Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trump 2000 – Saddam has WMD (UPDATE – 2002 Supports Invasion)

Trump 2000 – Saddam has WMD (UPDATE – 2002 Supports Invasion)

Oops.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRBImNItoo0

At the South Carolina Debate, Donald Trump accused George W. Bush of lying us into the Iraq War by knowningly claiming there were WMD in Iraq when he knew there were none.

While Trump has backed away from that statement slightly saying it might have just been a mistake, though not admitting he has backed away, his debate accusations were clear:

Trump further has claimed that he was against the Iraq War before it started, though no one has been able to find any record of Trump saying so prior to the War starting.

Yet, Trump’s positions on whether Iraq had WMD and whether further military action was needed were on record.

None of the campaigns bothered to check Trump’s own writings, but Andrew Kaczynski of Buzzfeed did, Trump Wrote Iraq WMDs Were Threat Year Before Bush Took Office (emphasis added):

Donald Trump offered a new reason for why, after exhaustive searches, no one has found proof he opposed the Iraq War before it began: People didn’t write everything he said.

The comments are a stark difference from what The Donald said at a Republican debate in September of last year, when said he could provide 25 stories showing his early opposition to the Iraq War….

A detailed search by BuzzFeed News in September (and other news organization in recent days) did not produce evidence at all Trump opposed the war before the March 2003 start.

The week the war started Trump was quoted as saying it was turning into a “mess” but also said the war would positively impact the stock market, causing it “to go up like a rocket.”

Similarly his 2000 book, The America We Deserve Trump noted Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction and targeted Iraq strikes had little impact on their overall capabilities. The Donald said the best course might be against Iraq to “carry the mission to its conclusion.”

Wrote Trump:

Consider Iraq. After each pounding from U.S . warplanes, Iraq has dusted itself off and gone right back to work developing a nuclear arsenal. Six years of tough talk and U.S. fireworks in Baghdad have done little to slow Iraq’s crash program to become a nuclear power. They’ve got missiles capable of flying nine hundred kilometers—more than enough to reach Tel Aviv. They’ve got enriched uranium. All they need is the material for nuclear fission to complete the job, and, according to the Rumsfeld report, we don’t even know for sure if they’ve laid their hands on that yet. That’s what our last aerial assault on Iraq in 1999 was about. Saddam Hussein wouldn’t let UN weapons inspectors examine certain sites where that material might be stored. The result when our bombing was over? We still don’t know what Iraq is up to or whether it has the material to build nuclear weapons. I’m no warmonger. But the fact is, if we decide a strike against Iraq is necessary, it is madness not to carry the mission to its conclusion. When we don’t, we have the worst of all worlds: Iraq remains a threat, and now has more incentive than ever to attack us.

In August 2004 Trump turned loud and vocally against the war in an interview with Esquire, more than a year after it started and it was clear after the initial successes an insurgency was developing.

That was 2000. Before Bush took office. Before Bush possibly could have “lied” about Saddam and WMD. And Trump was arguing not only that intervention might be necessary, but that if it happened, it needed to go all the way.

Is there a little wiggle room for Trump to say that he wasn’t lying as to his claims about Iraq and WMD, and the Iraq War. Yes, but very little wiggle room.

Perhaps more research will remove any remaining doubt.

UPDATE 10:45 p.m.: I guess we have our answer, also via Andrew Kaczynski of Buzzfeed posted about an hour ago, In 2002, Donald Trump Said He Supported Invading Iraq:

For months, Donald Trump has claimed that he opposed the Iraq War before the invasion began — as an example of his great judgment on foreign policy issues.

But in a 2002 interview with Howard Stern, Donald Trump said he supported an Iraq invasion.

In the interview, which took place on Sept. 11, 2002, Stern asked Trump directly if he was for invading Iraq.

“Yeah I guess so,” Trump responded. “I wish the first time it was done correctly.”

The audio is here.

Trump was confronted with the quote during a Town Hall tonight. He says he changed his mind before the war started. But that’s not what he’s said before. He didn’t say “I was for it before I was against it,” he said he was against it.

Although I don’t have the clip, earlier in the Town Hall he said he always was against the war in 2002, which is what he’s said before:

“I’m the one from 2002, 2003 who said we shouldn’t be doing it,” Trump told CNN’s Anderson Cooper early on during a GOP town hall event in Columbia, South Carolina.

However, Cooper later noted to the real estate mogul that, according to Buzzfeed, he actually backed the war during a 2002 interview with radio host Howard Stern.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“Donald Trump offered a new reason for why, after exhaustive searches, no one has found proof he opposed the Iraq War before it began: People didn’t write everything he said.

The comments are a stark difference from what The Donald said at a Republican debate in September of last year, when said he could provide 25 stories showing his early opposition to the Iraq War….

A detailed search by BuzzFeed News in September (and other news organization in recent days) did not produce evidence at all Trump opposed the war before the March 2003 start.”

Well, yah. That’s ‘cuz Der Donald lies. Constantly. Every day.

    Radegunda in reply to Ragspierre. | February 18, 2016 at 2:05 pm

    Trumpsters love to be lied to by The Donald.

    A Trumpster will even admit that “he pays lip service on many issues,” but still trust that he’s solid gold on the ones they care about. Of course they have to tune out how he wavers on those issues too.

    It’s awfully hard to admit that one’s deity has feet of mud.

      It’s interesting and reminds me of 2007-08 when Obama supporters “just knew” who Obama was, what he TRULY believed and would do once elected. They knew he was pretending to be centrist but was really not, so when he “evolved” into the horror show we have suffered for seven years, they are only disappointed he didn’t do more to destroy our country.

      Many of us shouted from the rooftops that Obama was not a uniting centrist who would bring “red states and blue states” together. We warned of his past and of many of his then-current statements (remember Joe the Plumber?). We were ignored (and pilloried). We were also right.

      Now we have a new messiah who pretends to be something he clearly is not, never was, and never will be, but his fans think they know what he TRULY believes and would do once elected. Unlike Obama’s supporters, though, they are wrong about what he is and what he would do. Very very wrong.

      Obama’s record was clear to anyone who did their research (the media sure wasn’t reporting anything meaningful), and so is Trump’s. He isn’t a conservative. Never was, never will be. If elected, he will be what he is, what his record shows: a big spending, big government big-mouth bag of hot progressive air who will treat the presidency with zero respect and will attempt to “rule” …. just like Obama. He thinks the presidency is like being CEO, the boss. He’ll “evolve” back to his actual beliefs … faster, even, than Obama.

      This is clear to many of us who have yet again taken to our rooftops and shouted ourselves hoarse. Like the Obots in ’08, they attack, defend, dismiss … sticking their fingers in their ears, assured in their delusions, and singing lalala wall lalala jobs lalala China. Nothing will shake their faith in the one true face of Trump they’ve latched onto. All the other faces of Trump don’t matter and should be win, they will support him through his latest “evolution” just as progressives do for Obama. It’s not HIM, it’s that dastardly (insert whatever: media, Congress, little old lady who wants to keep her home, etc. and etc.).

      We are right this time, too, but I hope he is not elected and we again have to say, “we told you so.”

      Trumph voting bloc: weapon of mass delusion (WMD)

      Lee Jan in reply to Radegunda. | February 19, 2016 at 2:48 pm

      Guess Trump just loved that Saddam Hussein was lobbing scud missiles into Israel. Loved that SH was paying the families of suicide bombers who murdered and maimed Israeli’s. No problem. And best part, Pat Buchanan is supporting Trump in his criticism of GW Bush going into Iraq.

    It is stunning: Both Trump and Rubio lie all the time, but the voters do not seem to care.
    Maybe this should not be stunning and should, rather, simply be seen as another sign of how far America has fallen.

    dystopia in reply to Ragspierre. | February 18, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    Trump lies? Could be — but that won’t be a material factor in the decision making process of voters. If it were, Obama would never have been elected.

    Lawyers lie to judges all the time … Nothing happens. Just ask the Honorable Deborah Nelson.

      Ragspierre in reply to dystopia. | February 18, 2016 at 4:02 pm

      Bullshit.

      And what an amazing cop-out. It’s no different than the Clinton era “character doesn’t matter” trope.

      It matters that a candidate is a pathological liar. T-rump IS a pathological liar.

      THAT is what this whole thread is about.

        dystopia in reply to Ragspierre. | February 18, 2016 at 6:12 pm

        If Trump is the Republican candidate, will you be casting your ballot for Hillary or feeling the “Bern” in the coming general election? Or will you simply proffer a viscid “I’ll sit the election out to the Legal Insurrection Court of public opinion”?

          IrateNate in reply to dystopia. | February 18, 2016 at 7:51 pm

          Should enough idiots choose to stand behind Trump, I will let them do so, but it will be without my help. I’m tired of holding my nose and voting simply because some clown puts an (R) behind his name. Look where that has gotten us – a Congress entrenched with crooks and liars.

        Skookum in reply to Ragspierre. | February 19, 2016 at 2:28 am

        Bill Clinton is a documented pathological liar. He was elected to the presidency twice.

        Barry Obama is a documented pathological liar. He was elected to the presidency twice.

        The enlightened Anglo-American does not ignore empirical evidence.

      I’ve seen attorneys get in big trouble for lying to, or misleading, a judge, including justices on courts of appeal.

        Rick in reply to Rick. | February 18, 2016 at 6:59 pm

        Short story, which ties in to the larger topic:
        Decades ago as a young pup I represented the defendant in litigation commenced in federal court in LA by a plaintiff represented by a New York lawyer.
        In the Points and Authorities filed by the New York lawyer regarding some motion, one case cited by that lawyer just seemed too good for his position to be true, and the New York lawyer quoted from the case that was so favorable, it seemed, to his position. Going to the actual text of the cited decision, and reading the quoted language in the reporter, I discovered that the New York lawyer had deleted the word “not” from the quoted language, and replaced the word “not” with ellipses, to indicate that something had been deleted. Of course, deleting “not” changed the meaning of the quote by 180 degrees. The federal judge was not amused.
        Looking back on it now I suppose I should have recognized the New York values being exhibited by the New York lawyer.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Ragspierre. | February 19, 2016 at 1:35 am

    humpatrump’s M.O.: Open mouth, inset foot, then shove the whole shooting match where the sun doesn’t shin.

