Hacker News Reader

Comment by SnowFace | Hacker News Reader

"Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the county? C’mon. Two minutes after we leave, there’s going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he’ll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn’t have. - Trump in Esquire 2004

View on HN

Sure. A lot of people were against it after it started, especially when it began to go south. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about statements like this:

"[H]ad I been in Congress at the time of the invasion, I would have cast a vote in opposition." — Donald Trump at an education event on 8-Sep-2016[0]

Considering that the vote was on 11-Oct-2002, and we have audio of Trump expressing hesitant, wishy-washy support for the war on 11-Sep-2002, that is almost certainly not true.

0. https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-09-10/ap-...

You're trying to put his statement into a different context now. I thought we were talking about him saying that he was totally against the war in Iraq, which he was. So we agree that wasn't a lie.

> "[H]ad I been in Congress at the time of the invasion, I would have cast a vote in opposition." — Donald Trump at an education event on September 8th, 2016[0]

You can't disprove a hypothetical situation that never happened to call him a liar. Who knows what he would have done if he had been in congress instead of a businessman. It's clear though he was questioning it publicly as early as 2003 in the Cavuto interview, which was before the war started, and came out totally against it publicly in 2004 less than a year after it started. Who knows what he was saying privately before that. You don't know. This isn't grounds to call him a liar.

Being against the war after it started is utterly irrelevant.

If you remove that from your defense of him, there is nothing left.

He was weakly in support of the war before it started. That is a fact.

When he says he was against the way, he says it to differentiate himself from the people who voted for it.

When he does that, he is lying.

There is no evidence whatever to support any other conclusion. Anything that comes from after the war was in progress is of no relevance.

This is actually a great example of how modern day propaganda works. One tactic to discredit someone is to combine two true statements by them that look similar to create a false statement. Case in point:

Claim 1: Trump says he was against the war before it started. In the Cavuto interview he's questioning the war, and he says he used to argue with Sean Hannity about it. Sean Hannity backed this up. There's no reason to doubt this.

Claim 2: Trump says he's different from his opponents because he came out strongly against the war before anyone else did. That's a fact and there's plenty of evidence.

Then comes the spin. The media will mix the two statements together to say Trump said he came out strongly against the war before it started. They'll use this to call him a liar. Try to find me one example of him saying he came out strongly against the war before it started. You can't, because he never did.

This is why people don't trust the media.

Nope.

Claiming he was against the war, after it started is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how many times you act as though it is.

One person saying they had a private argument with him before the war is also irrelevant. How many other people had private arguments but didn't express these reservations publicly?

If Trump was against the war before it started and had been brave enough to say so there would be evidence.

There is not. You can support Trump without having to be his propaganda ministry. The man makes false statements.

When did Hillary come out against the war?

Irrelevant.

Hillary has nothing to do with Trump's lies. And no failure of hers excuses him of anything.

It looks like you can't defend him anymore.

Seems my point flew over your head again. You keep calling things irrelevant that you don't like. I'm done.

No - you tried to make this about Hilary - when it isn't - it's just about Trump lying.

If you seriously don't see Trump lying, it probably is better for you to bow out.

> Being against the war after it started is utterly irrelevant.

It’s not irrelevant when someone claims "I was totally against the war in Iraq” is a lie. That's provably true.

> He was weakly in support of the war before it started. That is a fact.

Very weakly after he was asked the question for the first time. It’s utterly irrelevant.

> When he says he was against the way, he says it to differentiate himself from the people who voted for it.

Yes. Because those that voted for the war did not come out against it until much later, if they even did at all. He came out against it early.

> When he does that, he is lying.

Nope. That doesn't follow from what you wrote. Do you want to try again?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com