Audio of Donald Trump Discussing 9-11 Attack With Howard Stern During One Year Anniversary…

Good Grief. Tonight Buzzfeed breaks with a story about Donald Trump supporting the Iraq invasion in 2002. They present an interview Mr. Trump had with radio host Howard Stern on the first anniversary of the 9-11 attack. September 11th 2002.

To frame a 3 second off-the-cuff response: “I guess so, well, uh“, to an off the cuff question, unrelated to the point of New York and the anniversary being discussed, is more than a little silly.

Listen yourself. The “controversial” snippet is around 3:13 – 3:48 (but the entire segment provides context).  Click The Orange Arrow To Listen

trump rally fans

This entry was posted in Donald Trump, Election 2016, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

203 Responses to Audio of Donald Trump Discussing 9-11 Attack With Howard Stern During One Year Anniversary…

  1. Martin says:

    The press is unreal.

    Liked by 12 people

  2. jedimastertrump says:

    They are desperate.

    They will try anything at this point because they know they are on the brink of losing everything.

    Liked by 25 people

  3. mickie says:

    A big, fat nothingburger.

    Liked by 10 people

  4. NHVoter says:

    This is a big nothing burger. ‘Yeah I guess so’ is hardly an endorsement of anything. And, correct me if I’m wrong, but Colun Powell didn’t present the case to go to war to the UN until 2003.

    I thought Trump’s answer to this at the CNN townhall was great.

    Liked by 12 people

    • jello333 says:

      I wish I could find them, but somewhere I still have notes I was taking while watching Powell. I know I was screaming it out loud, and I’m pretty sure I WROTE it in the notes too…. “LIAR! You and your puppet-masters are LIARS!”

      Like

    • Naslod says:

      Wasn’t there reports in the MSM that it was known that Bush’s regime did lie about the WMDs? I thought that was widely reported at that time. They talked about the CIA guy behind Colin Powell knew full well that it was not true, but very misleading. There was a documentary somewhere that discussed this back then.

      Like

  5. ” Ya I guessss so….. I wish the first time it was done correctly…”
    I hope trump wins Huge in SC and NV just runs the table.

    Liked by 12 people

  6. dizzymissl says:

    Remember Trump was a Democrat at that time so it makes sense that he would be opposed to the war.

    Like

  7. RINOKiller says:

    Vegas eyes are smiling. They are enjoying everybody losing!

    Like

  8. CNN is in full shill attack mode. They have a nasty banner article entitled Trump waivers on Iraq War. It’s just more dishonesty from the liberal media trying to manufacture a narrative.

    Liked by 7 people

  9. JoeS says:

    It seems like a sort of an off the cuff comment without having any infromation-certainly not the info that BUSH had.

    Now, here is what I posted on another thread here that I think makes Trump’s case/position at THE TIME of the invasion REALLY CREDIBLE:

    The conversation on CNN with this issue about Trump saying something on Howard Stern about supporting the war versus what he said SHORTLY after the war in Iraq is ABSURD.

    For anyone to be AGAINST the Iraq war SHORTLY AFTER it started means he was against it BEFORE IT STARTED-PERIOD! It took INCREDIBLE COURAGE for Trump to say he was against the Iraq war a few weeks after it started because ABSOLUTELY NO ONE was against the Iraq war once it started. If Trump was against the Iraq war shortly after it started (within a few weeks), then of course he was against it before it started.

    There was an EXTRAORDINARY NATIONALISTIC FERVOR AT THIS TIME. IT TOOK GUTS TO BE AGAINST THE WAR A FEW WEEKS AFTER IT STARTED!!!!!!!!!!! ONLY A FOOL WOULD BE AGAINST IT THE IF HE WAS FOR IT BEFORE SHORTLY BEFORE IT STARTED.

    When the Iraq war started, it was ALL ABOUT the U.S. KICKING TOTAL ASS! I remember that time period. There was story after story about TOTAL conquest, majors smoking cigars in Sadam palaces, Uda and Kusa (I don’t know the exact spelling, but Sadam’s kids) getting killed, and every kind of COMPLETE conquest. And Trump was saying it was a mistake? It makes Trump’s story MUCH MORE CREDIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    No one (or at least VERY, VERY FEW) at that time WOULD DARE say the war was a mistake!!!!!!

    Liked by 6 people

      • cohibadad says:

        As Colin Powell said (@6:40): “I think it is doubtful that without the weapons of mass destruction case, the President, the Congress, the United Nations and those who joined us in the conflict, the British, the Italians, the Australians, would have found a persuasive enough case to support a decision to go to war.”

        So as I said earlier, I see only two possibilities, one much more plausible than the other. Did W lie to get us into war? Or was he and his entire administration so completely incompetent that they insisted on WMDs, not just suggested, not just thought maybe there are WMDs, but absolutely insisted on the undoubtable proof of them, that they waged war based on the claim, only to find out afterwards that there were none. Bad intelligence? Sure, Trump could give W the benefit of the doubt that he was just completely incompetent rather than lied, but really? It is borderline absurd.

        Liked by 1 person

    • hiroof says:

      Well said period.

      Like

  10. freegz says:

    Comment was made month before Iraq Resolution was introduced to Congress on October 2, 2002 so before debate. 6 months before invasion..

    Liked by 2 people

  11. WoW the bushes and media finally convinced me with this massive new information. I am changing my vote from Trump to Trump then back to Trump.

    Liked by 24 people

  12. dizzymissl says:

    Liked by 6 people

    • Notmeagain says:

      Pfft. I defy anyone to remember clearly the details of what they said casually over 12 years ago. The mind collapses time and events and it is all distorted, even things which were so startling and personal that they seemed engraved on the soul. Trump is doing pretty good to be within a year.

      Liked by 1 person

  13. dizzymissl says:

    Liked by 4 people

  14. Paula says:

    “I guess so.” It was a freaking guess. Not something he’d given a lot of thought to. His mind was on rebuilding NYC. GMAFB!

    Liked by 5 people

  15. dizzymissl says:

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Make America Mexico Again says:

    Anyone who was voting for Trump because he was anti-Iraq war but is now going to change because of this three-second clip…

    I was going to finish that sentence but it sure sounds dumb.

    Liked by 6 people

  17. Joe's Dad says:

    It doesn’t matter anymore how the media tries to spin it. Just look at the Trump Movement. Nobody’s buying the media bullshit. The more crap they spew the more we see how full of shit they are

    Liked by 4 people

  18. Honest Abbey says:

    Even if Trump did, in fact, change his views on the Iraq War, it’s only his “views” …… Not as if he changed his religion – like someone who was born and raised Episcopalian, but is now being propped up as a devout Catholic. Why does Jeb get a pass on this? Afterall, isn’t someone’s religion more sacred to them than their views?

    Liked by 3 people

    • I’ll be honest – even though I supported the war, I had doubts beforehand. If there had been audio of me, those doubting comments could have been found, amidst my general support.

      This is why I think Trump is so bright. He followed those doubts a decade longer into history’s chess game, and made the right call. Big respect.

      Liked by 6 people

      • Before Trump woke me up, I bought into the Iraq war, lock stock and barrel. I think a lot of people are having a hard time coming to terms with being duped.
        Hell I never even considered to root for Gaddaffi. I’m starting to suspect N. Korea might not be as bad as the media wants me to think he is.

        Liked by 2 people

        • This is the thing – once the media can’t be trusted, all large decisions are untrustworthy. The American people must never forget this lesson – how we paid in blood and freedom for going to sleep.

          Liked by 1 person

          • I was going to say, “I fear, the media deception goes back decades” but the truth is; it does go back decades.
            When the media cover gets blown off, the government deception is not far behind in being revealed. I am afraid of finding out about government deception that goes back decades or more. And the reason for the deception, profits.
            This could be big enough to damage this country. I do fear bloodshed. sigh

            Liked by 1 person

        • AdamSelene says:

          No, North Korea is still hell on earth. I’m convinced the “BEST KOREA” memes are DPRK propaganda so when westerners think of North Korea they think “those silly people with their Glorious Leader who wins all olympic events and has unicorn caves lol!” instead of thinking about the forced labor camps, children born into slavery, amputations, forced abortions, etc and the Kim criminal enterprise that runs it.

          Gaddaffi was no good guy, but he kept the Islamists under control, and only got “liberated” when he started talking about making a new African currency to get out from under IMF/World Bank control.

          Liked by 1 person

      • Joe says:

        I could not agree more.

        Liked by 1 person

      • MVW says:

        Folks, remember that the internet news sources were not what we have now. Media was dominated by the corporate media. That has changed.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Notmeagain says:

        In the shock after 9/11, a lot of people wanted to kill someone, anyone connected in any way, and it was evident almost at once that the Saudis were implicated. Then when it finally came to the Senate–it’s Iraq??? and the subject has now changed to WMD and what a b*****d Saddam was. In retrospect it is easy to see it was a quick change of topic from the Saudis, but I think the thirst for vengeance was still there enough so that it slid through.

        Liked by 2 people

  19. I am 100% ok with this.

    Being pragmatic and realistic, Trump is threatening trillions of dollars in business as usual institutional corruption.

    I will be a little shocked when they sneak naked 14 year old girls into his hotel room. Maybe that is why he prefers to fly home every night.🙂

    Look, if the media and GOP doesn’t fully vet him now, the Dems and media will do it later. There is no aspect of Trump’s life that isn’t going to be completely scrutinized. They haven’t even started digging into his kids yet. That is definitely coming.

    So hang tight friends. If we win SC, then NV, we’re off to the races. The coverage will change when he becomes inevitable. They will still try to nail him, but with a few more wins under his belt, they will back off until the general.

    Trump is a huge problem for the powers that be. The same people that start wars, that will have people assassinated. Serious customers. The stakes are very high.

    Liked by 13 people

    • The magic of Trump – and what puts him at risk of assassination more than anything – is that he has a RFK quality about him of being able to galvanise very disparate types of American under one roof. That scares the ever loving shit out of the kakistocracy uniparty.

      Liked by 6 people

      • jello333 says:

        Watching the video of Bobby Kennedy talking to a mostly-black crowd, and informing them MLK had just been killed… yeah, THAT’s the kind of power I think Trump will show, and what his enemies fear.

        Liked by 1 person

        • THE WHOLE WORLD’S WATCHING! THE WHOLE WORLD’S WATCHING!

          Thank you, and now it’s on to Chicago!

          And then he is led into the kitchen, Thane Eugene Cesar directly behind him, close enough for the powder discharge from Cesar’s shots into RFK to burn RFK’s mastoid and suit coat.

          If they do that to Trump, we need to wreck the joint, for real.

          Trump is the last chance we have.

          Liked by 1 person

    • They’ll eventually just have to fake the naked 14-year-old illegal alien girls.

