Trump: George W. Bush should’ve been impeached


“When [Pelosi] first got in and was named speaker,” Trump said to Blitzer then, “I met her. And I’m very impressed by her. I think she’s a very impressive person, I like her a lot.”
“But I was surprised that she didn’t do more in terms of Bush and going after Bush,” he continued. "It just seemed like she was really going to look to impeach Bush and get him out of office. Which personally I think would have been a wonderful thing."
Blitzer interjected: “To impeach him?”
“For the war,” Trump replied. "For the war! Well, he lied! He got us into the war with lies!"
Remarkably, Trump then went on to compare Bush unfavorably with Bill Clinton. “I mean, look at the trouble Bill Clinton got into with something that was totally unimportant,” Trump said, referring to the Monica Lewinsky investigation. “And they tried to impeach him, which was nonsense. And yet Bush got us into this horrible war with lies, by lying. By saying they had WMDs, by saying all sorts of things that happened not to be true.”


One has to remember Pelosi was all for going to war under Clinton so what we have here is politics as usual.

Nancy Pelosi on War & Peace

Pelosi’s Pirouettes | The National Interest


I have an idea for Trump.

Run on a platform of rounding up both the Bush and Obama administrations and putting them on criminal trial. We can even stick Bush and Obama in the same cell. Make a reality show out of it :cowboy:


Trump is a lying scumbag, his opinions are not not worthy of any decent American so it should surprise nobody that he would bow before Pelosi and condemn Bush 43; Harry Reid does the same as does every enemy of the United States.

Pure, lying filth running for President is not new, the only thing unique about Trump is that he has convinced the GOP Base to surrender their character and join the Democrats in the sewer; which is probably for the best since that is where the GOP Establishment has been for years anyway.

One big miserable family with lots of guns and no Rule of Law to hinder them, stupid is supposed to hurt and this will be one for the history books.


…and JUST LAST WEEK, on Fox, Trump said that he’d NEVER called Bush 43 a liar!!! If he wins the nomination, we’re toast. If he runs as a 3rd Party candidate, we’re toast. If he doesn’t win the nomination and his sycophants abandon whoever does get nominated, Hillary will win…and we’re still TOAST. In short, there IS NO “upside” to Trump as a GOP candidate.




I realize that you’re tired of the rants against Trump, but do you dismiss the OP issue as not having any notable negative connotations regarding Trump?


Clinton did something illegal (perjury). Not quite sure that Bush did.

Not saying one is worse than the other, but I do think Trump is wrong.


I think we are seeing something that Rush Limbaugh said a while back. People who get “attached” to Trump are going to vote for him no matter what they find out about him.


[quote=“Trekky0623, post:8, topic:48502”]
Clinton did something illegal (perjury). Not quite sure that Bush did.

Not saying one is worse than the other, but I do think Trump is wrong.
[/quote]One lied about a blow job, one lied us into the biggest war of the 21st century.

It’s like comparing taking a co-worker’s sandwich out of the fridge, to robbing a bank… and saying the sandwich was somehow worse.


Yes, but Bush didn’t lie under oath. He may not have lied at all, if their intelligence was faulty.


[quote=“Trekky0623, post:11, topic:48502”]
Yes, but Bush didn’t lie under oath.
[/quote]Yeah, clearly the distinction of “under oath” is far more important than 4,000 U.S. Soldier’s lives, 2 trillion dollars, and about 500,000 dead Iraqis.

That oath was the serious problem. Far worse. Possibly the worst thing ever. It was so bad, I’m pretty sure the event reached back through time and caused Eve to pick the fruit off the tree.


Bush did not lie, he kept his oath to defend the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Clinton did lie, under oath and about a matter that compromised his position as President as evidenced by his attempts to cover up his slimy behavior; any President with secrets like Clinton had is able to be blackmailed and any President who will lie under oath is unfit for office.

Bush 43 told the absolute truth according to the absolute best information at his disposal and protected the United States. Clinton told multiple absolute lies with malice of forethought for no greater cause than protecting himself at the expense of his victims.

Clinton and Trump are exactly the same, right down to the justifications their followers offer for their despicable behavior and their attempts to drag down all good men so their guy does not look so glaringly bad by comparison.


Bush knew full well that Iraq had no active chemical weapons program. The intel was clear on this. Before the invasion, there was no evidence to suggest that Iraq had an active chemical weapons development program. When Bush was advised of this, he tossed out their findings.

