Trump: Bush Administration Knowingly 'Lied' About Iraq War Intel

It's one thing to disagree with the decision to go to war in Iraq. That, believe it or not, was once a minority view. According to a Gallup poll taken in March 2003, the night after the Iraq war began, 76 percent supported President George W. Bush's decision. Two months after the invasion, a Gallup poll found 79 percent of Americans thought the war was justified -- about half of those said, "The war will be justified regardless of whether (weapons of mass destruction) are found."

But in the last GOP debate, Republican candidate front-runner Donald Trump took things to a new level. He not only called the decision to go to war "a big, fat mistake" (and, post-debate, proclaimed it "a disaster") but also said: "They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none, and they knew there were none."

That was breathtaking. Neither Hillary Clinton, who voted for the war before later repudiating her vote; nor Barack Obama, who called it "a dumb war" in 2002; nor Bernie Sanders, who called it "the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of the country" had accused Bush of "lying."

Trump, of course, is not alone. Former Associated Press Washington bureau chief Ron Fournier, for example, once said, "George W. Bush lied us into war in Iraq."

This claim -- by a reporter, no less -- incensed Judge Laurence Silberman, who co-chaired the Robb-Silberman Commission set up by Congress to examine the intel leading up to the Iraq War. In a Wall Street Journal piece called "The Dangerous Lie That 'Bush Lied,'" Silberman said: "I am ... keenly aware of both the intelligence provided to President Bush and his reliance on that intelligence as his primary casus belli. It is astonishing to see the 'Bush lied' allegation evolve from antiwar slogan to journalistic fact. ...

"Our WMD commission carefully examined the interrelationships between the Bush administration and the intelligence community and found no indication anyone in the administration sought to pressure the intelligence community into its findings. ...

"... No one in Washington political circles offered significant disagreement with the intelligence community before the invasion. The National Intelligence Estimate was persuasive -- to the president, to Congress and to the media. ...

"The charge is dangerous because it can take on the air of historical fact -- with potentially dire consequences. I am reminded of a similarly baseless accusation that helped the Nazis come to power in Germany: that the German army had not really lost World War I, that the soldiers instead had been 'stabbed in the back' by politicians.

"Sometime in the future, perhaps long after most of us are gone, an American president may need to rely publicly on intelligence reports to support military action. It would be tragic if, at such a critical moment, the president's credibility were undermined by memories of a false charge peddled by the likes of Ron Fournier."

The Washington Post's Bob Woodward, who wrote a book about the decision to go to war in Iraq, also said Bush didn't lie: "I spent 18 months looking at how Bush decided to invade Iraq. And lots of mistakes, but it was Bush telling George Tenet, the CIA director, don't let anyone stretch the case on WMD. And he was the one who was skeptical. And if you try to summarize why we went into Iraq, it was momentum. The war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end, people were saying, hey, look, it will only take a week or two. And early on it looked like it was going to take a year or 18 months. And so Bush pulled the trigger. A mistake certainly can be argued, and there is an abundance of evidence. But there was no lying in this that I could find."

David Kay was the "weapons hunter" sent by George W. Bush after the war to locate the expected stockpiles. He did not find them. But Kay said: "I had innumerable analysts who came to me in apology that the world that we were finding was not the world that they had thought existed and that they had estimated. ... .And never -- not in a single case -- was the explanation, 'I was pressured to do this.'"

Kenneth Pollack, ex-CIA Persian Gulf military analyst and Bill Clinton's top Persian Gulf adviser, disagreed with the timing of the decision to go to war. But he said that all of America's intelligence agencies -- there are 16 -- asserted at the highest level of probability that Saddam Hussein possessed stockpiles of WMDs.

Accusing a commander in chief, irrespective of his or her party, of knowingly lying to start a war is serious business. In the Iraq War, almost 4,500 U.S. service members died, to say nothing of the war's cost. To claim that the Bush administration knowingly lied to start the Iraq War is to assert that the CIA was behind 9/11 or that O.J. Simpson was innocent of double homicide.

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” President Clinton , Feb. 4, 1998.

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” President Clinton , Feb. 17, 1998.

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face .” Madeline Albright , Feb 18, 1998.

” He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983 .” Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

“Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” Madeline Albright , Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” Al Gore , Sept. 23, 2002.

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” Al Gore , Sept. 23, 2002.

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeing and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...” Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force “ if necessary “ to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.” Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ... Sen. John F. Kerry (D, M

Seriously, people here at FR have spent a lot of time over the last decade piecing together the situation regarding WMD and Saddam, and the situation between Saddam and Bin Ladin, and Saddam and the various Al Qaeda affiliates. The relationship between the first and the second World Trade Center attacks, in 2001 and several years prior. Saddam and the hunt for uranium. And on and on.

The situation is at once more complex and more interesting than you’ll ever get in a five minute conversation or bumper sticker.

If you’ve been part of these discussions you realize that Trump doesn’t really have any idea what he is talking about. I have given him the benefit of the doubt, though, because based on his character I assume that had he been in office when the Towers were toppled, he would have made Bush’s war look like a walk in the park. So his comments that he would not have gone into Iraq are just a bumper-sticker. He would have done the same and more, so in fact would anyone, Ron Paul would have seen himself forced to act in the wake of an attack like that.

But his attacks on GW Bush as culpable for the 911 attacks are pretty off-putting. I can’t take him seriously. He has no clue what he is saying. I always say that Trump is my second choice after Cruz, and probably most Cruz people have felt this way. And despite the noise you hear in these threads, probably most Trump people have Cruz as their #2 choice. Until now, at least. Trump has done himself damage by this kind of nonsensical attack.

GWB wading into Jeb/s losing effort is futile..... poor timing at best. But most of all b/c it dredges up all the troubling aspects of Bush/s role in Mideast affairs.

ANN COULTER: In June 2001, the Bush administration undertook a study to ensure that Arabs were not being disproportionately stopped by airport security.

.....Colin Powell asserts in his new book: "there would have been no Iraq war" had then-Pres GWB and his councilors understood that Hussein did not possess any functioning unconventional weapons. Powell lauded the fact that under Bush we got rid of the horrific Hussein government and toppled the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.....

ANALYSIS Which just goes to show the US still hasn/t figured out the fervid Mideast mindset to this day. Its thousand-year-old sectarian internecine warfare was kept in check by strongmen like Saddam and Khadafi. Now these savages are marauding all over Europe.....and are coming here to kill us for what we did in Iraq.

POINTS TO PONDER

<><> Powell never mentions that the conniving Mideast types calculated the advantage of having a superpower in their midst....and they cashed in bigtime.

<><> The US gamely decided to train the indigenous population....it cost us billions and we managed to train 4-5 or so over five years.

<><> In the US we take them off the farm, send them to boot camp, and in 3 weeks we got soldiers.

<><> The Bank of Kabul where the CIA and DOD deposited billions to finance the war was a withdrawal-only goldmine for insiders.

<><> For public consumption, the US said we went into Iraq to show them the advantages of democracy and to get all warm and cuddly as they embraced it.

(waiting for hysterical laughter to die down)

Remember this Colin? The war profiteering was outrageous. Neocon godfather Richard Perle relaxing in Paris (above the fray---nowhere near his cohorts plotting in the WH Office of Special Ops) got so rich w/ insider info, he was reported to be starting his own oil company.

<><> One last thing, Colin.....GWB estimated the Iraq strike would cost $50-60 billion.......then an angry Bush fired advisor Larry Lindsey because Lindsay dared to say the war might cost more like $100 billion.

That was in 2007 dollars.

FAST FORWARD TO TODAY Iraq and Afghanistan today have cost the US some $3 TRILLION....and rivers of young blood. We/re still pouring US tax dollars into those decrepit Mideast countries, and..... as Donald says....we got NOTHING in return.

BTW, look who controls most of the Iraqui oil fields today.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.