      Liked by 3 people

    • helenerbrown says:

      But the RNC won’t vet Cruz or Rubio for eligibility.

      Liked by 5 people

    • Eris says:

      Trump is well aware that he is going up against the powers that be when he finally decided to run as a populist. I am surprised though at how far he’s already “gone there” with talking openly about the systemic corruption in our government.

      This leads me to believe that he has to have at least some support from a faction of the powers that be, say the billionaires who are not globalists. A few of them have openly lend him support and I think there are a lot more doing so quietly. Given his history of doing things very carefully, I don’t think he would be doing what he is doing now without a lot of preparation that minimize the risks to his family that he loves so much.

      Liked by 7 people

    • jeans2nd says:

      “…if the media and GOP doesn’t fully vet him now, the Dems and media will do it later. There is no aspect of Trump’s life that isn’t going to be completely scrutinized.”

      The New York media has been vetting Mr. Trump for over 30 years. Mr. Trump has already been completely scrutinized, for years, by the best in the business at uncovering dirt. And the best they can come up with now is “Uh, I guess so.” My first reaction was, “Is that all you got?” pfffft

      Liked by 3 people

    • Athena the Warrior says:

      Being a high profile New Yorker his life has already been splayed out in the open dor decades. Had some silly Cruzbot try bringing up the phony marital rape charges of Ivanna.

      They will try though.

      Liked by 1 person

  20. wheatietoo says:

    In case you haven’t seen this….this is a good memory refresher:

    Liked by 4 people

  21. Bluto says:

    This just in!!!!! BREAKING!!!!!

    “In 1975, Trump said, ‘I guess not’. TRUE STORY!!!”

    http://www.whodafukcares.com

    Liked by 17 people

  22. USA Patriot says:

    Trump shrugged off with CNN town meeting with Cooper and was very good overall.. And Trump was super articulate on Hannity.

    Cruz sinks big because Photoshop-gate cements him as a pious serial liar and Trump picks up many of his votes. That plus a huge Trump turnout and Francis wall / no Christian blooper will result in a SC blowout exceeding the polls. My two cent prediction.

    P. S. Trump brought up 9/11 redaction and hinted Saudi coverup. If he wins the nomination he may push to reveal that UniParty involvement for the general election.

    Liked by 11 people

  23. Rudy Bowen says:

    Maybe he was a bit like me. I remember being distinctly uneasy with the idea of invading Iraq, so I probably would have said ‘I guess so’ too. I also remember thinking that maybe Bush had intelligence that pointed to a real need to intervene with boots on the ground and gave the benefit of a doubt in spite of a full knowledge of the history of the region, and how foreign intervention there has always turned out badly especially in Afghanistan. This is no hit on Trump, in fact it says a lot for him that he said what he said…he thinks things through rather than give knee jerk responses. I also didn’t feel so great about it in 2004 when a neighborhood boy I knew caught a sniper bullet in Iraq. Not so great at all.

    Liked by 12 people

  24. joshua says:

    I think George Bush was too weak to know how to vet info from Cheney and Rumsfeld and Tenet…but ALSO he told Congress that the invasion into Iraq would cost 20 billion dollars max and be over quickly. So two Trillion later…..

    Also…we built a Billion Dollar Embassy in Baghdad….the most expensive we ever built in the WORLD….what is going on there NOW????

    Liked by 2 people

    • Betty says:

      Did we? Build a billion dollar embassy in Baghdad, I mean? Or was the embassy a precursor to the Obamacare web site software? The outside looks good but nothing on the inside, and a huge bill for the American people.

      Liked by 1 person

  25. viddysweet says:

    Luckily, Rubio skipped a Conservative Review event at the last minute so the Cruz camp will be consumed with their favorite passtime of calling people.chicken. Rubio should hit back with more accusations of Cruz’s lying. It will be an interesting last day before the election. Should be a good time for Trump to rise above the pack.

    Liked by 6 people

    • I look forward to Rubio and Cruz consuming each other. Then Kasich can cruise (pun intended) to second place and upset everything.🙂

      Kasich and Carson are dead men walking. I want them both to finish ahead of Bush, Rubio and Cruz.

      Liked by 8 people

    • Raffaella says:

      Yes this is already all over the written media with Rubio and Cruz. They will fight on Friday. Also, hoping the Vatican will try to correct Pope’s comments this morning and hopefully that will take over the news.

      Like

      • Deb says:

        I think the Vatican has given up on trying to correct the foolish things the Pope says and are simply praying this Pontificate ends with minimal damage done.

        Francis is very close to becoming a “lame duck.”

        Like

  26. Bull Durham says:

    Cheney was the force for invading Iraq. The very next day in the news, after the buildings came down Cheney was saying Atta went through Iraq, Saddam was the mastermind, we had to attack Iraq.

    Why? Because he wanted gas pipelines to go through the middle east. He was the warmonger-in-chief, Paul Wolfowitz was the ideological father of the scheme since 1996, they and Richard Perle had tried to get Clinton to wage war in the ME. This tragedy came as a plan to break up the Syria, Iraq, Iran nations and protect Israel while taking over the region for Haliburton gas pipelines and destroy the gas business to Europe of Russia.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm
    Bush fell for it.

    Liked by 5 people

    • flyanddive says:

      No, Saddam was in the process of dumping the dollar, so he got killed, Libya was the same reason. Assad did the same, but Obama thought he could be like Reagan, and create a force to take over the middle east, that’s where ISIL came from.

