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)


    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.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    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?”

    Ragspierre | February 19, 2016 at 11:29 am

    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.”


      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.

    Arminius | February 19, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    “‘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.

    Ragspierre | February 19, 2016 at 6:08 pm

    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.

    HarrietHT | February 19, 2016 at 7:18 pm

    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.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend