Lester Holt caught lying about Trump

It's the possible result not the race over which you sulk.

As much consequence as what you sulk about actually not as much.

 

False analogy. How about one who is an experienced surgeon and one who plays one on TV, as Natty Bumpo suggested, or maybe someone who has watched some surgeries but who has no formal training.

 

No, this has nothing to do with Hillary nor Trump.

I have read the very important books. Clearly you have not. What is nice about the books is they can be fact checked.

We don't need to argue, your mind is made up and you can't be told a thing.

 

A claim she's never made.

 

Well Clinton ran part of Government. Trump has not. But she ran it poorly. I am willing to see how well Trump does since she is a proven failure.

 

That hypothetical scenario hardly reflects the current presidential choice because you would never have a little over half the electorate opting for the female quack you describe, but since the alternative had actually graduated from medical school and served a residency, he would have met the minimal requirements for the job.

 

Obviously, I have not and do not sulk about the current popular president, nor about his probable successor, so you may be projecting.

 

You present Powell as not very smart but I doubt you think so. The man spent at least 2 full weeks at the CIA to make sure what he told the UN was verified. I have long said that George Tenet had the duty to try hard to have accurate information. Bush was told by Tenet it was a definite thing that Saddam had WMD. It was the same message we got from Bill Clinton so it could not shock Powell. Bush did not invade for one reason. Bush invaded to end the BS that Saddam had pulled for so many years. A reason was WMD but Bush got fooled with the rest of us. I mean, WMD was found, but not what Bush expected Georges Sada, an Iraqi General officer wrote a book detailing how Saddam shipped to Syria the WMD he had in Iraq.

I did not claim the resolution spoke of freedom, I believe it was drafted using the Clinton data, but Congress too was sick of Saddam's regime and wanted our role to end. Bush never planned to hang around Iraq. What happened post the domination of Saddam by General Franks forces

Bush titled the invasion Iraqi Freedom. Did you think he was kidding?

I can try to get you a video of Bush saying Saddam is a Grave and gathering danger.

I can't find one saying he only invaded over some WMD.

Listen to him tell you what I said he had told us. Notice he did not claim Saddam has WMD, but that he was a danger to get some.

[video=youtube;Aq2pQOvt0mc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq2pQOvt0mc[/video]

 

You may not be ready to accept what so many have come to honestly admit. You may just need more time.

Just don't waste it searching for the WMD stockpiles that the Dub finally admitted Saddam did not have.

 

Another RW thread that is based on falsehoods.
Wow. Does it ever stop?

 

Here is Cheney talking about the issue where he comments on resolution 1441. Most Democrats totally forgot all about that.

Next is Colin Powell saying the invasion is just and based on how wrong Saddam was. "Iraq was in Material breech of it's obligations."

[video=youtube;5eMNAXuq694]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eMNAXuq694[/video]

 

Since this is you defending Hillary Clinton from the looks of things, let's gut you.

Do you believe Bill and Hillary Clinton lied to the public over WMD in Iraq?

 

WTF was Obama doing in Syria and in Libya?

I thought he learned a lesson?

We know Hillary is a war hawk. She showed it at the time Bush talked of invading Iraq. She and her husband kept up the message Saddam HAS WMD.

This never was over WMD to Democrats. They can't complain Bush waged war given that was the MO of the Bill Clinton administration plus based on Obama's wars in the ME, he has simply kept doing it. Saying Obama did not invade is like telling me that on 12/7/1941, Japan did not invade the Hawaiian Islands. Bombing is war and Democrats have long believed that.

 

Of course, I'm not defending Clinton for what she has admitted was a serious error in judgement. Like Colin Powell, she swallowed the Bush Kool-aid® and it did not accrue to her credit. Her vote to surrender to Bush the decision whether to attack Iraq was a mistake serious enough to have cost her the presidency in 2008.

 

No the false analogy is comparing the US Presidency to a surgeon. We had a former actor as a President (He did a pretty good job), but I would never allow Allen Alda preform surgery on me. But if you are going to falsely compare the Presidency to a surgeon, then my analogy is spot-on. One is experienced with a very shady record, and the other is inexperienced. Btw, do you remember Obama was considered inexperienced in 2008? Was that a problem with you then?

 

Did she lie to the public? Was Bill Clinton a liar over WMD in Iraq?

Hillary had the same information as did Bush. Actually since her husband engaged Saddam ahead of GW Bush, I have to say he probably told her all about Saddam and his WMD.

Personally, for what I see, it was not a mistake to invade. Mistakes were made but honest mistakes.

 

Did Senator Clinton? Did President Clinton? Did Secretary Powell? It's certainly possible. Do you have any examples?


.

 

Not if you consider experience to be important in such critical positions.

He was elected because he had served from 1967 thru 1974 as governor of the most populace state in the union, not because he starred in Bedtime for Bonzo or hosted Death Valley Days.

The inexperienced one has a very shady record - and persists in keeping it shady by hiding his tax returns.

I did not consider the 2008 Democratic nominee who had served a dozen years as State and US Senator from Illinois inexperienced (although he, admittedly, never starred in Bedtime for Bonzo.)

 

There is no evidence that Clinton is capable of accomplishing anything beyond selling influence and enabling mass murder.

So, are you voting for Jill Stein?

 

This is what "experienced" political insiders do:

“They gather, all the brands, at the self-referential festivals, like the April White House Correspondents Association dinner, whose buffet of “pre-parties” and “after-parties” now number more than two dozen– because a single banquet, it is clear, cannot properly celebrate the full achievements of the People Who Run Your Country. … The insider swarm has been known by various names: “Permanent Washington”. “The Political Class”. “The Chattering Class”. “The Usual Suspects”. “The Beltway Establishment”. “The Echo Chamber”. “The Echo System”. “The Gang of 500”. “The Gang 600”. “The Movable Mess”. “The Club”. Mark Leibovich, This Town, Penguin Books, 2013, p. 8.

The insiders learn how to swarm, chatter and steal.

 

Thanks for yet another example of the failure of the American political class.
And yet another reason for Democrats, Republicans and Independents to vote for Trump.

 

If that is the story that you have bought, you need to realize that your belief is not shared by most knowledgeable Americans,

 

I'm not saying that America invaded Iraq for the bases. Our statement was that we invaded because of WMDs. No, Clinton didn't do PNAC's bidding. They wanted Clinton to take stronger military action against Iraq and were highly frustrated when he would not.


The reason PNAC is important is that it demonstrates that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest were highly interested in conquering Iraq NOT because of WMDs, NOT because of humanitarian concerns, NOT because of "freedom" or the desire for that country to advance, NOT because of any military threat from Iraq, but because they wanted to extend the reach of US military power in that region as part of a plan for a post-soviet "new American century".

We had an especially large military lead following the cold war, and PNAC members wanted (among other things) to use that to extend US hegemony throughout that region through conquest. Thus the "new American century" of domination.

Given that as the fundamental underlying belief of those in high office, it is no wonder that the excuses for conquering Iraq were so pathetic. After the war, Wolfowitz stated they were looking for "proximate cause", anything that could be considered sufficiently related as the kind of justification those in the administration were searching for. They had no interest in solving the problem WITHOUT war - justification for conquest was the Bush administration objective.


Given that, it's no surprise that Bush chose war instead of following the plan proposed at the UN of establishing a verification program to be used with all nations making progress in developing nuclear weapons, or for Bush to simply allow us to continue the verification process to ensure Iraq had abandoned its WMD direction, for example.

Bob Woodward, in a book vetted by the Bush administration states that Sadam offered to leave Iraq, taking his sons with him and allowing the government of Iraq to be reformed under another leader. He asked only that a nation be selected where he could live. Bush told him that we would pursue Sadam forever, regardless of where he was - making staying in Iraq and attempting to outlast the coming war to be the only option Sadam had.

Had Sadam and sons left government, we wouldn't have had a justification for conquest. Bush couldn't allow that.

 

January, 1997 thru November 2008 is 12 years of elective public service, but if you prefer having been given $14 million, a record of multiple bankruptcies, and hosting beauty pageants to be qualifications for the presidency, that is your personal criteria.

The American electorate does not have the reality tv performer's tax records. Unlike every other presidential nominee in modern history, he feels that he needs to hide them from the electorate.