Ah finally. I was afraid this week would go by without getting the weekly irrelevant to anything LI hit piece on Mr. Tump.

Here from the National Review pro Cruz organization:

“Donald was certainly right that he had always opposed the Iraq war and the disasters that have come from it (despite the efforts of the rabidly anti-Trump CNN to dispute this, because the earliest mention Donald publicly made of his opposition to the Iraq war was five days after it began).”

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431387/donald-trump-strong-jeb-bush-rises-south-carolina

Donald trump’s every word to friends and business associates is not recorded in some national publication. The Professor for example can’t prove he has ever said he loves his kids or his wife if the standard for that proof is it being published in the Wahington Post or New York Times.

His position on the Iraq war was published in such publications within 5 days of the invasion according to the above and CNN.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 18, 2016 at 1:35 pm

    “His position on the Iraq war was published in such publications within 5 days of the invasion according to the above and CNN.”

    According to ONLY Conrad Black.

    Where’s the link, liar?

      CNN.COM. Not my problem if you don’t know hiw to use tge internet liar.

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 18, 2016 at 2:58 pm

      “The Donald said at a Republican debate in September of last year, when said he could provide 25 stories showing his early opposition to the Iraq War….”

      Post five.

      Hell, post ONE, you lying sack of T-rumpian sharia.

      Do it now. Because you are a known, demonstrated liar and T-rump sucker.

    inspectorudy in reply to Gary Britt. | February 18, 2016 at 3:08 pm

    It must hurt every time Trump’s past comes to the present and we all get to see what a liar and a phony he really is. If a conservative tried to say he was for gun control last year and then claim he had changed and is now against it not one of us would believe him. But for the Trumpets you allow this yuuuge swing in views that he espouses, 2nd A, abortion, Iraq war, immigration, obamacare, and taxes to occur almost daily not to affect your support of him. I have always wondered what idol worship would look like and now I have seen it first hand.

    Lee Jan in reply to Gary Britt. | February 19, 2016 at 2:52 pm

    Who among trump’s friends or associates would have the courage to dispute a word he utters. He’s a litigation machine and they all know it.

More important than this irrelevant crap is the pope’s comments on the wall. The more the media and his opponents focus on the Wall the more votes for Trump.

Also the pope’s comments will have ZERO effect on catholic voters BUT could have a several percentage point pro trump effect on protestant and evangelical voters that like the pope far less than conservative catholics like me.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 18, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    Here’s the Bierhall Bullyboi attempted thread jack of the day.

    When the Prof. puts up a post about the Pope’s comments, Bierhall Brit can appropriately comment.

    Radegunda in reply to Gary Britt. | February 18, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    Trump still favored amnesty while Cruz was actually doing something to stop it. Trump said that Romney was too tough on immigration.

    Trump says that illegals (after being bused across the border) should get a fast track back in. (And how many illegals has he been hiring over the years?)

    Trump was still bringing in foreign workers on visas last year, to undercut Americans. Trump has his Trump Ties manufactured in China.

    But to Trumpsters, Trump should be judged ONLY on exactly the words they care about. Everything else is shoved aside. And of course it’s ONLY Trump who gets that kind of highly selective judgment.

      casualobserver in reply to Radegunda. | February 18, 2016 at 2:07 pm

      Trump is notoriously for something before he is later against it. Or against it before he decides he is for it. Etc.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Gary Britt. | February 18, 2016 at 4:17 pm

    Yo, Gary, why are you trying to change the subject to something you THINK Trump is still believable about (he isn’t and never was believable about the border)?

The WMDs that Saddam didn’t have seem to keep showing up in Syria, or buried in inconvenient places, like beneath waste burning sites.

It seems possible that Joe Biden’s son died as a result of those weapons that didn’t exist.

“But he wasn’t running for president then!”

“You just don’t get it!” Everything that Trump did or said before declaring “I’m running for president and I’ll build a wall” doesn’t matter at all — unless it flatters Trump.

In fact, much of what Trump says now doesn’t matter either if it’s inconvenient to the messianic myth.

A commenter on another blog said, in close to these words: “Of course he pays lip service on many issues. So what? He’s solid on the issues I care about.”

There’s an awful lot of selective judgment, double standards & wishful thinking behind the Trump cult.

Wasn’t the guy in the picture above in the Wedding Crashers?

Mr. D J TruMalleable with the nuke codes? No way!

casualobserver | February 18, 2016 at 2:05 pm

Some things can only be labeled a truy “mystery.” Trump is the anti-politician candidate for his dedicated followers. Yet his tactics are as just as political and common as any one person in the elected class. He will say anything and change his word and spin in order to appeal to a new group or groups. The ONLY way he is different is that he is a master at PR so his ability to use the spin is so much better than anyone else.

