Fact checking Trump’s claim of opposing Iraq War
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump smiles as he meets with students and educators before speaking about school choice.
NEW YORK >> Over and over again, Donald Trump says he opposed the Iraq War before it started. But no matter how many times the Republican candidate for president says it, the facts are clear: He did not.
There is no evidence Trump expressed public opposition to the war before the U.S. invaded. Rather, he offered lukewarm support. The billionaire businessman only began to voice doubts about the conflict well after it began in March 2003.
That hasn’t kept Trump from making his opposition a centerpiece of his criticism of Democratic rival Hillary Clinton’s approach to foreign policy.
Clinton voted in favor of the invasion in 2002 while she was a New York senator. It’s a vote she has said was a mistake.
Trump pushes his claim of early disapproval as “one of the biggest differences in this race.”
“I was against the war in Iraq, because I said it’s gonna totally destabilize the Middle East, which it has,” Trump said at Wednesday’s nationally televised forum on national security. The next day, he spent several minutes at an education event in Cleveland reiterating his opposition and citing a series of interviews as proof.
“I was opposed to war from the beginning,” Trump said. “I just wanted to set the record straight. There is so much lying going on.”
But those interviews offer no such evidence.
When asked for additional proof, Trump’s campaign referred to material from a fact check published by The Washington Post that concluded “there’s no sign that Trump opposed the invasion or was vocal about it prior to the invasion.”
Trump’s first known public comment on the topic came on Sept. 11, 2002, when he was asked whether he supported a potential Iraq invasion in an interview with radio host Howard Stern.
“Yeah, I guess so,” Trump responded after a brief hesitation, according to a recording of the interview unearthed by BuzzFeed News. Trump then alluded to the first Gulf War in 1991, which ended with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein still in power. “You know, I wish it was, I wish the first time it was done correctly.”
His next comment came in January 2003, during a Fox News Channel interview with Neil Cavuto. Trump suggested the economy and threats from North Korea posed greater problems for then-President George W. Bush than Iraq, but he did not say he opposed a possible invasion.
Trump also suggested that the American people were looking for an answer one way or another from Bush.
“Either you attack or you don’t attack,” Trump said.
On March 21, 2003, just days after the invasion began, Trump told Cavuto on his show that the invasion “looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint.”
As 2003 went on, Trump’s opinions started to shift slightly. That September, he said on MSNBC that he “would have fought terrorism, but not necessarily Iraq.” In December, he told Fox News that “a lot of people (are) questioning the whole concept of going in in the first place.” But he stopped short of saying that he was among those opponents.
In fact, Trump had voiced support for a hypothetical invasion of Iraq before Bush took office. In his 2000 book, “The America We Deserve,” he suggested that he would be in favor of a pre-emptive strike if Iraq was viewed as a threat to national security.
“I’m no warmonger,” Trump wrote. “But the fact is, if we decide a strike against Iraq is necessary, it is madness not to carry the mission to its conclusion.” He went on to compare a decision to invade with the “quick, secret, decisive moves in order to gain a negotiating advantage” in a business deal.
During the GOP presidential primaries, Trump repeatedly promoted what he said was his opposition to the war as an advantage over fellow Republicans. At his education event in Cleveland on Thursday, he went further, saying that “had I been in Congress at the time of the invasion, I would have cast a vote in opposition.”
In those remarks, and in notes provided by his campaign, Trump pointed to a pair of interviews as evidence to back up his claim he was against the war from the start.
He cites comments he made to The Post on March 25, 2003, at a post-Oscars party in which he called the war “a mess.” But those remarks, which came four days after he called the invasion a “tremendous success,” appeared to be a reference to a friendly fire incident in which a U.S. missile downed a British fighter jet and led to a 300-point fall in the stock market.
Second, Trump points to the August 2004 issue of Esquire, in which he made his first strong comments opposing the war, saying he “would never have handled it that way.”
“Very early in the conflict, extremely early in the conflict, right at the beginning, I made a detailed statement in an interview to Esquire Magazine,” Trump said in Cleveland. “So, right at the beginning.”
That statement did not come at the beginning. Trump’s interview with Esquire was printed 16 months after the invasion began, long after U.S. forces became engaged against a violent Iraqi insurgency. This week, Esquire added an editor’s note to the story that highlights Trump’s falsehood.
“The Iraq War began in March 2003, more than a year before this story ran, thus nullifying Trump’s timeline,” the note reads.
58 responses to “Fact checking Trump’s claim of opposing Iraq War”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
That’s a hard story to follow, lot of suppositions and weak evidence by the AP. Well at least the AP is fact checking Hillary with the same level of enthusiasm as they do Trump. Oh wait, that’s the parallel universe I just got back from where there is a mature and politically neutral media.
Actually, you can say the same about Trump’s claims…suppositions and weak evidence…
Nope, try harder next time. The fact of the matter is that little Barry Hussein’s personality cult is coming to an end and Hillary is a weak and deeply flawed candidate. Try as she does, she just can’t convincingly lie like Bill and Barry. As such progressives are wetting the bed in record numbers. Most of them have their therapists on speed dial. All that can be done is to keep up the daily media attacks on Donald “Make America Great Again” Trump. Sadly that strategy is backfiring and Hillary has been forced out of the bunker. The corrupt DoJ and FBI abandoned their responsibilities for political reasons and gave Hillary a pass. Now it will be up to the voter to hold Waldo to account.
All these catchy name calling on your part doesn’t make for believable statements. I would rather trust what’s printed by these outstanding publications as fact instead of relying on your irresponsible childish name calling tactics.
Personally, I’m looking forward to watching Hillary shred the pompous blowhard in the debates. He’s going down . . . hard.
You’re lying of course, as you always do here. The FBI and DOJ are both corrupt? You’re lying.
Mrs. Clinton is going to win the election. Progressives who actually understand how the electoral college works know that.
No matter how many times you write Barry Hussein, it’s fresh and funny every time! And so original, too!
Yes Obama’s presidency is coming to an end. A presidency, while not perfect, has seen the stock market go from under 7000 to over 18000.
As for flawed candidates, no one can compete with the Donald, a man with no political experience, who stiffs young girls, and who admires Putin because he is so macho. Sad and pathetic.
I think it is republicans who are “wetting the bed in record numbers”. The republican party might truly be following the path of the Whigs.
Trump & fans’ number 1 tactic: Name-calling.
Trump & fans’ number 2 tactic: Changing the subject.
Trump & fans’ number 3 tactic: Making up facts.
CEI, you are a good Trump fan. When he wins (lol), maybe he’ll let you take one of the jobs left behind by the illegals (What size gloves and sombrero do you wear?). Or maybe he’ll let you date one of the models he’s done with (I can tell you’re getting excited, don’t deny it!). When he wins, lol.
IRT Peter (Boots), are you posting about the USA Freedom Kids who performed for a Trump Rally on Jan 14,2016 in Pensacola, FL? I believe the father, Jeff Popick of one of the three $2,500 with the Trump Event and now is attempting to collect $15 thousand for the verbal agreement in the law suit. Nothing in writing. Must let the Court make the decision, otherwise there will be a number of law suits based on verbal agreements.
Here, let me make it easy for you.
Over and over again, Donald Trump says he opposed the Iraq War before it started. But no matter how many times the Republican candidate for president says it, the facts are clear: He did not.
There is no evidence Trump expressed public opposition to the war before the U.S. invaded. Rather, he offered lukewarm support.
Trump’s first known public comment on the topic came on Sept. 11, 2002, when he was asked whether he supported a potential Iraq invasion in an interview with radio host Howard Stern.
“Yeah, I guess so,” Trump responded after a brief hesitation, according to a recording of the interview unearthed by BuzzFeed News.
That’s is clearly not a statement in opposition but rather support.
“Yeah, I guess so” after a brief hesitation sounds more like indecision, unlike a solid vote to support the war as a member of congress.
I guess so doesn’t sound like a No to me but if you listen to Fox News they can do a whole spin on a “guess so”.
The controversy about what Trump thought or said about being opposed to or in support of the war in Iraq is political nonsense at its best. It might have relevance if Trump held a political office at the time, but he was nothing more than a private citizen whose personal opinions meant absolutely nothing to those in power.
“Yeah, I guess so.” Said like a true man with small hands who lies about his net worth to impress the ladies.
This is a story about the Donald. The Donald has made the claim that he was opposed to the war from the beginning. Does not appear to be the case. About the only thing you can say is that he came out against it well before Hillary.
