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