It’s not that I’m anti-Trump. It’s that I am entertained by the fact that his supporters care little about what has traditionally driven politics and they are very committed to him because of his showmanship. Not that he is conservative, or libertarian-conservative. Or ideologically consistent. He’s just a nose-punching guy who is proving he can beat the politicians at their own game. That’s about it in a nutshell to me.

    Radegunda in reply to casualobserver. | February 18, 2016 at 3:22 pm

    There’s a wide range of fantasies being pinned on Trump. Some people think he’s sent by God to heal the nation with the purest selfless devotion (because he’s been so very selfless throughout his life …).

    Others just want him to “blow the whole thing up.” What comes next? Who cares.

    It’s all just different variations on a superhero fantasy. Some people emphasize the smash-em-up side. Others emphasiae the heart-of-gold side (which Trump of course does not have).

    Both sides have overactive imaginations and underdeveloped critical faculties. Both sides don’t care how vindictive or slippery he is; they don’t care that Trump U. was a scam. They just expect that he’ll only hurt people they don’t like.

We still don’t know what Iraq is up to or whether it has the material to build nuclear weapons.

and

…if we decide a strike against Iraq is necessary, it is madness not to carry the mission to its conclusion.

There is no issue here. These aren’t statements by a Congressman or other government official with access to intelligence, leaving “wiggle room”.

    Radegunda in reply to janitor. | February 18, 2016 at 3:36 pm

    Trump was certain (then) that Saddam was rapidly pushing forward a nuclear weapons program and that Saddam represented a great danger to the United States. Wasn’t it reckless to publish warnings about the dangers of Saddam’s WMDs if Trump really didn’t know much about it?

    Now he claims that Saddam had “no WMDs,” that Bush knew it, and that Bush willfully lied just to start a war.

    Does Trump have access to intelligence information PROVING what Bush knew before the war?

    Does Trump have no awareness of what various foreign intelligence agencies were saying at the time?

    Does Trump know nothing about the subsequent reports, even in the New York Times, that there were WMDs, and that some went to Syria?

    Does Trump not understand how logically unwise it is to declare emphatically that something never existed?

    Does he not know how absurd it is to claim that he knows what was in someone else’s mind and heart?

    Trump made public statements about Bush that at best were reckless and unfounded. But they were much worse: they were demonstrably false and slanderous.

      gulfbreeze in reply to Radegunda. | February 20, 2016 at 6:54 am

      “Now he claims that Saddam had “no WMDs,” that Bush knew it, and that Bush willfully lied just to start a war.

      “Does Trump have access to intelligence information PROVING what Bush knew before the war?”

      Have you seen this video interview with Michael Morrell, former CIA deputy director, where he admits the Bush administration pushed the case for Iraq’s nuclear WMDs beyond where CIA intelligence evidence existed? Personally, I have a hard time getting past 15 seconds of the bloviating Chris Matthews. But if you can force yourself to get through it, you’ll see for yourself that Morrell’s teams of analysts did not make the same case for nuclear WMDs (i.e. that Saddam had “reconstituted” nuclear WMDs) that Bush and Cheney did:

      http://bit.ly/1AmvJ3Q

      For me, the greater question is why any Republicans (leadership or registered voters) are spending a single moment relitigating the Iraq War. It seems only beneficial as some kind of self-purging of the party’s sins. As for what the vast majority of Americans want to be talking about right now, they couldn’t care less. This issue is so far down the list of their concerns that it is not only irrelevant, it’s non-existent:

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx

      Move on people. There are a whole lot of things to fix. And the Iraq War isn’t one of them.

And let’s just make the election all about George W. Bush again. So that we can encourage the population to elect Obama again.

Fools.

Move past it because Jeb Bush isn’t important.

Look for the white smoke above the vatican, they just elected trump as prez, makes no difference what da Donald says or does the stars are aligned for him, more’s the pity.

    Someonne who unxerstands how many many protestants and evangelicals and a good number of conservative catholics feel about this pope.

    It has been funny watching the completely irreligious press try to make the obviously wrong story out of the popes comments.

    They tried to get Bush to talk about it and for once Bush was smart and realized talking about wall or the pope only helped Trump.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 18, 2016 at 3:19 pm

      Britt’s second attempt at a thread jack.

      The thread is about T-rump’s self-aggrandizing lies about his positions vis the Iraq war.

      He DID go on the record about the WMD Saddam had, and the need to deal with him.

      Apparently, he stuck his lying Collectivist finger in the air AFTER the CONGRESS…on 21 or 23 predicates…authorized the invasion of Iraq, and began his lies about BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooosh, in keeping with Michael Moore and Code Pink.

        janitor in reply to Ragspierre. | February 18, 2016 at 3:28 pm

        Let’s compare it to Cruz’s inane self-aggrandizing regarding his carpet-bombing of ISIS.

          Radegunda in reply to janitor. | February 18, 2016 at 3:44 pm

          Obviously you don’t know what “self-aggrandizing” means. Trump is the very definition of self-aggrandizing.

          How many things has Cruz put his name on in big letters and told people they’re great just because they have his name on them?

