Trump Lied

Facebook 0
LinkedIn 0
Reddit 0
StumbleUpon 0

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”

Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002




One of the more pernicious accusations in political life today is the claim that Bush lied the country into war against Iraq by falsely claiming the necessity of stopping Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs.  Leaving aside that the country went to war for various reasons, detailed here, there is no evidence that Bush lied about the WMD programs of Iraq, but was rather relying on the best intelligence available.  Donald Trump recently took up this mantra of the left:


Then Trump went on to say something even more unusual in a Republican primary. He suggested that the former GOP president, George W. Bush, directly lied to the American public in order to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

“I will tell you. They lied. And they said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction,” Trump said.


Go here to read the rest.  One of the many problems with Donald Trump is that he is a deeply ignorant man in regard to public policy, and that he takes his ideas from what he picks up in the mass media.  Since the media leans left, so do Trump’s ideas and beliefs, except for the handful of campaign themes that Trump has picked up for the nomination campaign.  Rest assured that he does not really believe what he is currently saying in regard to immigration, or the other hot button issues he has pressed in order to gull voters into thinking he is a conservative.  He remains what he has always been:  an ignorant blowhard who has a world view that is centrist for a conventional New York liberal.

More to explorer

“God, Why ?” Questions, Part II

Why, God ? – Depends On Who’s Asking Atheists, agnostics, and believers ask the “God, why ?” questions in different ways. A

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?

Sejanus: I have no need of a trial to prove your guilt. Gallus: A song sung by every small-town corrupt policeman, which

Open Thread

    The usual Open Thread rules apply:  be concise, be charitable and, above all, be amusing!


  1. Jim Geraghty had a good line in yesterday’s Morning Jolt:
    “[D]on’t worry, immigration hawks. There’s no way Trump is conning you. He means everything he says to you — he’s just offering a line, spin, and empty promises to everyone else.”

  2. We have to get history right if we are going to make right choices now. thanks for the thoughtful video
    related thought – I hope whoever wins the GOP nomination and presidency puts in astute patriot Rick Santorum as Secretary of State..

  3. Yes, Saddam Hussein DID have WMD and was trying to acquire MORE and BETTER WMD.
    President George W Bush was RIGHT and CORRECT, and the rest of the world was WRONG.
    May God forever bless and protect our last real President, George W Bush.

  4. The one possible thing twirling in the back of my mind is that sometimes the good Lord uses evil to bring about a greater good and something needs to be done to stop the establishment from their destructive agenda or it won’t matter about voting at all.
    Right now, I fear Trump and the establishment about the same, and intend to vote for Cruz, but all things are possible–depending upon what games the corrupt GOPe plays from here on in.

  5. Saddam gassed the Kurds and others, and I recall convoys heading into Syria at night before the war began. I think it doubtless, Iraq had WMD. Trump may be a quick study but not a thorough one. Cruz is probably our last good hope but if the GOP opts for shenanigans rather than supporting him, they will pay a dear price.

  6. @Lucious. Ditto. There are plenty of articles detailing the dismantling and destruction of chemical weapons seized in Iraq. Saddam was a little Hitler who, along with his sons and henchmen, had to go. We can debate what was to replace him, but he had to go.
    I wonder how Obama would have handled Saddam. Bowed to him, release assets, and give billions in aid, aka Saddam retirement fund. Maybe even supply him nuclear technology, which would only be used to generate energy of course.

  7. “Maybe even supply him nuclear technology, which would only be used to generate energy of course.”
    It depends on the nuclear technology being discussed. There is as much a difference between a light water reactor (like the US AP-1000 or the Russian VVER) and a nuclear fission weapon, as there is between gasoline for a motor vehicle and napalm, one of whose ingredients is gasoline.
    I therefore do NOT object to either Iran or Iraq using light water reactor technology. I do object to heavy water reactor technology that can be used to breed plutonium-239 from uranium-238, and to enrichment of natural uranium beyond the 5% required for light water reactors.

  8. Wow, it posted before I was ready! Nevertheless, my concluding statement is this:
    There is a difference between a weapon and an energy source.
    Napalm is a weapon.
    Gasoline is not.
    > 90% U-235 and > 90% Pu-239 are weapons.
    < 5% U-235 and < 5% Pu-239 are not.

  9. Kyle,
    I agree that Barack Hussein Obama will do whatever he can to benefit Muslims. It is a part of his nature and mindset. However, that said, it is very difficult to make a nuclear weapon and Iran’s ability to do so has been set back by the Iranian accord.
    Yes, gasoline can be used in a Molotov cocktail just as alcohol can be used. Neither is a militarily useful weapon but both are excellent terrorist or guerrilla warfare weapons. But a terrorist cannot take a sack of uranium or plutonium and make a Molotov cocktail (however, he likely would die eventually of heavy metal chemical poisoning, entirely non-nuclear).
    Now that said, anything less than 90% enriched U-235 or Pu-239 or U-233 cannot be used to be a militarily useful weapon. Those are the ONLY isotopes which can undergo thermal fission. On detonation a 90% U-235 or Pu-239 or U-233 is very difficult and very expensive. The DPRK chose the U-238 to Np-239 to Pu-239 route and its bomb had so much non-fissile Pu-240 that its yield wasn’t worth the effort.
    It pooped out. Yes, U-233 can also be used if > 90%, but that is even MORE difficult to make because it requires using the Th-232 to Pa-233 to U-233 route. And enriching U-235 from nature requires lots and lots of centrifuges to do the necessary isotopic separation. NOT easy.
    I have neither the time nor the energy to explain here 30+ years of nuclear engineering knowledge and experience. Basically, nuclear power reactors for electricity are EASY and nuclear bombs are HARD. So every time I see the nuclear word used in conjunction with energy for weapons, I respond: a light water nuclear reactor is NOT a vehicle for making bombs. NOT. Can you do it with graphite or heavy water moderated reactors – making U-233 or Pu-239? Yes, but the DPRK failed at that. In fact, it would not surprise me if a DPRK bomb fizzled out right in the lab before it every got deployed to the field. And using centrifuges to enrich U-235 takes a very long time and is itself difficult, Iran had to give up on that. Now it will use Russian VVER light water reactors for electricity and those are perfectly fine – a souped-up variant of the Westinghouse PWR with some Russian submarine reactor engineering thrown in for good measure. They are examples of some really excellent Russian engineering.
    All that said, the routes to nuclear weapons for Saddam Hussein were cut off after the 1991 Iraq war. The WMD he acquired were chemical and biological weapons. Might he have had a radiological dirty bomb (a chemical explosive coated with Cs-137 or something else)? Possibly, but even those are not militarily useful weapons and usually the terrorist who uses them dies from poisoning before he can deploy the device to the field. However, dirty bombs are great for striking terror (radiation! radiation! we’re all a’gonna die!) into ignorant liberal New Yorkers and the like. But as WMD they suck.
    Again, Kyle, I agree with you about Obama, but Saddam’s WMD effort was emasculated with respect to nuclear, and Iran currently does not have an immediate path forward to a bomb (even its heavy water Pu-239 Arak breeder is permanently disabled – concrete in the RPV as I recall; not sure).

  10. Neil Bush just endorsed Ted Cruz. The Cruz’s go way back with the Bush administration both Ted and Heidi his wife before they were married worked in the Bush administration. Heidi worked with Condi Rice on a think tank for the Counicil on Foriegn Relations in drafting a policy that would eliminate our sovereign borders to include an invisible borders surrounding Canda, USA and Mexico with homeland security guarding it. Ted Cruz can seem like a true Constitutionalist but the more investigated his background the more I grew concerned. I don’t trust Ted Cruz and his wife. I’m voting for Donald Trump because he is the only speaking about protecting our country against global socialism New World Order being controlled by the UN. Nothing is going to matter if we don’t have a Soverign Nation. You better wake up!

  11. Heidi worked with Condi Rice on a think tank for the Counicil on Foriegn Relations in drafting a policy that would eliminate our sovereign borders to include an invisible borders surrounding Canda, USA and Mexico with homeland security guarding it.

    This is pure moonbattery. If you’re concerned about Ted Cruz’s record on US sovereignty, I suggest you google the Medellin case, where Cruz – as Solicitor General of Texas – successfully argued before the Court to overrule a Bush administration directive which would have forced states to comply with the International Court of Justice in reviewing death penalty convictions of Mexican nationals.

  12. Two matters I have yet to hear expressed during the current situation. 1. The investigation into Hillary’s email scandal should reach a conclusion soon to prevent a Constitutional crisis situation during or soon after the election. 2. If a Trump Presidency is inevitable, it may at least prompt the long overdue correction of abuses of Presidential powers. I would rather see a President Cruz accomplish as much in a non-adversarial manner but one way or the other it should be done.

  13. Neil Bush just endorsed Ted Cruz

    Oh, you mean that Jeb and W’s little brother, who’s a businessman that nobody cares about other than his last name, joined the fund-raising team for Cruz, according to CNN.
    (A disclaimer it seems wise to include, given their behavior of late.)

    As for the claims about involvement with Dr. Rice, it seems to be a conflation of Mrs. Cruz’s prior work in the 90s as an investment banker that focused on Latin America with her work after she’d married him in ’01, when she was the Economic Director for the Western Hemisphere at the National Security Council under Rice, or maybe some of her other public sector work.
    Or a general accusation about bankers.

  14. Good video. Lucius and Wm P Walsh: Agree. I am so tired of that old saw re Pres. Bush’s lie about WMD. In the early days of the war Iraq’s western border with Syria was porous and convoys with Saddam relatives, gold/money and WMDs crossed over. When our troops found poison gas buried underground in concrete bunkers, where were the retractions in the media?
    We and our allies won the Iraq War. Obama then lost it!

  15. We should wish not to see an effort at the Convention to undo the voters will. The place to make the argument is during the primary elections. How can the Republicans criticize the super-delegate rigged primary of the so-called Democratic Party, if they out do their shenanigans?

  16. The long primary season is a blessing. Retail politics makes the candidates get face to face with ordinary people. The long season starts out with many candidates and going state to state gives the whole nation a chance to focus and learn. And “weed out” as they see things unfold. The first caucus and primary voters had a wider selection at the time, but we have all -the whole nation – got to know the candidates better, those early voters might very well make a different choice today. The system is great- open and energetic. The convention is there precisely for the purpose of making the best choice based on what we know now at convention time.

  17. .Anzlyne, thanks for your optimism. If things work out for the best, we shall be pleased. My pessimism is based on past performance, unfortunately.

Comments are closed.