      Liked by 4 people

      • pretty sure it was all the above, and that “poppy” bush was pulling a ton of strings on these guys at the time. to create the chaos needed for “nwo” the ME had to be destabilized.

        Liked by 2 people

      • It’s the only thing that makes sense. I believe Hillary is not in jail because she helped the Federal Reserve steal Libya’s 144 tons of gold. Bengahzi was a distraction. The drone was watching, but nobody in Washington did anything to help Chris Stevens and company, except the Seals. Who fucked up Washingtons plan.
        If they bust Hillary, then Hillary squeals on them.
        Tin foil hat off !
        With any luck, Trump will blow the lid off this as well.

        Liked by 3 people

    • There are numerous reasons why the NeoCons wanted to attack Iraq. One important reason is that Saddam attacked Israel with 39 Scud missiles in 1991. Another, larger strategic goal, is the Oded Yinon Plan, which describes breaking large Arab states into their Ottoman empire components in order to weaken them so that not only can they not attack Israel, but so that the age old game of divide and rule has more players to be played. This is exactly what you see happening in Syria today.

      Like

  27. first post here, forgive my being simply blunt. how can those of us with such like minds join in the fray and get a lawsuit going against both the anchor baby rubiobot and the canadian seven mountain king of lies “fast track teddy” together? any ideas?

    Liked by 3 people

    • flyanddive says:

      There have already been lawsuits filed, powerful people are protecting them for now. If Cruz, or Rubio can take down Trump, those protections suddenly get removed, and both automatically lose the primary. By default Jeb automatically wins.

      Liked by 1 person

      • yes, i know there are a couple of suits, one new one against cruz… the more the better imo, so the word gets out there. was just sayin’… i’m already working on getting one going with some others. call me crazy, but i prefer our “president” be American!

        Liked by 3 people

      • well, that looks just like the splitter plan anyway, so if scruz and rubiobot get taken out simply with lawsuit madness, the chances are even greater the globalist oligarch party gets less of a chance to saddle us with the man who will hand it to killery. so, i asked. maybe sundance will have some input on it… i’m tired of not “being allowed” to choose the right candidate, as i’m sure all of you are.😉

        if not us, who, if not know when… you know.

        Liked by 2 people

        • flyanddive says:

          Jeb is supposed to lose to Hillary in the general election. This is what the globalists want. The election was going to be just like Bush vs Gore, the resulting madness would have further divided the country. If you are a globalist your only goal is to maximize division in the country, that way you can steal the population blind, while the people focus all their hate at each other. This is the goal of Obama, notice how he only comments on actions that create maximum division, e.g. Trayvon Martin, clock boy, etc.

          Like

          • Deb says:

            This is why I want Hillary to be the nominee, she lacks the populist support Bernie is getting. If she is the nominee more people will flock to Trump and it will be a clear case of Establishment vs. the people. No amount of spin will be able to cover it up.

            Like

    • Welcome aboard. Let’s ride!!!!!!

      Liked by 1 person

  28. i tried to post, not sure it went through. long time follower, joining in the discussion for the first time. we all blog, we all talk by typing, i wonder if we can coalesce and sue the anchor baby rbiobot and the fast tracking canadian, neither are eligible. anyone have any ideas. i’m ready for action on the part of WE THE PEOPLE. those of us who are still sane…

    i love this site, sundance, you rock American Style!

    Liked by 7 people

  29. SharonKinDC says:

    Listen to Trump’s ‘tone’ he’s said ‘Yeah, I guess so’ as if he was asked, ‘are you looking forward to your regular colonoscopy?’ Even less enthusiastic than some of his, ‘He’s a nice guy’! The latter is such a tell: he really isn’t commenting on that person…YET. Jury may still be out, or he thinks the guy is meh, or thinks the guy is an arsehole, but he’s reserving firepower. Cracks me up.

    Liked by 6 people

    • sunnydaysall says:

      My sentiments exactly!! He did not say he was for the war… He said, “I guess”, and that is not a definitive answer! At least, it would not fly around here!!😉

      Liked by 5 people

    • jeans2nd says:

      Mr. Trump has said more than once that he intitially supported Obama because he thought Obama would be a good cheerleader for this country. It was obvious from this interview that Mr. Trump was cheerleading for New York, the country, and the American economy. The war-colonoscopy reference is great! Your doctor says it must be done, so you do it, but you do not have to like it.

      Liked by 1 person

      • SharonKinDC says:

        Exactly! And saying he thought at least Obama would be a ‘good cheerleader’ isn’t a ringing endorsement, lol. In Trump-speak, I read this as: ‘I thought he’d be an economic moron with zero executive experience, but as the first black President, I though he’d inspire people.’

        Liked by 1 person

    • DaveNY says:

      “are you looking forward to your regular colonoscopy?” Sharon you kill me but you are right that is just how I took it. Hardly a ringing endorsement. The bigger tell is the MSM grasping at straws with this feeble line of attack.

      Liked by 1 person

      • SharonKinDC says:

        Yeah… Buzzfeed Andrew was pathetic. Via his tweets, I could see he was licking his chops as if he found the Holy Grail.

        Perhaps it’s because I’ve listened to Trump a lot, but to me, he’s very clear what he thinks about things, even if he doesn’t spell it out in words.

        Like

    • Notmeagain says:

      🙂 I’m coming to think that when he says someone is a nice guy, it’s like “you will be the next one fired.”

      Liked by 1 person

  30. Finalage says:

    Stupid. Besides, it doesn’t contradict Trump at all since he said he was against the war in 2003. The press is looking to protect Hillary.

    Liked by 4 people

    • wondering999 says:

      Trump was against the war in Iraq, and a few other courageous people… Ron Paul, and some other Congressmen who I remember. One of them told his constituents that he had been in the intelligence committees and didn’t see the evidence that was being claimed; also, that he had talked with military people who were absolutely opposed. Wonder if all the newspaper archives have been scrubbed in the meantime?

      Like

    • runthetable says:

      Exactly. Very astute.

      Like

  31. William says:

    The media, for all practical purposes, are liberal and Democrat. If Trump becomes President, which I pray happens, the media and the Democrats and every liberal entity will be on full frontal assault from the day he is sworn in, and their attacks will be relentless. I remember the days of Reagan and how they attacked him constantly. I think they wore him down. I think the Iran-Contra situation had the most negative effect on his presidency. The media and the whole liberal structure behaved like sharks in a feeding frenzy. I will never forget the vicious vitriol they spewed.

    Liked by 1 person

    • flyanddive says:

      The media isn’t really liberal, they are agenda driven. For example, support for ObamaCare isn’t a liberal policy, in fact, it’s an extremely far right policy, in forcing you to purchase an item from a corporation simply for being alive. It would be the same as the government forcing you by law to shop at Walmart for shoes, and then Walmart raises their shoe prices to $10,000 a pair.

      Liked by 1 person

      • wheatietoo says:

        Huh?
        When has the far right ever forced anyone to purchase something from a corporation?

        On the contrary….ObamaCare is about government control over our lives; it was designed to be sooo bad, that we would welcome the ‘complete’ government takeover of our healthcare system…and with all the control features already in place.
        In other words, government-provided healthcare or ‘single-payer’.

        It was disguised as “Healthcare Reform” which is laughable.
        It was called the ‘Affordable Care Act’ which is pure Orwellian double-speak right out of the far left socialist handbook.

        Liked by 3 people

        • flyanddive says:

          ObamaCare is far right crony capitalism, single payer care is far left state-ism. The ACA came from the CoC, and was designed to be perpetually bailed out, which Paul Ryan is doing. The rumor it was designed to fail to usher in single payer is controlled opposition propaganda. The Republicans have had at least 3 chances to actually end ObamaCare, each time, they chose to not only keep it, but give it blank check funding.

          Like

          • wheatietoo says:

            The ObamaCare bill, or the Affordable Care Act…was passed in the middle of the night, and not one Republican voted for it.

            You’re saying that a Democrat-controlled Senate…and a Democrat-controlled House…passed a “far right” bill, without even one far right vote for it?
            Why would they do that?

            And there was no bipartisan input into the crafting of the ObamaCare bill.
            It was written entirely by Democrats, behind closed doors!

            No one was allowed to read it before voting on it.
            Remember Nancy Pelosi’s famous words….”We have to pass the bill, to find out what’s in it.”

            Are you claiming that Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid are far right?

            And no…the Republicans cannot ‘end’ ObamaCare without a signature from Obama on the bill to repeal it.
            They’ve passed numerous bills to repeal it, and Obama has vetoed each one.

            Without a repeal of the ACA, Obama can make an EO to fund it…even if the R’s refused to fund it.

            And the term “crony capitalism” is a leftist term, designed to demonize capitalism.

            Like

  32. wheatietoo says:

    The Iran-Contra thing was so minor compared to what Hillary & BO have done with funneling arms through Libya to Syria & ISIS.

    The same liberal media that went into a frenzy over Iran-Contra…are now silent over what Hillary & BO have done.
    They truly are despicable.

    Liked by 3 people

  33. What’s most interesting is right before the question, Trump stated “the government will not tell you who really did it”; which is code for saying Saudi Arabia was behind 9/11. The other day Trump was explicit about this. One of the many great things about a President Trump is he will open those records and the guilty ones will finally be exposed.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Linda Ruth says:

    JoeS is way wrong!! We Americans were not ashamed to plead for our government to not start this Iraq war. Thousands across America took to the streets in civil protest. We did not want this war. I was there among them in my own city. From all walks of life, our cry was “No War for Oil!!” President Bush started an aggressive war most Americans did not want, have never wanted, and so many, many have suffered because of such ungodly leadership . And yes there were voices that bravely and rightly condemned Bush and all of his dastardly family and comrades. And there are voices who still do!!

    February 15, 2003 Anti-War Protest was a coordinated day in New York city


    Iraq Invasion Protest, Washington DC, 2003
    n January of 2003, myself and a bunch of other crazy people drove overnight to a national gathering on D.C.’s Mall to make a statement about the impending invasion of Iraq. This video is a photo slide-show from that trip.

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/lieofthecentury.php#axzz40auxtVLR
    THE LIE OF THE (LAST) CENTURY
    By Michael Rivero
    “The Downing Street Memo is only the beginning of the proof we were all lied to.
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/dsmemo.pdf

    “Did the government of the United States lie to the American people, more to the point, did President Bush and his Neocon associates lie to Congress, to initiate a war of conquest in Iraq?
    This question has been given currency by a memo leaked from inside the British Government which clearly indicates a decision to go to war followed by the “fixing” of information around that policy. This is, as they say, a smoking gun.
    But the fact is that long before this memo surfaced, it had become obvious that the US Government, aided by that of Great Britain, was lying to create the public support for a war in Iraq.”