          Like Trump Vodka, the “epitome of vodka and would demand the same respect and inspire the same awe as the international legacy and brand of Donald Trump himself”? Hmmm?

          janitor in reply to janitor. | February 18, 2016 at 6:27 pm

          Obviously I do. Physically he’s a soft little paunchy man with no military experience or experience doing physical labor. He was trying to show what a tough guy he would be. And in doing so, he only proved that he has a lot of studying still to do. (His bacon-cooking stint was another.)

    “makes no difference what da Donald says or does the stars are aligned for him, more’s the pity.”
    That is the most coherent argument I have heard as to why Trump has demonstrated such staying power. One of the aligned stars is the fact that there are millions of voters who are simply tired of all politicians and refuse any further analysis.

      impeach obama in reply to Rick. | February 18, 2016 at 3:36 pm

      If Trump wasn’t a manic serial ‘the truth is what I claim it is’,
      I would have more faith that what he says he will do, he will,
      but if he has a bad burrito, will he change his mind yet again ?
      Look out for the hot tamales and the refried beans backing up on him.

        impeach obama in reply to impeach obama. | February 18, 2016 at 4:20 pm

        To those who don’t agree with me and give me a thumbs down,
        are you dumb or just cowards, arguments I can take,
        but just a thumb down doesn’t explain why, just thumbing your nose.

      Radegunda in reply to Rick. | February 18, 2016 at 3:46 pm

      And they either don’t notice to what extent Trump is now a politician, or they give him a pass — like the Trump fan who admitted that Trump “gives lip service to many issues, but so what?”

      In TrumpWorld, it isn’t wrong when Trump does it.

Just for the record, I criticized Cruz’s “carpet bombing” excesses as ridiculous saber-rattling. It did him no credit.

But it was NOT a self-aggrandizing set of lies, as has been Der Donald’s Code Pinko and 9/11 bullshit.

He DID NOT criticize the war BEFORE the war. Just as he never criticized the Roberts nomination at the time of the Roberts nomination.

His heroics are all in hind-sight. He’s a phony as Nancy Pelosi or Barrack Hussain Obama.

Its not a thread jack when the subject is Trump, which it is, then it is far more interesting to discuss the issues happening right now today than some irrelevant bullcrap from 16 years ago.

Today what is happening is the press, being the religious morons, are trying to make hay out of the Pope (who lives behind 30 ft walls in a country that is the hardest country in the world to which to emmigrate and become a citizen) has the idiocy to say that the united states should not build the Trump wall. The wall that NOBODY, not Cruz, not Rubio not NOBODY else will build.

This raises issues from events TODAY – NOT 16 YEARS AGO.

Those issues involve Trump’s excellent response and how besides the Pope’s comments being amazingly hypocritical will likely HELP TRUMP. Conservative catholics like me of which there are many millions in the USA who view this Pope with LOTS of suspicion for his socialist anti-USA economics and protestants and evangelicals who have been suspicious of every pope for hundreds of years since the reformation will all be offended at the pope trying to interfere in political non-religious matters about which he has NO UNDERSTANDING AT ALL.

Many of those who are offended will choose to show their offense by marching down to the polling places on Saturday AND VOTING FOR DONALD J TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT !!

This could easily be worth up to 5% swing in Trump’s numbers, and most likely those votes will come from undecided fence sitters and some of Ted Cruz’s weak supporters.

Speaking of Cruz and evangelicals, South Carolinians are smart enough to realize that Cruz is a dominionist not a true evangelical and CRUZ DOES NOT TITHE. All good evangelicals TITHE. But not CRUZ. His tax returns show Cruz DOES NOT TITHE.

One can’t run around Iowa and south carolina with the motto, “I’m almost as good as Reagan but better than Jesus” and not TITHE.

That dog don’t hunt. That’s why Trump is beating Cruz with evangelicals and the Pope’s comments are only going to make that even better for Trump.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 18, 2016 at 4:35 pm

    When YOU have your own blog, Bierhall Bullyboi Britt, YOU can post what YOU think is “relevant”.

    On THIS blog, you and I are merely guests, and the Prof. posted a matter HE considers relevant, regardless of your broke-dick opinion in pursuit of changing the subject because it SCREWS your little yellow god.

    Stop your attempts to boss this thread away from its subject, you lying, Collectivist SOS. It won’t work. You are a hiss and a by-word here.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 18, 2016 at 4:41 pm

    “Speaking of Cruz and evangelicals, South Carolinians are smart enough to realize that Cruz is a dominionist not a true evangelical and CRUZ DOES NOT TITHE. All good evangelicals TITHE. But not CRUZ. His tax returns show Cruz DOES NOT TITHE.”

    See? You and Der Donald are no different than your Pope.

    Both you and your little yellow god have attacked BOTH Carson and Cruz over the “authenticity” of their religions.

    You are a whited sepulcher in the New Testiment’s terms, you lying SOS.

    I spit on you, not being a particularly Christian sort of feller.

    HarrietHT in reply to Gary Britt. | February 19, 2016 at 8:45 am

    I agree with you, Mr. Britt.
    I’m an evangelical of sorts: confessional (theologically conservative) Lutheran.

