I hope I'm not giving Trump ideas......

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by VivaRevolution, Sep 7, 2018.

  1. VivaRevolution

    VivaRevolution Whoopin' Belt Double Yellow Card

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2016
    Messages:
    28,018
    Likes Received:
    32,850
    If I was Trump, I would announce a massive investigation into the Iraq war.

    Trump seems to understand the principle of gas lighting.

    This would be the ultimate gas lighting.

    If Trump did this, no matter how bad he is doing right now, or the things he has already done I don't approve of. If asked if I approved of Trump, I would say yes.

    Basically if Trump went after the people responsible for the Iraq war, or global financial crisis, I would approve of him.

    Discuss............
     
    Malvo and SIRGAY HARITONOB! like this.
  2. xcvbn

    xcvbn Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    13,553
    Likes Received:
    11,231
    Any honest investigation points toward Saudi Arabia and we both know how Trump feels about the Saudis...

    [​IMG]
     
    Slick_36, GtehMVP, Tekk and 2 others like this.
  3. franklinstower

    franklinstower Red Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2017
    Messages:
    7,563
    Likes Received:
    8,979

    No matter what single issue, investigation, or policy Trump does or does not pursue it is still unwise and dangerous to support him. Trump is a foundation-less empty shell driven totally by the need for approval and the posturing that requires. This makes Trump very dangerous because he is posturing on the world stage with global implications.

    Trump is undeserving of our approval as a matter of principle because he is not grounded in any principles of any kind.
     
  4. BangersAndSmash

    BangersAndSmash Purple Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Messages:
    2,244
    Likes Received:
    3,031
    Trumps Iraq investigation wouldn't be any better than Dubya's.
    [​IMG]
     
    xcvbn likes this.
  5. abiG.2

    abiG.2 Guest

    Again, something that will never happen. And what exactly needs investigation? I have posted this before. The legwork has already been done.

    Anthrax is what connected 9/11 and the war on terror/Al Qaeda with going to war in Iraq. No one cared that Saddam and Al Qaeda were bitter enemies.

    The claim was that Iraqis passed anthrax to Al Qaeda through Mohamed Atta in Prague at some meeting. This was after the anthrax attack. We saw the notes that said “death to Israel" and “death to America." The notes were sent from New Jersey and Florida where the terror cells were. The official story blamed Bruce Ivins who 'committed suicide' before his trial. After his death it was shown he couldn’t have done it because his lab was not even capable of making it. There was also no way for him to have been in NJ, Florida and Maryland in the time span required. And it definitely was not he who came up with the Prague story.

    The Prague meeting lies began from James Woolsey who was getting his information from the Office of Special plans. This was literally an office within an office at the pentagon. The office was for neocon/zionists, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith and was set up by Donald Rumsfeld; all of them with the infamous PNAC who in their great wisdom actually called for "A new Pearl Harbor" before 9/11, but that's another thread.

    The Senate Intelligence committee eventually admitted that these men were fabricating a tale and not collecting evidence. The whole thing was done behind the back of our intelligence community in this office that most in the intelligence community did NOT KNOW EXISTED.

    Woolsey passed the lies along to Gary Schmitt and Robert Kagan of PNAC fame who wrote about it in their ‘Weekly Standard.'

    This is about them declaring that senior Iraqi officials met with the leader of the 9/11 hijackers which connected Iraq to 9/11.

    Then, after the first letters were opened, Israeli security claimed it was at that meeting where they witnessed anthrax being passed to Atta. Now, how could Israelis witness this at a meeting that never happened? Even the Senate Intelligence Committee claimed that that meeting never happened.

    But, we still had notes reading 9/11, death to Israel and death to America, and Allah is great? And nothing happened? No investigation into these liars?

    Then Colin Powell goes to the UN with the anthrax lie.

    [​IMG]

    We had claims of WsMD, but this was the legal reason for war. This, if true would have violated UN resolution 1441 regarding Iraq having WsMD.

    http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf

    And we heard about mobile weapons labs from Judith Miller at the NY Times. Previously, she had blamed the 1993 WTC bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing on Iraq, so why not push this lie along with the mobile weapons lab story? They had no actual pictures, but they showed us this:

    [​IMG]

    Her source was Ahmed Chalabi who was also connected to the PNAC and who founded the INC, which would have been Iraq’s new government if they were attacked. This was her source and when the lies came out it didn’t matter. Judith Miller was with Powell’s speech writer, Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, they were a couple. Libby was an adviser for VP Cheney and a lawyer for the Mossad who coincidentally (or not) represented Marc Rich, the Marc Rich pardoned by Bill Clinton. His wife financed Hillary’s Senate campaign, but I ramble.

    As the story goes she gets sent fake anthrax from Al Qaeda, but why would she get the fake stuff from terrorists? A copycat attack? With identical notes to the real anthrax letters received by Patrick Lahey, Tom Daschle and others? And also sent from the hijackers location in New Jersey and Florida? Even though these letters came after, the first ones had not been opened (or reported on) so there was no way to know what those letters would have said. The letters came from the same people.

    At the end of the day:

    The anthrax came from Fort Detrick in Maryland, not Iraq.

    There was no meeting in Prague so there is no way that Israel's agents could have witnessed it.

    Without that 'evidence' (LIE), the Iraq war could not have started.

    Iraq had nothing to do with WsMD, Saddam and Al Qaeda were bitter enemies, and there was nothing connecting Iraq to 9/11.

    And the fake evidence that sent us to war was from the neocon/zionists at the PNAC. I have named names. It isn't like we don't know who these people are.
     
    Malvo likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.