He also knew that Iraq had literally no nuclear weapons program. This was also very clear intel that stated that there was zero evidence of such a program. Bush, however, sat around claiming that Iraq could potentially develop a nuclear weapon within a year.

Bush knew full well that these things were lies. He really didn’t care, because he had a plan to invade Iraq before he was even elected president.

Maybe you don’t remember the days after 9/11, but I do RET. Bush sent various surrogates out to every news outlet available to speculate that maybe Iraq was behind it. There was literally no reason to think they would have been. That didn’t stop Bush. Even after we learned the identity of the hijackers as almost entirely originating from the Bush family’s close personal ally of Saudi Arabia, he then had them switch their story to “Maybe Iraq funded it”. The Truthers have overshadowed 9/11 conspiracies, but the very first 9/11 conspiracy was created by the Bush White House, speculating that it was Iraq.


I remember everything including all of this Leftist propaganda that you are regurgitating now, these lies did not get Kerry elected and and they won’t get Trump elected either.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and the War on Terror had nothing to do with 9/11, 9/11 was simply the event that motivated a change to our policy of how to deal with Terrorist supporting nations.

Every liar that tries to condemn Bush claims that he went into Iraq over 9/11, Bush never claimed that and this straw man is as nefarious as those who try to use it.


No, Kerry was talking about the lead up to the war and how Bush was trying to link Iraq to 9/11 via made up lies like “Al Qaeda in Iraq” before the invasion(which didn’t exist, and is a different example of Bush’s many lies).

I am talking about the first couple of days after 9/11.
I remember puzzling at the time, why in the world they were speculating that Iraq had something to do with it. It was extremely bizarre to me. They dropped it after we knew the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, and Al Qaeda claimed responsibility. But they did indeed put that idea out there in the opening days.


Everyone was speculating “days after the attack” about Iraq, they were a well know State sponsor of Terrorism and they were known to be friendly with terrorist organizations, Bush did not act until he was certain which nation was most culpable and the Congress granted their consent; Afghanistan was the first target due to being known supporters of Bin Laden and Iraq followed because they were the next biggest State sponsor of Terrorism.

All of that was and is true, your attempt to revise history is predictable but irrelevant.


No… that would be Iran. By a landslide.

Iraq’s relationship to terror were anemic at best. North Korea, Pakistan, Syria, all were giving more aid to terror groups than Saddam.

Saddam’s footsies with terrorists isn’t why we were interested in him RET. We were interested in him, as we saw his overt actions and claims that he promised to back with his military, as a destabilizing force. Equally, even though he wasn’t always supporting them, his regime pushed people in his country to turn radical.

We saw despotic regimes as the breeding ground of terrorists, even if they were fighting them.


Back then George Tenet was moaning and groaning that Bush did not take the intelligence of Saddam seriously and when he did the left jumped on him for doing so. My earlier post shows that Pelosi and other democrats were on board about Saddam until politics made it convenient to claim they did not echo later what they had said before. In fact the democrats joined in giving authorization for war.

While Trump smooches with those in high positions in his endeavours of doing business he is conflating history with fact. I realize Trump just like the others is trying to draw in as many people by playing against those who still blame Bush while excusing obama for his actions and failing to be truthful.

This election so far has been the dirtiest I can recall with the republicans trying to undermine the top contenders and even talking about a brokered convention to get their pick in inspite of the primaries. The democrats are pushing Hillary while claiming to go after her for her many crimes. Sanders is appealing to young people who are being fed propaganda by the various groups like BLM and the communist party taking advantage of the situation.

I was talking to a friend the other day and we touched on the election and he informed me he voted for Trump in the primary and even thinks Sanders has some appeal.


Well, yes. George Tenant and Pelosi were people who believed in reshaping the ME, by “spreading Democracy”. “Spreading Democracy” by war is actually a time-honored liberal tradition. It was Woodrow Wilson and FDR who believed in this. Eisenhower stood opposed. Then Johnson again entangled us in Vietnam. Reagan kept us out of any new major wars.

Bush ascribed to the *liberal *doctrine of spreading democracy through war. George Tenant also believed in doing this. That makes sense, because he was originally appointed by Bill Clinton. Clinton may or may not have believed in spreading democracy through war, but he certainly believed in bombing Iraq every time he had a new scandal in the news.