So was Trump for WMD in Iraq Before He was Against It?

Source: Flopping Aces | 15 Feb 16 | Wordsmith

Trump has exaggerated his supposed opposition to OIF. PolitiFact:

Again, Trump said he was against the war from the very beginning.

“I’m the only one on this stage that said, ‘Do not go into Iraq. Do not attack Iraq,’ ” Trump said. “Nobody else on this stage said that. And I said it loud and strong. And I was in the private sector. I wasn’t a politician, fortunately. But I said it, and I said it loud and clear, ‘You’ll destabilize the Middle East.’ ”

Trump often repeats this line, and we’ve rated a similar Trump claim Mostly False, because he didn’t appear to take any public position on the war until after the March 2003 invasion. In this more recent version of the statement, he also said he stated his opposition to the war “loud and clear.” But the public record of his positions is thin.


Trump’s public opposition to OIF only seems to have started in 2004. Before that, would a President Trump have “lied us into war”?

Hat tip Marc Thiessen for these tweets by Andrew Kaczynski:

So would Trump have “lied” us into war even before 9/11? Daily Kos also linking to Andrew Kaczynski’s Buzzfeed post:

The text of the 2000 book Trump wrote is damning, not only did he believe Saddam possessed an active WMD program, he also supported war to topple Saddam.

In the book he refers to Saddam as a terrorist threat to the US as well.

This is like a gift from heaven to either Bernie or Hillary whoever wins. It makes clear Trump has been lying though his teeth and his view on Saddam was no different then Bush’s at the time.


Donald Trump offered a new reason for why, after exhaustive searches, no one has found proof he opposed the Iraq War before it began: People didn’t write everything he said.

The comments are a stark difference from what The Donald said at a Republican debate in September of last year, when said he could provide 25 stories showing his early opposition to the Iraq War.

“Well, I did it in 2003. I said before that — don’t forget, I wasn’t a politician so people didn’t write everything I said,” Trump said to Meet the Press host Chuck Todd push Trump on the lack of evidence. “I was a businessperson, I was as they say, a world-class businessperson. I built a great company, I employed thousands of people so I’m not a politician but if you look at 2003, there are articles. If you look at 2004, there are articles — in fact, I saw somebody commenting on it last night, that Trump really was against the war.”

In September, asked about his Iraq War opposition, Trump said this:

“You can check it out, check out — I’ll give you 25 different stories.”

A detailed search by BuzzFeed News in September (and other news organization in recent days) did not produce evidence at all Trump opposed the war before the March 2003 start.

The week the war started Trump was quoted as saying it was turning into a “mess” but also said the war would positively impact the stock market, causing it “to go up like a rocket.”

So in other words, like a true Democrat who believed Saddam posed a WMD threat and supported Bush’s Iraq decision, Trump behaved like the typical weathervane politician and only thought OIF was a bad idea after the going got tough and the momentum of the mainstream press began trumpeting the narrative “Bush lied, people died”, “No WMD” (as if that was the sole reason), “Bush attacked the wrong country“, and “Mission Accomplished” ridicule.

Cheney says Trump sounds like a liberal Democrat on Iraq. Medea Benjamin certainly gushed over Trump’s left wing talking points on Iraq.


As for Trump’s comments during Saturday’s debate that Bush did not keep the U.S. safe because “the World Trade Center came down during [his] reign,” Cheney argued there was “nothing” that could be done.

“On the notion, for example, that the president failed to act before 9/11 to stop it, we had no actionable intelligence at that point. It simply wasn’t available. There was nothing we could have done and we didn’t have intelligence at that point to suggest other than there’s a general kind of a threat,” Cheney said.

In answer to some liberals who cheerlead Trump on his Dubbya attacks in comment threads elsewhere, and who kept citing the August 6th PDB as evidence of advance warning that was ignored, I posted the following (a commenter mentioned that Bush said ‘You’ve covered your ass now’ to his briefer”), knowing exactly who Bush’s briefer was and that he felt differently:

I have the book by that CIA briefer (Mike Morell). He is not a political partisan and he writes that Bush said it in jest; and on pg 41,

I tell this story only to ensure that the history of this period is recorded with accuracy, as word of the president’s comment spread and it was mistakenly referred to as a response to the now-famous August 6 briefing that I will address shortly. Most important, the president said it to me as a joke. It was not a serious comment on the piece or on the warnings that CIA was providing about an al Qa’ida attack, which he took seriously.

Pg 42-3:

When I met with the terrorism analysts, I asked them to write the now-famous August 6 PDB titled “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in the U.S.” I asked for this piece because earlier in the year, whenever Tenet and I would brief the president on the al Qa’ida threat, the president would directly ask us, “Is there any indication that this threat is aimed here at the United States?” He was clearly very worried about that possibility. My answer to that question- supported by Tenet- was always the same: “Mr. President, while there is no SPECIFIC information to suggest that these attacks we are hearing about are aimed at the homeland, Bin Ladin would like nothing more than to bring the fight here to our shores.” Given the president’s frequent question, I wanted to have the analysts dig deeper into the subject.

The resulting piece later became the first PDB item ever declassified and released. A casual reading makes clear that we thought the threat from al Qa’ida to the homeland was very real. The threat was not limited to attacks on US interests abroad. But a careful reading also shows that nothing in the item told the president where, when, or how al Qa’ida might strike our country- or even that we thought there was a link between the threat reporting of spring and early summer and a catastrophic attack on the homeland. Later some analysts would claim- some of them to the 9/11 Commission- that they had intended the piece to convey such a linkage. However, the words on the piece of paper we read that morning simply did not do so.

National Review:

Irritated that Trump repeatedly gave money to the Democrats, including before the 2008 wave? Upset that Trump praised Nancy Pelosi as “terrific” when she picked up the gavel that would pass Obamacare? Annoyed that Trump called for an assault-weapons ban just as the right to keep and bear arms was being restored piece by piece? Angry that, just three years ago, he was slamming Mitt Romney for his harsh stance toward illegal immigration? Don’t be. He “wasn’t a politician” back then, and besides, “that’s just what businessmen do.” If, on the other hand, you are impressed that Trump isn’t on record anywhere supporting the War in Iraq . . . well, that’s because he has always had brilliant instincts and will make a top-notch commander in chief.

Democrats and Code Pink can take Trump back, now.



Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Discussion
  • ConstitutionalConservative #1142

    As Paul Harvey would have said… Now The Rest Of The Story!

    Yes if he where to win the Dems would slam him good, this is not all there is that can be used against Trump but the Dems are holding back, remember he was very closely aligned with the progressive liberal machine, I’m sure they would have rather this did not come out until after the primary.

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.