    It seems to me that the biggest mistake the Cruz supporters make is to glob unthinkingly onto Cruz’s purity of heart (as he wishes them to believe) and his fundamentalist credentials (much the same tactic GWB employed) and to push from their minds the uncomfortable facts about his many demerits: Goldman Sacks ties; SuperPAC support where the agenda of said PACs are unknown; his efforts to increase foreign STEM workers (while we have engineers under- or unemployed). That’s just the beginning.
    So while Cruz people are throwing stones at Mr. Trump, they seem oblivious to the fact that in these two candidates we have, respectively, and in broad terms, an internationalist and a nationalist: Cruz will follow the bidding of his internationalist donors; Trump will work to protect the nation-state and American workers.
    Senator Sessions has his finger on the pulse of what is of critical importance at this juncture and recognizes the internationalist threat and pressures to erase our borders. He likes Trump.
    Diana West, whose knowledge and opinion in these matters I highly regard, likes Mr. Trump too.
    I do too.

Mark Levin made a telling…indeed LETHAL…point last night.

If Der Donald is just making noise about filing a lawsuit (or several) against Cruz, what is he NOT making noise about?

If you can’t believe him about his bullying threats vis Cruz, can you believe ANY-FLUCKING-THING he’s told you?

The answer suggests itself…

    janitor in reply to Ragspierre. | February 18, 2016 at 6:02 pm

    I don’t recall that Trump said that he WOULD file a lawsuit; What I remember is that he said that he COULD file a lawsuit.

    So this is carrying on about nothing.

    And it’s the sort of distortion that especially happens when people get their info about what was said via hearsay.

    janitor in reply to Ragspierre. | February 18, 2016 at 6:06 pm

    P.S. any third-year lawyer ought to know that when someone intends to file a lawsuit imminently, they don’t announce it beforehand.

    Just like if you’re not stupid, you don’t announce to the enemy when you’re withdrawing your troops.

    Apparently Trump has another purpose in mind, and also apparently either neither you nor Cruz nor Levin et al. recognizes that or you all are just posturing.

      Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | February 18, 2016 at 6:49 pm

      You’ve lost your reason, dude.

      In my jurisdiction, we HAVE to announce an intent to file in order to give the other side a chance to step up an cure the controversy, including a statement of realistic damages. Without that, in most cases, we can’t hope for attorney fees.

      There’s never any harm in giving the side a preview of coming attractions, since there are no surprises in civil litigation (if done according to the rules).

      You keep imputing to Der Donald this god-like prescience. It’s sick.

        janitor in reply to Ragspierre. | February 18, 2016 at 7:14 pm

        That’s interesting.

        You announce an intent to file suit in the hopes that it will accomplish something else satisfactory, such as a cure, or a settlement, and you won’t actually have to file.

          Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | February 18, 2016 at 7:21 pm

          That’s correct. The law expressly imposes a notice and waiting period to give the sides the chance to settle WITHOUT litigation. And sometimes it even happens. But, aside from the requirement in the law, I usually counsel clients to offer the other side an olive branch before just busting loose. Litigation is WAY too expensive in every possible way, and it is just too risky if a settlement can be reached in good faith.

Thank you, Gary Britt and janitor, for your service.

Nobody with an ounce of self-respect or intellectual honesty can defend Trump.

Instead, you’ve shown us what it takes.

F.Y.I. a word to the wise; certain smells don’t wash off.

Just my two cents, based on conversations with folks who were there:
We didn’t find a lot of WMD in Iraq because we ignored verifiable intel from the IDF that it had been moved to another country, one with a town called “Damascus”.

    Wasn’t just the IDF; We had satellite photos of truck convoys accompanied by Russian diplomats crossing the Syrian border.

      Ragspierre in reply to SDN. | February 19, 2016 at 10:30 am

      But GUYS…!!!

      That’s being rational and fact-based. T-rump and his suckers dun neeeeed no steeeeeenkin’ rational and fact-based!

      They are quite happy with a mass of delusions, myths, and hate-inspired tropes.

      We all have to work VERY hard to see that Der Donald is never allowed to exercise ANY government power anywhere.

As I have been saying here for months there is no mystery at all about Trump’s support.

As long as Trump is the ONLY candidate who will build a real wall, enforce our laws, and deport illegals (which he is) then NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.

That is the secret to Trump’s support. Trump’s supporters understand that none of the others, Cruz, Rubio, Bush, et al will NOT build a real wall and can not be trusted to truly secure the border. None of the others promises to deport illegals and enforce our laws.

Trump is the ONLY candidate that at least says he will build a real wall, deport illegals and enforce our laws. Trump supporters know it is far more likely that Trump will build a real wall than it is for any of the other candidates to build a real wall when the other candidates are NOT promising to build a real wall.

It really is just that simple. Trump being better than the rest on trade agreements and jobs is just icing on the cake.

This is why all the stuff you people think should matter just bounce off of Trump. Since no other candidate will ever build a real wall and deport illegals, there is NO PLACE FOR TRUMP SUPPORTERS TO GO when Trump does or says something that bothers some people.

It is just that simple. A rational decision by rational supporters who want a real wall built and our laws enforced including the deportation ones.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 19, 2016 at 10:53 am

    A truly hilarious cataclysm of repeated lies, delusions, and fantasy, apologizing for support for a stinking, lying, fraudulent Collectivist.

    But Gaghdad Bob assures us this is “rational”…!!!

      HarrietHT in reply to Ragspierre. | February 19, 2016 at 12:49 pm

      You’re perfectly demonstrating the kind of behavior from Cruz supporters which led me — back in the fall — to begin questioning my support of him. On another forum, every time I raised issues about Cruz and tried to get a discussion going about Cruz’s record and what it means to voters, I was shouted down and told what a horrible person I was. The ad hominem was vicious.
      So I looked further into his record and decided I couldn’t trust him. And if he’s anything like the people who support him — who instead of using persuasion to promote their guy use vile invective — then they are not a group of people with whom I can identify, nor a candidate I can get behind.

        Ragspierre in reply to HarrietHT. | February 19, 2016 at 1:02 pm

        OK, Harriet. You’re free to support who you will.

        But you should understand your self-parody, at least.

        If you want to support the stinking, lying, Collectivist Der Donald, there’s nothing anyone can do to dissuade you.

          Ragspierre refering to self parody or self awareness are always good for a full out belly laugh.

          Irony thy name be Ragspierre.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 19, 2016 at 4:55 pm

          Which is, itself, another of your lies, liar.

          I don’t pretend any “civility”. Harriet did.

          I’ll make you my punk and announce it every day, and no pretense otherwise.

          I openly and incandescently HATE a lie and the liar who tells it.

          HarrietHT in reply to Ragspierre. | February 19, 2016 at 5:14 pm

          If you want to support “the stinking, lying,” Canadian Cruz, then go for it.
          You see? You’ve gained nothing nor have I.
          I rest my case.
          Cruz supporters are vile, albeit quite adept at slinging mud.
          Rational? NOT.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 19, 2016 at 5:22 pm

          You’re new here. I could explicate each of my very rational and well-founded reasons to say that Der Donald is a stinking, lying, fraudulent Collectivist thug, but I won’t

          You’re a TWOT (total waste of time). Go on your merry way. I’ll not bother you…MUCH.

        You are quite correct Harriet. There are several Cruz supporters here whose behavior besides being crude and rude is also quite juvenile like a grade school click of ill mannered children. Hang in there.

        A fish rots from the head and tgere is no surprise that a person like Cruz who wants to lie his way to the whitehouse ptetending to be an evangelist instead of an end times dominionist cultist attracks supporters who are liars as well.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 19, 2016 at 4:11 pm

          And HEEEREs whited sepulcher, the Lying Liar, Gari Britt, to show us how REAL hypocrisy is done!

          He’s a bigot and a Collectivist who is NEITHER a “catholic” or a “conservative”. But IS a lying SOS (sack of sharia for his man-crush, T-rump).

          HarrietHT in reply to Gary Britt. | February 19, 2016 at 5:21 pm

          I’ve been warning the Cruz, foul-mouth supporters that their vicious ad-hominems work to their candidate’s disadvantage. For when emotion overrides their reason . . . well, there just is no reasoning with them. And it is a HUGE turnoff.
          I am here to tell them — and they will not listen — that such juvenile conduct drives AWAY rational thinkers.

          Pity that. Or maybe not.
          The more the vicious and coarse behavior of the Cruz people drive voters to Trump, the better.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 19, 2016 at 12:17 pm

    Trump: “I like the mandate”.

    Pay attention, T-rump suckers. Rush can’t believe Der Donald said this. Why he can’t, I don’t understand.

      Simple he was talking about a mandate for insurance policies to cover pre-existing conditions. Not a mandate to buy insurance.

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 19, 2016 at 4:12 pm

      More of that COMMAND economy bullshit you and Der Donald LOVE!

      Funny thing, though Bierhall Britt, NOBODY EVER NEEDED to “mandate” insurance companies sell insurance to people with pre-existing conditions.

      I did a search back a few years ago, during the early daze of ObamaDoggle, and found several dozen (at least) insurance companies who were DELIGHTED to sell insurance for pre-existing conditions. AND at competitive rates. Just as one who understood MARKETS would predict.

      This would leave you and T-rump out, since you are both economics dolts who love the Collective.

        HarrietHT in reply to Ragspierre. | February 19, 2016 at 5:25 pm

        What kind of person are you?
        “Bullshit.” “Der Trump?”
        You think your writing tone and style are persuasive?
        Think again.
        Or is it that you derive some perverse pleasure in demonstrating your particular skill in betraying your own coarseness, rudeness, and inability to control yourself? Your inability to engage in rational debate.

        There is plenty of room for passion. But coarseness and slander are only covers for fear and weakness.

      HarrietHT in reply to Ragspierre. | February 19, 2016 at 7:12 pm

      You are a man without manners.
      Too bad.
      The more you write the more I understand the sort of coarse person who worships Cruz.

