more time talk of de baathification.

OK, who did that? Do you really know or will this just be a propaganda lesson?

Here is what Bremer states. Bremer did craft an order. But prior to that, the Iraqi council met and told him what they wanted done. Democrats ignore their role in events.

Same as with taking out the leadership who of course were in the baath party, Bremer thought the council took it too far.

Bremer lacked the manpower to de bath the country. The tribal leaders had the power and they used it.

I have Woodward's book but find that better sources are original, not his version.

ISIS was created during Obama. During Bush, there was no such thing.


Now if you thought ISIS was awesome, naturally you would credit Obama since that was during his watch.

I won't get into Maliki at all since he was picked by his people. Not Bush.

You appear to say the war would be justified if only you found wmd there. I really hate to base a war on that. Clearly Saddam had a very large army and that army was dangerous.

Tommy Franks troops had way better training and equipment and our weapons were so far advanced, Saddam really should have cut and run. But he did not. He died at the end of a noose. I watched the video. Enjoyed it a few times in fact.

(I kid about enjoying his hanging)

Again you keep basing a good war on WMD.

Georges Sada who should know claims Saddam transported his WMD to Syria. Because it never matches Democrats story telling, naturally they won't believe a General officer yet believe Woodward. I am not making this up.

I have been at this for a long time. I debated this when Clinton was president and I raised holy hell at the Clinton attacks.

Naturally when Bush invaded, my hope was he was hopeful a massive show of force could end war. I personally think Bush figured Saddam would back down. That is why Bush got on TV and warned him that in 48 hrs, it was go or be invaded.

Given his druthers, Bush did not want our troops to face combat.

Before Bush ever was elected, the congress had decided they wanted Saddam gone as did Bill Clinton.

But you need to read the law signed by Bill Clinton. I imagine you read it. But choose to ignore it's purpose was to remove Saddam. Bush and his congress later on took it the final step.

 

Political bodies do work in committee meetings. There minutes of said meetings are kept. While they do work when not in the committee, unless they document the work, it is just assumed they work.

There is no way a Senator is doing the job of president. A Governor is or a very large company CEO such as Trumps operations, but a Senator is a committee member.

It reminds me of a person alleging that a person on the PTA is qualified to manage the school system of a state.

 

Too bad you refuse.

No, the books are accurate. They are sourced and follow protocol to be verified.

Woodward is a journalist. He only gets what he gets. I give you books of those who were there.

Same thing as say I wrote a book about you. i only know you from your posts. I doubt you want me telling your story since you prefer to tell it yourself. If you know you will be checked, I think you have incentive to tell the truth.

Even when you say Woodwards book was vetted, you admit the need of somebody there who could tell a second hand story.

I recommend where you have first hand sources, start there.

For instance I wanted more knowledge of General Patton so I got his book. You can learn more about Ulysses Grant reading his book than by those chatting about him.

What I have stated is factual.

 

Clinton, like all modern nominees, has come clean regarding her tax returns.

The reality tv performer refuses to.

Presumably, his calculus is that concealing them does less damage to him that would following the normal custom of sharing them with the electorate.

If he remains hellbent on hiding them, he may well be right.

 

If you must quibble about whether the twice-elected incumbent president had sufficient experience in elective office, we'll acknowledge that his January 8, 1997 through November 16, 2008 was about 7 weeks shy of 12 years. Yes, he was also a constitutional law professor during much of that time, as well.

If you wish to fancy that hosting beauty pageants, performing in a reality tv show, and putting your name on casinos and golf courses qualifies a person to lead the nation, those are your requirements for the job.

Others may differ.

 

Maybe. But does that machine have another message?

 

All knowledgeable people, left right and in between know Clinton is incapable of capable of accomplishing anything beyond selling influence and enabling mass murder. They have known about the Clintons for a very long time.

“WASHINGTON -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's former finance director has been indicted on charges of filing fictitious reports that misstated contributions for a Hollywood fund-raising gala for the senator, the Justice Department said Friday.” WNBC/AP, Hillary Clinton's Former Campaign Finance Director Indicted, 1/7/2005.

http://www.wnbc.com/politics/4063107/detail.html