Howard Stern confirms that Trump backed Iraq War in 2002.

[Luke_Wyatt]

Despite Donald lying to the world that he was never for the war in 2002- Howard Stern confirmed that Trump did indeed back the Iraq War.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/29/politi...war/index.html

[bambino]

Did you even read you're link assfuck? He "kinda" supports the war? That's pretty tepid. Stern was jerking the reporter off when he said he was " kinda" honored to be mentioned in the debate. Besides, Trump was a civilian. Clinton was a Senator and voted for the war asshole.

[papadee]

Originally Posted by bambino

Did you even read you're link assfuck? He "kinda" supports the war? That's pretty tepid. Stern was jerking the reporter off when he said he was " kinda" honored to be mentioned in the debate. Besides, Trump was a civilian. Clinton was a Senator and voted for the war asshole.

"Kinda" isn't equal to "never", and support is support whether civilian or senator.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by papadee

"Kinda" isn't equal to "never", and support is support whether civilian or senator.

Really? A civilian can vote to send our troops to war. So it's a Huuuuuuge difference.

[papadee]

Originally Posted by bambino

Really? A civilian can vote to send our troops to war. So it's a Huuuuuuge difference.

Power to send one to war is different than support of said war. And senators SHOULD represent and vote the wishes of their constituents. Trump was a citizen of NY, Clinton represented NY, so she was voting Trump's wishes.

[CuteOldGuy]

Keep reaching, WeeEndowed. Then Lube your Wideass and slide outta here.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by papadee

Power to send one to war is different than support of said war. And senators SHOULD represent and vote the wishes of their constituents. Trump was a citizen of NY, Clinton represented NY, so she was voting Trump's wishes.

Nice try, but NYC is very liberal, I doubt they backed the war. So Clinton wasn't listening to her constituents.

[papadee]

Originally Posted by bambino

Nice try, but NYC is very liberal, I doubt they backed the war. So Clinton wasn't listening to her constituents.

Come on Bambino. Please be better than that. This was 2002/2003, NY after 9/11. EVERYONE backed the war. (save for a few holdouts)

Both NY senators voted for it.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by papadee

Come on Bambino. Please be better than that. This was 2002/2003, NY after 9/11. EVERYONE backed the war. (save for a few holdouts)

Both NY senators voted for it.

Prove it.

The Iraq War has met with considerable popular opposition in the United States, beginning during the planning stages and continuing through the invasion subsequent occupation of Iraq. The months leading up to the war saw protests across the United States, the largest of which, held on February 15, 2003 involved about 300,000 to 400,000 protesters in New York City, with smaller numbers protesting in Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, and other cities.

Consistent with the anti-war sentiment of the protests, in the months leading up to the Iraq War, American public opinion heavily favored a diplomatic solution over immediate military intervention. A January 2003 CBS News/New York Times poll found that 63% of Americans wanted President Bush to find a diplomatic solution to the Iraq situation, compared with 31% who favored immediate military intervention. That poll also found, however, that if diplomacy failed, support for military action to remove Saddam Hussein was above 60 percent.[6]

Days before the March 20 invasion, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll found support for the war was related to UN approval. Nearly six in 10 said they were ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two." But that support dropped off if the U.N. backing was not first obtained. If the U.N. Security Council were to reject a resolution paving the way for military action, only 54% of Americans favored a U.S. invasion. And if the Bush administration did not seek a final Security Council vote, support for a war dropped to 47%.[7]

Immediately after the 2003 invasion most polls within the United States showed a substantial majority of Americans supporting war, but that trend began to shift less than a year after the war began. Beginning in December 2004, polls have consistently shown that a majority thinks the invasion was a mistake. As of 2006, opinion on what the U.S. should do in Iraq is split, with a slight majority generally favoring setting a timetable for withdrawal, but against withdrawing immediately. However, in this area responses vary widely with the exact wording of the question.[8]

Since the invasion of Iraq, one of the most visible leaders of popular opposition in the U.S. has been Cindy Sheehan, the mother of Casey Sheehan, a soldier killed in Iraq. Sheehan's role as an anti-war leader began with her camping out near President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, and continued with a nationwide tour and trips to Europe and South America.

Opposition from national security and military personnel


In Feb 2003, 400,000 ant-war protesters in NYC.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by bambino

Nice try, but NYC is very liberal, I doubt they backed the war. So Clinton wasn't listening to her constituents.

Yes, NYC tends to be liberal on many things, but you also have a lot of people/groups/traditions there that have a decided "eye for an eye" belief system. And obviously NYC to the most direct hit on 9/11.

I grew up in the city during the '60s. Support for VN was never really strong, but the attitude was drastically different after they were attacked.

Yes, 300,000 people sounds like a lot--and it is--but assuming they were all locals (a not very believable assumption) that still has to be looked at in context. Proportionally a 300,000 person rally in NYC is equivalent to a half-empty stadium in Pittsburgh.

Clinton is a consummate sell-out, and I am very sure she voted as she thought her constituents wanted at the time.

[papadee]

Originally Posted by bambino

Prove it.

The Iraq War has met with considerable popular opposition in the United States, beginning during the planning stages and continuing through the invasion subsequent occupation of Iraq. The months leading up to the war saw protests across the United States, the largest of which, held on February 15, 2003 involved about 300,000 to 400,000 protesters in New York City, with smaller numbers protesting in Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, and other cities.

Consistent with the anti-war sentiment of the protests, in the months leading up to the Iraq War, American public opinion heavily favored a diplomatic solution over immediate military intervention. A January 2003 CBS News/New York Times poll found that 63% of Americans wanted President Bush to find a diplomatic solution to the Iraq situation, compared with 31% who favored immediate military intervention. That poll also found, however, that if diplomacy failed, support for military action to remove Saddam Hussein was above 60 percent.[6]

Days before the March 20 invasion, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll found support for the war was related to UN approval. Nearly six in 10 said they were ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two." But that support dropped off if the U.N. backing was not first obtained. If the U.N. Security Council were to reject a resolution paving the way for military action, only 54% of Americans favored a U.S. invasion. And if the Bush administration did not seek a final Security Council vote, support for a war dropped to 47%.[7]

Immediately after the 2003 invasion most polls within the United States showed a substantial majority of Americans supporting war, but that trend began to shift less than a year after the war began. Beginning in December 2004, polls have consistently shown that a majority thinks the invasion was a mistake. As of 2006, opinion on what the U.S. should do in Iraq is split, with a slight majority generally favoring setting a timetable for withdrawal, but against withdrawing immediately. However, in this area responses vary widely with the exact wording of the question.[8]

Since the invasion of Iraq, one of the most visible leaders of popular opposition in the U.S. has been Cindy Sheehan, the mother of Casey Sheehan, a soldier killed in Iraq. Sheehan's role as an anti-war leader began with her camping out near President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, and continued with a nationwide tour and trips to Europe and South America.

Opposition from national security and military personnel


In Feb 2003, 400,000 ant-war protesters in NYC.

Prove what? That everyone backed the war? Of course not. Sanders was against it. And there has always been an anti-war element in America, from the Quakers to today.

That NY supported the war? Can't prove that either. But both senators, and 20 of the 31 reps (11R & 9D) voted for war.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by papadee

Prove what? That everyone backed the war? Of course not. Sanders was against it. And there has always been an anti-war element in America, from the Quakers to today.

That NY supported the war? Can't prove that either. But both senators, and 20 of the 31 reps (11R & 9D) voted for war.