    Arminius in reply to Gary Britt. | February 19, 2016 at 2:58 pm

    You’re right, Gary. There’s no mystery at all about Trump’s support.

    There’s also no mystery at all about why death row inmates get marriage proposals.

    What’s your point otherwise?

      My point is contained in my post. I suggest you read it again but this time for comprehension.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 19, 2016 at 4:16 pm

        A lying SOS rots from all over, Gaghdad Bob, and your BS can’t be made “comprehensible” by a thousand readings.

        Because it is a repetitive recitation of a pack of stinking lies, coupled with your own delusional belief, and man-crush fantasy.

        Der Donald CAN’T do MUCH of what you fantasize about.

        Thank gawd…

        Arminius in reply to Gary Britt. | February 19, 2016 at 5:28 pm

        I read your pointless comment. But I’m a nice guy. I’m willing to give you a do-over. This time, try to develop a point.

        Ready, set, go!

      gulfbreeze in reply to Arminius. | February 20, 2016 at 8:19 am

      “You’re right, Gary. There’s no mystery at all about Trump’s support.

      “What’s your point otherwise?”

      I’m not sure what you’re looking for. I’m not even a Trump supporter and his post is clear and explicit.

      When one says, “As long as Trump is the ONLY candidate who will build a real wall, enforce our laws, and deport illegals (which he is) then NOTHING ELSE MATTERS,” then gives even more explicit explanations of the same point, their language clearly indicates there IS no other point.

      Why would one look for another point when they explicitly and repetitively say there is no other point?

      If someone said, “All I want is a hamburger because nothing else matters,” would you ask, “What’s your point otherwise?”

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-s-lead-slashed-south-carolina-poll-n521101

For the poll dancing T-rump suckers here…

“Donald Trump is now leading Saturday’s South Carolina Republican primary by 5 points — down from his 16-point lead in the state a month ago, according to results from a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll.”

Heh…!!!

    HarrietHT in reply to Ragspierre. | February 19, 2016 at 12:39 pm

    Is this poll taken by the same Rupert Murdoch (of Australia) who owns the entities doing the polling and whose rabid support of open borders is legendary?
    Is it?

      HarrietHT in reply to HarrietHT. | February 19, 2016 at 7:21 pm

      Anyone who is paying attention understands that the open-borders coalition is waging war against Mr. Trump.
      But perhaps it is the case that those who relish the obviously skewed polling data emanating from a known open-borders entity are themselves in complete alignment with their agenda: the erasure of the nation state.
      Is that you, Rags?

    gulfbreeze in reply to Ragspierre. | February 20, 2016 at 8:46 am

    It will be interesting to see where the final tally lies.

    The Augusta Chronicle (from 2/18-19) has the spread as low as +3 for Trump. Alternatively, a huge poll of 3500 LV (5x the size of either NBC/WSJ/Marist or Augusta Chronicle polls) by the SC House GOP on 2/18 has Trump +15. The RCP average of 6 polls done from 2/15-19 is Trump +13.

    So the 6 polls are dramatically split between 4 polls (Trump +12-17) to 2 polls (Trump +3-5). Is one group off the mark, or will both be? Interesting to see who turns out to be correct.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_presidential_primary-4151.html

“‘Yeah I guess so,’ Trump responded. ‘I wish the first time it was done correctly.'”

You know, I actually could support Donald Trump circa 2002. Because that was exactly my sentiment. No good would come from leaving our business unfinished in 1991.

A reading from the Book of Obvious. And, lo, no good came of it.

Which is why, like Donald Trump, I supported the invasion in 2002.

Where me and Trump differ is that I’m not going to lie to you now about where I stood and why back then.

    Ragspierre in reply to Arminius. | February 19, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    But in the world of OMNI-angulation that Der Donald practices, where EVERY possible position is covered by some-damned-thing…

    taking Saddam out was WRONG (‘cuz he was a terrorist fighter, doncha know).

    So WTF DID he mean with “…done correctly”?

    There’s no telling.

      HarrietHT in reply to Ragspierre. | February 19, 2016 at 7:10 pm

      Tell me, Ragspierre, what is your opinion of Islam?
      Does Islam have a place in Western nations?
      I just want to know.
      Ignore my question if you choose.
      And direct your usual juvenile trashing of anyone who shares not your love of Cruz.
      I can handle it.
      As it does for me the ultimate service of revealing who you are to everyone here.

http://twitchy.com/2016/02/19/trump-clarifies-comments-on-obamacare-mandate/

Yeah. Sure.

Der Donald is a lying sack of…excrement (just for Harriet and her doilies.)

Donald Ducks is a lying Collectivist who LOVES command economics. His brand is called fascist economics.

By the way, Rags: I am not new to Legal Insurrection.
On the contrary. I have been absent due to a hiatus in my participation here.
I remember you, though.
But I’m not surprised that you do not remember me; I posted often around the time of the Trayvon Martin “incident,” and the many months preceding it, if not years — it’s hard to remember these types of things.
I spend my time elsewhere, now.
But I have not forgotten my appreciation of the work of Prof. Jacobson, nor of my frequent participation here in years past.
Oh yes. I do remember you.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend