Politico: Trump Goes Code Pink on George W. Bush

[mystery-ak]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/trump-code-pink-bush-iraq-9-11-213630

 Trump Goes Code Pink on George W. Bush

The Republican front-runner echoes Democratic talking points on 9/11, Iraq and Bin Laden.

By Michael Grunwald

February 14, 2016

It was weird that an angry Code Pink-style protester interrupted last night’s Republican presidential debate with a barrage of familiar Democratic talking points about George W. Bush—that he lied the country into a disastrous war in Iraq, failed to prevent the September 11 attacks, and even whiffed on an opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden. It was especially weird that the protestor was one Donald J. Trump, who happens to be the front-runner for the Republican nomination.

Trump didn’t just call the Iraq war a mistake. He called it “a big fat mistake.” And he didn't call it an inadvertent mistake because of faulty intelligence. “They lied!” he thundered. “They said there were weapons of mass destruction … and they knew there were none.” Trump even groused that the war cost $5 trillion that could have helped rebuild America’s crumbling infrastructure, a common Democratic attack line that sounded like a canine talking point at a feline convention, especially in military-heavy South Carolina.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/trump-code-pink-bush-iraq-9-11-213630#ixzz409ew9BRf

[EC]

The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons

Five years after President George W. Bush sent troops into Iraq, these soldiers had entered an expansive but largely secret chapter of America’s long and bitter involvement in Iraq.

From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

Odd, eh?

[sinkspur]

There's no record of Trump being against the Irag War before it started:

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,195093.0.html

[ABX]

..and to add to this, Code Pink is all over their Facebook today praising Trump's performance.
https://www.facebook.com/codepinkalert

[sneakypete]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/trump-code-pink-bush-iraq-9-11-213630

 Trump Goes Code Pink on George W. Bush

The Republican front-runner echoes Democratic talking points on 9/11, Iraq and Bin Laden.

By Michael Grunwald

February 14, 2016

It was weird that an angry Code Pink-style protester interrupted last night’s Republican presidential debate with a barrage of familiar Democratic talking points about George W. Bush—that he lied the country into a disastrous war in Iraq, failed to prevent the September 11 attacks, and even whiffed on an opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden. It was especially weird that the protestor was one Donald J. Trump, who happens to be the front-runner for the Republican nomination.

.Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/trump-code-pink-bush-iraq-9-11-213630#ixzz409ew9BRf

Not really. I have been saying ever since he entered the race that he did so as an agent provocateur from his buddies the Clintons,in order to fragment the dedicated Republican voting block,and to scare away the undecided voters.

When he can  do this  using "uncomfortable truths" about alleged Republican screw-ups,it works even better for  him and his pals,the Dims.

[ABX]

There's no record of Trump being against the Irag War before it started:

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,195093.0.html

Sink, you'll find this interesting though. In The America We Deserve in 2000, Trump made the same arguments as Bush before Bush did.

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.

Was he lying then or was he lying Saturday?