I just posted a link from Wiki, I guess you didn't read it. 400,000 protested against the war in Feb/2003 in NYC. As I said, Liberals are always against war, period. So, all of Hillary's constituents were for the war? I don't think so. And, if you and the MSM are quoting interviews from the Howard Stern show as legitimate conversations your stupid. I heard the interview, Trump tepidly said, "I guess". Which Stern mocked yesterday as saying he "guessed" he was honored that his interview was mentioned. In the end, Clinton said her vote was a "mistake". I "guess" that makes the families that lost loved ones and the wounded vets feel so much better. Nice try.

[papadee]

Originally Posted by bambino

I just posted a link from Wiki, I guess you didn't read it. 400,000 protested against the war in Feb/2003 in NYC. As I said, Liberals are always against war, period. So, all of Hillary's constituents were for the war? I don't think so. And, if you and the MSM are quoting interviews from the Howard Stern show as legitimate conversations your stupid. I heard the interview, Trump tepidly said, "I guess". Which Stern mocked yesterday as saying he "guessed" he was honored that his interview was mentioned. In the end, Clinton said her vote was a "mistake". I "guess" that makes the families that lost loved ones and the wounded vets feel so much better. Nice try.

No I didn't read it because I thought you posted the important info. Were all 400K NY residents? Hillary was a senator. She represents all the people of NY, even the ones that didn't vote for her. I said "everyone". That was hyperbole. I've seen it used many times in this forum. I'll try not to exaggerate again.

As for Howard Stern, Trump said he guess so. That's not the "never" he used later. No one has said Trump strongly supported the war, just that he didn't "not" support the war, as he's saying now.

Edited to add - So Hillary isn't a liberal?

Hillary voted for the war and now says it was a mistake.
Trump weakly supported the war and now says he NEVER supported the war.

Some people will admit they're wrong. Whether you see that as a positive or negative is your choice.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by papadee

No I didn't read it because I thought you posted the important info. Were all 400K NY residents? Hillary was a senator. She represents all the people of NY, even the ones that didn't vote for her. I said "everyone". That was hyperbole. I've seen it used many times in this forum. I'll try not to exaggerate again.

As for Howard Stern, Trump said he guess so. That's not the "never" he used later. No one has said Trump strongly supported the war, just that he didn't "not" support the war, as he's saying now.

Edited to add - So Hillary isn't a liberal?

Hillary voted for the war and now says it was a mistake.
Trump weakly supported the war and now says he NEVER supported the war.

Some people will admit they're wrong. Whether you see that as a positive or negative is your choice.

So now your back pedaling, which is predictable. Comparing a senator, which Clinton was, to Trump, a civilian dicking around on the Howard Stern show is ludicrous. And to say Clinton was voting because Trump somehow supported the war is idiotic. Maybe you can't admit you're wrong. Here you go dickhead;

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/27/fl...in-2003-video/

[papadee]

Originally Posted by bambino

So now your back pedaling, which is predictable. Comparing a senator, which Clinton was, to Trump, a civilian dicking around on the Howard Stern show is ludicrous. And to say Clinton was voting because Trump somehow supported the war is idiotic. Maybe you can't admit you're wrong. Here you go dickhead;

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/27/fl...in-2003-video/

Backpedaling where??? On the "Everyone" quote? Even when I wrote that, I added "save for a few holdouts". I guess I should have given a number for "few", but I didn't expect you to take it literally. For the rest of it, you're just babbling. Trump was just "dicking around" when we're deciding to go to war? You bashed Clinton for making a mistake that led to dead and wounded vets, but Trump can "dick around" when talking about the same topic.

I didn't say Clinton voted because of Trump. 22 out of 33 Senators & Reps from NY voted for the war. They represent the people of NY. Trump was a NYer who voiced his support (while "dicking around" on the HS show) for the war.

Listened to your link - didn't add anything to our debate. Once again, Trump never said he was against the war. He said the economy was a bigger problem. He was lukewarm about the war, "either do it or don't". Once again, I never stated that Trump was a warhawk, strongly & stridently supporting war. He tepidly, weakly, "kind of" supported the war. He said he never supported the war.