    “The President of the United States and his Neocon associates lied to the people of the United States to send them off on a war of conquest.

    Defenders of the government will point to the cases listed at the top of the page as proof that lying to the people is a normal part of the leader’s job and we should all get used to it. And because “Everybody does it” that we should not single out the present administration. But this is madness. We do not catch all the murderers, yet when we catch a murderer, we deal with them as harshly as possible, in order to deter more murderers.

    Right now, we have the criminals at hand. and, while other leaders in history have lied to start wars, for the first time in history, the lie stands exposed while the war started with the lies still rages on, to the death and detriment of our young men and women in uniform. We cannot in good moral conscience ignore this lie, this crime, lest we encourage future leaders to continue to lie to us to send our kids off to pointless wars. Lying to start a war is more than an impeachable offence; it the highest possible crime a government can commit against their own people. Lying to start a war is not only misappropriation of the nation’s military and the nation’s money under false pretenses, but it is outright murder committed on a massive scale. Lying to start a war is a betrayal of the trust each and every person who serves in the military places in their civilian leadership. By lying to start a war, the Bush administration has told the military fatalities and their families that they have no right to know why they were sent to their deaths. It’s none of their business.”

    Liked by 1 person

  35. American Nationalist says:

    Also note that the journalist whores at NYT, WaPo etc who are gleefully tweeting this as a ‘Gotcha’ for Trump were the same folks who were selling this false war to the American public at the time.

    Like

  36. American Nationalist says:
  37. jello333 says:

    And this was what… 6 months before the war actually began? While I was against it from the first mention of the possibility, I know a lot of others (including some Dems) who at first were “ok” with the idea. A little like Trump saying “Yeah, I guess.” But a lot of them CHANGED THEIR MINDS as time went along, and by the time the war began there were opposed. I’d like to be able to say had more people strongly opposed it from the very first it never would have happened, but I know better. It’s obvious they WERE gonna have their war, even if 99.99% of the American people opposed it.

    Like

    • ZZZ says:

      I too was against it at its mentioning, jello. Had many heated discussions with Christian associates about the amorality of it…how can anyone question “W”…was the argument.
      Really? I am still amazed at the blind devotion…

      Liked by 1 person

  38. American Nationalist says:

    The Iraq war began on March 20, 2003. As early as March 25, 2003, Donald Trump was expressing grave doubts about the war. Here it is, from the Washington Post:

    Donald Trump, with Amazonian beauty Melania Knauss at his side, pronounces on the war and the stock market: “If they keep fighting it the way they did today, they’re going to have a real problem.”

    Looking as pensive as a “Nightline” talking head, the Donald concludes, “The war’s a mess,” before sweeping off into the crowd.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2003/03/25/hollywood-partyers-soldiering-on/06327347-83d3-44c4-ab7b-dcd6fbda5437/

    Like

  39. christianitynewstoday1 says:

    Trump is “red pilling” the entire planet.

    Liked by 2 people

  40. ZZZ says:

    Trump, as private citizen, like so many of us believed what we were told happened on 9/11…all of it from the “ace” commercial airplane pilots with 3 hours of training to the impossible physics behind the falling of the towers. From the invasion of Afghanistan to the illegal invasion of Iraq.

    Some of us have looked into the details – and what details are there are erroneous, impossible, and nefarious. “They” don’t like their authority challenged, there version questioned, their leadership skills disparaged.

    Too bad…9/11 was a watershed event that put this country into a tailspin. If one is to be labeled as a “nut” for questioning this YUGE elephant in the room then so be it…where do I add my name to the “nut” list?

    Like

  41. DaveNY says:

    I was for the war because I wanted someone punished for 9/11 and that want for revenge was played upon by the powers that were. I also at the time wanted the war to proceed into Iran to reduce their capability as well. The big failure of the Iraq invasion is that it handed the Middle East to Iran and isis on a silver platter. The saudis got off the hook BIG TIME.

    Like

  42. I my own opinion all this talk about Trump being a republican, democrat or whether he was for the war or against in the early 2000s is unbelievably ridiculous. I have been lied too all my adult life by the GOPe party while wholeheartedly supporting them. I thought they had my best interests in mind. Perhaps Trump was under the same influence back then. It doesn’t matter anyways because good, honest hard working people have a right to switch party lines. What matters is what Trump is doing TODAY. He is challenging the both parties, the Uniparty, that is rotten to the core. This is just another weak attempt to bring him down before an important primary.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. Agave says:

    I finally got a chance to listen to this real close. Mr. Trump was hesitant, and didn’t project much commitment to the concept of invading Iraq. While I won’t try to determine what was in Mr. Trump’s mind, I know that if I responded in that manner to a question, it would be with a degree of resignation that I was not in any position to affect the outcome. For instance, if I had been interviewed by Howard Stern in August of 2012 and he asked “Do you plan to vote for Mitt Romney?” I would have responded with “Yeah, I guess…so.”

    Like

  44. Travis McGee says:

    Was Donald Trump passing legislation back then or ever for that matter? He is a freaking private citizen but is treated like he’s been in government his whole career. Don’t believe ANYTHING the press says without researching yourself. They don’t research anything. That’s why Limbaugh calls them “drive-by”. Report a story whether true or false then move on to their next “story”.

    Liked by 1 person

  45. ackbarsays says:

    Sorry, but you’re reaaaalllllyyyyy reaching on this one, Sundance. Compare what Trump said then and what he says now.

    Then: Are you for invading Iraq? “Yeah, I guess so, uh, you know, I wish it was, uh, I WISH THE FIRST TIME IT WAS DONE CORRECTLY.”

    Further, in his book in 2000, he said this:

    “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…”

    He continued, “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.”

    So, clearly, in 2000 and 2002, Trump thought that the invasion of Iraq was okay, and had advocated a stronger response than what Bush’s father had done in the first invasion – “carrying the mission to its conclusion.”

    Now, in last night’s town hall: “I will say this — Bush felt very — and Saddam Hussein overplayed his hand, because he was — you know, he — SENIOR BUSH DID THE RIGHT THING. He knocked the heck out of him, AND THEN HE PULLED BACK, OK? He didn’t get into the quagmire. And that was OK to do.”

    So which is it? Does he think that George H. W. Bush was right to pull out of Iraq quickly, as he said in the debate the other night, or does he think that was a mistake, as he said to Howard Stern?

    He’s a liar, and a bad one, at that.

    Like

    • KBR says:

      You can try to weasel your nasty comments in long after most have gone on to newer articles. But someone always comes back.

      The liar and not very good one, is Cruz. Quite a few lies and a fraud within the past several months alone. For references, simply scroll up, and click on the Sundance name. Then scroll down and click on any article that has Ted Cruz underlined and click on that, got it.

      The Bush family is up to their necks in all sorts of nasty dealings you can read all about them including Jeb, in “Jeb! And the Bush Crime Family” by Roger Stone and Saint John Hunt.

      These lies and crimes go way back and they are many. For additional information try reading “The Clintons War on Women” by Robert Morrow and Roger Stone. The book covers Clintons in more than just their war on women, and includes some information on the Bush clan including Jeb.

      Donald Trump has been scrutinized almost his whole life. If this is the best you can come up with, YOU are the problem.

      Liked by 1 person

      • ackbarsays says:

        You know, some people don’t spend all day reading through here, so maybe if you weren’t so obtuse, you’d understand that maybe, just maybe, someone came along later in the day and saw the article and responded to it. I’m not defending Jeb or advocating Cruz here. I have not chosen a candidate yet, and likely won’t until the primary in Florida is a little closer. One can point out the lies of Donald Trump on this issue without advocating for another candidate.

        This whole thread is about a specific issue, and Sundance has taken the position way up there at the top that something Trump said in an “off-the-cuff” remark during an interview didn’t represent what he was actually feeling at that time, I guess to give cover to Donald in his assertions now that he was actually against the Iraq war, not just against it – but screaming to anyone who would listen at the time about what a bad idea it was and how it would destabilize the whole Middle East. He’s saying that NOW, because he wants people to believe that he’s the smartest man in the room no matter what the subject, but I just pointed out that what he said to Howard Stern was entirely consistent with what he wrote in his book two years earlier. It wasn’t off-the-cuff – Iraq policy was something he had thought about enough to have a discussion about in his book, and the remark to Howard Stern was consistent with that prior discussion. It’s only NOW when he thinks he can score cheap political points at George W. Bush’s expense that he has changed his tune.

        Where are the 25+ stories showing his pre-war opposition that Trump promised us that he’d show us?

        Like

        • ackbarsays says:

          I’ll make it easier for you – where is ONE story showing Trump’s pre-war opposition?

          Like

          • KBR says:

            I am not the easy target you take me for. I do not need to supply you with anything. You are already decided upon your chosen candidate and you are simply trolling.
            This election can be reduced to terms even a simpleton (you perhaps?) can comprehend:

            Trump: USA survives and thrives

            Anybody else: USA does not survive, becomes subsumed in something much like the EU and also is destroyed by migrant aliens disguised as “refugees” and “poor Hispanics.”

            For a look at the future of the USA with any other candidate, go to You tube and put in the search engine “refugee problems EU.”

            Now you can worry about whether a comment made by a businessman in early 2000’s is more important than the policies and positions he presents today as a candidate for POTUS.

            Or you can worry about whether you survive the war that is being currently delivered by globalists right here in what is now the USA, and if you are female worry whether you will be gangrped and enslaved, and if you have children of either sex worry whether they will be rped or enslaved. Or just drowned in cages. Or beheaded.

            Get a clue about what is going on in this world. Or don’t.

            Even if you believe that he lied in a deliberate manner, (I and most here DO NOT) the least-lying of all imperfect humans who are candidates is Donald Trump. The only one running who doesn’t need to acquire fame, money, power-because he already acquired all of these through his own work ethic- is Donald Trump. The only one running who is not a puppet to donors, corporations and foreign powers is Donald Trump.

            The only one running that came forward, (and came forward first! without testing to see how popular it would be, and without plagiarizing as all others have done) with the issues of illegal immigration, wall building, Islamic terrorism, defeating ISIS, Donors and puppets, propaganda media, how to fix the economy, how to bring back industry and manufacturing, sending BACK the Syrian so-called “refugees”, enforcing laws ignored for decades regarding illegal aliens, eliminating Obamacare and also insurance company state-monopolies,
            And much much more
            Is Donald Trump.

            If you are ignorant, study up. If you are simply evil begone.

            Liked by 1 person

        • KBR says:

          That Donald Trump was not in favor of the Iraq war is evident, as the war began March and in that same month Trump was interviewed expressing grave doubts.

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2003/03/25/hollywood-partyers-soldiering-on/06327347-83d3-44c4-ab7b-dcd6fbda5437/

          Like

          • ackbarsays says:

            Apparently you need some historical context. Trump was simply responding to a downturn in public opinion about the war that occurred almost immediately after it started, as this article below makes clear. As you’ll see, support for the invasion on Friday, March 21, 2003 was 78%, and 71% thought that it was going well. By Monday, March 24th, 74% still thought that military force was the right decision, but only 38 percent still thought it was going well – a crazy drop of 33% support in 3 days as people began to hear about casualties and POWs.

            THAT’s what Trump was responding to when he was asked about the war on March 25, just one day later, and the day that this article came out. It was obvious that the war was quickly going becoming unpopular as people faced reality, and Trump was just pointing out that it wasn’t going well – it was “a mess” in his opinion.

            http://www.people-press.org/2003/03/25/public-confidence-in-war-effort-falters/

            Like

  46. Archangel12580 says:

    Sundance, would you care to reach out to the Trump campaign and inform them that there were in fact WMD in Iraq and that you, yourself have pointed that out on this bery site? I believe you referred to those who continued to deny the existence of WMD were, “moonbats.” Does Donald Trump now fit the criteria in which the title of “”moonbat” can be applied?

    Like

    • KBR says:

      If you have evidence of such article supply the link. If not begone.

      Liked by 1 person

      • ackbarsays says:

        On October 15, 2014, Sundance posted an article entitled “If WMD Did Not Exist In Iraq Then Why Is CNN and New York Times Reporting on WMD in Iraq?” In the text of his original post on that article, he stated the following:

        What’s next; will the Moonbats apologize for calling General Petraeus “General BetrayUs”?

        https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/10/15/if-wmd-did-not-exist-in-iraq-then-why-is-cnn-and-new-york-times-reporting-on-wmd-in-iraq/

        Like

      • ackbarsays says:

        On June 9, 2014, Sundance posted an article entitled “Repost: The 2010 WikiLeaks Vindication of George W. Bush… The Sunlight Which Blinds The Moonbats”

        https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/06/09/repost-the-2010-wikileaks-vindication-of-george-w-bush-the-sunlight-which-blinds-the-moonbats/

        In Sundance’s comment at the top of the article, italicized for emphasis that it was HIS words, not the words of the article that he was commenting on, he wrote this:

        “It is good to know truth, the historical truth, and not the spin placed upon us by the media machine(s). And if you ever find yourself in one of those conversations with a prog who claims “George Bush lied”, well, you can put them straight. Read on……”

        Like

        • ackbarsays says:

          Further, at the bottom of his commentary on this article, Sundance states the following, after giving a very articulate and well-thought-out case supporting George W. Bush:

          “Bush, hammered by the insidious “Bush Lied, People Died” mantra, endured one of the most vicious smears against any president in history. He is owed an apology.”

          Will he be reaching out to Trump to ask for an apology?

          Like

            • ackbarsays says:

              Have fun with what? This isn’t about whether there were WMD’s found in Iraq or not, although you’ve clearly never read the two articles, written by Sundance, on this topic that I pasted above. Are you calling Sundance a liar?

              This is about whether George W. Bush LIED or not, which is the claim that Trump adamantly made the other night – a claim that Sundance himself, on this board, has called “one of the most vicious smears against any president in history.” Again, are you suggesting that Sundance was lying or being dishonest when he made that pronouncement?

              Like

              • Hello Ackbar.
                I wouldn’t say Sundance is a liar, but in this case I believe he is wrong. I know it wasn’t intentional, that would constitute lying. After all, we’re all human, and nobody died because of this error.
                Here is a nice little clip of George admitting to no WMD.

                American foreign policy has been ruled by oil companies and banks. The attack on 9/11 was a culmination of bad foreign policy, and the subsequent Iraq invasion, was a furtherance of bad foreign policy. George W. Bush was probably a great guy. But he was no match for wall street, and Dick Cheney.
                Donald Trump is right in his statement, but it was directed at the wrong person. Dick Cheney, Goldman Sachs, Exxon, BP, and any other wall street tycoon are the real guilty parties. George W. Bush just happened to be the captain of the ship at the time. Unfortunately the captain gets the blame. In the lying about WMD’s, millions died, and the whole middle east is destabilized.
                So to sum it up
                Sundance was wrong
                Donald Trump is right.
                We’re all after the truth, and we all want a government who stands for righteousness. At this point Donald Trump looks to be the best man for job.
                Who do you think would be a better man for President?

                Like

                • ackbarsays says:

                  sunshine and baby kittens, Trump cannot both be “right” and Bush be “not lying.” It’s one or the other. Either Bush lied, making a case for WMD that he KNEW did not exist to take us into war and have 4000 of our bravest men and women killed, or he didn’t, and made a mistake based on faulty intelligence (this ignores the third and perhaps strongest possibility, which is that Saddam spirited those weapons out of the country to the Assad regime before the invasion.)

                  The video you linked makes the exact opposite point from what Trump the blowhard said about Bush. Trump said, unequivocally, that Bush LIED. LIED!

                  In that clip, what does Bush say? “The main reason we went into Iraq at the time was that WE THOUGHT HE HAD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. IT TURNS OUT HE DIDN’T, BUT HE HAD THE CAPACITY TO MAKE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.”

                  So you’re one of those people who thinks that if someone makes a mistake, their actions should be judged with hindsight, and they should be labeled liars for acting on information that was mistaken?

                  Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s