Now how can vote for someone who can’t remember what he says on important issues. If he says something that the people don’t like he’ll just lie and say he didn’t say that or that is not what he meant. Lying TRUMP! Look who’s calling Hillary a liar.
Yes, Amela, how can anyone vote for someone who can’t remember what they said or did on important issues?
Below is the list of things Clinton could not recall in the FBI interview:
• When she received security clearance
• Being briefed on how to handle classified material
• How many times she used her authority to designate items classified
• Any briefing on how to handle very top-secret “Special Access Program” material
• How to select a target for a drone strike
• How the data from her mobile devices was destroyed when she switched devices
• The number of times her staff was given a secure phone
• Why she didn’t get a secure Blackberry
• Receiving any emails she thought should not be on the private system
• Did not remember giving staff direction to create private email account
• Getting guidance from state on email policy
• Who had access to her Blackberry account
• The process for deleting her emails
• Ever getting a message that her storage was almost full
• Anyone besides Huma Abedin being offered an account on the private server
• Being sent information on state government private emails being hacked
• Receiving cable on State Dept personnel securing personal email accounts
• Receiving cable on Bryan Pagliano upgrading her server
• Using an iPad mini
• An Oct. 13, 2012, email on Egypt with Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal
• Jacob Sullivan using personal email
• State Department protocol for confirming classified information in media reports
• Every briefing she received after suffering concussions
• Being notified of a FOIA request on Dec. 11, 2012
• Being read out of her clearance
• Any further access to her private email account from her State Department tenure after switching to her HRCoffice.com account
And, Ronin006, Ms Clinton responding to a question by Senator Johnson at a U.S. Senate Committee hearing, “What difference, at this point, does it make” on four Americans killed in Benghazi.
Interesting but not relevant considering this is an article about the Donald and his being against the Iraq war from the beginning.
But how can you vote for someone who has stiffed little girls? That is pathetic.
How can you vote for a criminal with a rapist husband who has stiffed big girls.. Very low standards
Let’s finish this discussion about Donald J Trump before changing the subject.
Do your best to “enlighten” people who don’t trust or respect Trump. You are not going to do that by changing the subject and making up facts. Neither you nor Trump seems to understand that.
What difference does it make. Just more Democratic desperation. They should learn to clean up their backyard full of corruption and lies.
Did you get that $20mil check in the mail yet??
What democratic desperation is that? Can you be specific? Love all the support republican leaders, past and present, are giving the Donald. Oh, my mistake, they seem to be backing sweet Hillary.
Trump denying sounds like a desperate Republican comment.
It’s a problem having only 1 local newsprint on the stand. I not a true Republican but want what Trump says but having to read The StarAdvertiser’s biased reporting. IMO, The Advertiser was a way better newsprint than The Starbulletin or of our StarAdvertiser.
But, they are just stating facts, not opinion here.
where’s the fact check on Hillary’s Lies?
Hillary lies are buried under the tons of Trumps lies.
C’mon amele, you’re doing great. Take the next steps…
This is an article about Trump’s claims, which seem to be straight lies. You may acknowledge that; it’s good for your inner spirit.
The SA and other legitimate newspapers report on what Clinton says and does every day. They give the basic facts, plus allow people on BOTH sides to comment.
Stay on topic, finish discussing Trump’s claims of being against the war. Don’t YOU want to know the truth? If he’s been lying, then he’s a liar, and that is what the evidence shows, that he is lying to YOU.
If I were you, I’d be P.O.-ed at Donald for lying to you. Vote Libertarian, Green, Democratic, anyone other than the guy who’s been lying to you. You’ll want to give yourself a big hug when it’s all over.
Can you be specific on the Star advertiser’s biased reporting? Saying the advertiser was a way better paper, is open to debate. Both papers could hardly be considered excellent but at least the Star Bulletin gave the state the articles on Broken Trust. What did the advertiser give?
I’m sorry SA, could you please attach the WP Translate extension button to the comments section? It might make life easier.
Mr. Trump has consistently lied about his support of the war in Iraq. But he lies so often in a single engagement, that fact checkers worldwide have developed a kind of exhaustion with tracking his falsehoods.
With regard to the war in Iraq in particular, the video record is clear. He supported the war in the very early stages (as did Mrs. Clinton) and Mr. Trump has lied about that support since the war turned sour. His sad followers believe his lies – like he’s some kind of modern day Nostradamus – and can’t be bothered to check the facts.
Mrs. Clinton will make short work of Mr. Trump in the debates. He will not be able to get away with his 10 second insults on that stage, and his remarkable, relentless ignorance will be on display for everyone to see. That may not sway any of his hard core supporters – just read some of the pathetic comments on here, slathering praise on a man who knows absolutely nothing about public governance – but it will be able to sway people who can actually think.
Let’s see what Wikileaks drops in the next few weeks.
Is Wikileaks exposing Trumps tax returns?
No matter what Wikileaks does, it will not erase the fact that Mr. Trump is a total ignoramus. He (like a lot of his supporters) is completely ignorant about economics and world affairs – to the unbelievable point that just last night, he said that hand gestures from Iranian Navy crews constitute an act of war for which the U.S. should retaliate with force to sink war ships. That is obviously the ranting of a psychotic. Everyone should be able to see that by now.
Trump is profoundly mentally ill.
wikileaks will not change the views of the followers of the pied pipers. The music is soo sweet they’ll follow the tune into in the fire pit.
Yep, Trump is leading them into the fire.
But no problem; most of his supporters are under-educated. So they might be too intellectually challenged to notice that it’s getting hot in here.
Trump does love the under-educated. He said it himself!
That is assuming there will be debates. lol I still expect the Donald to walk off as the moderator is biased.
The debates are going to show how intelligent and informed Mr. Trump is and his polling numbers will slide. But then of course his supporters are not that bright.
I suspect his polling numbers are really not that great now. All this talk about the race tightening is probably BS. The media just wants make money and the way to do it is to push a race. But It just isn’t there. The Donald will be clobbered in Nov. and I suspect even Sarge knows this.
So Trump claims that he has always been against the war in Iraq and the fact checkers can only verify his opposition since 2003 so they claim this is a lie. That’s a poor conclusion to draw. If they had evidence that he was passionately in support of the war that would be one thing, but this is just opinion clouded by the fact that he is a Republican.
No, it’s not. It may be clouded by the fact that he seems to lie about everything, however. You are misstating the fact. There is an on the record interview in which he supports the war before it started. Lots of people opposed the war after it turned into a disaster.
Mr. Trump lies about his support of the war in the early stages.
Read this history of Trump’s 15 year history of lies about 9/11:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/09/15-years-of-donald-trump-s-9-11-lies-insults-and-slights.html
Read the history of the Clintons >>>>http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/
At least Hillary never stiffed young girls. lol
You don’t know that for sure.
Well CEI, it sure appears the Donald has. How cheap can one be? Can only assume that the Donald is not anywhere close in wealth as he says he is.
Oh I get it now. When you say stiffed you mean financially cheated, don’t you? Sorry I misinterpreted your meaning, gotta’ get my mind out of the gutter. All that aside, Hillary may not have “stiffed” young girls but she does charge their parents $2700 to have their photo taken with her.
Donald Trump doesn’t have to worry about backing up anything he says. Flip-flopping on issues allows him to always be right in the end. His supporters have such low standards for him (and for themselves) that he can flat-out lie in a public forum and they don’t even care. They don’t care that he is a liar because what they care most about is that he isn’t a woman and he isn’t a minority. They will use the world’s biggest magnifying glass to be critical of the female candidate but will turn a blind eye towards even the most obvious, clear-cut, even blatant lies by Trump. Clinton supporters will at least acknowledge that she’s had some missteps or questionable choices in her past, but Trump supporters will not only believe that Trump is beyond criticism, but they will also accuse Clinton supporters of doing what they are doing so that they never have to address their own behavior first. The only rational reason I can think of for this kind of behavior where a group of people gravitate so blindly to one side of an issue over another is because they are solely focused on the surface of things, and what’s most prevalent on the surface of the presidential race is that one candidate is a white male celebrity and the other is a female politician who was part of a black president’s administration. Everything else is just fodder for confirmation bias.
I have to take issue with the next to last sentence of your post. You identify the current president as black. His mother was white, no? So it’s just as accurate to refer to him as white, although it’s not politically expedient to do so. You and others view him as black because you just can’t get beyond race. A little confirmation bias at work there?
Everyone knows that if a person has one drop of blackness in him, that makes him black and not fit to be president. (according to republicans)
Yesterday at 11:34am ·
The presidential campaign has produced an efflorescence of affection for Putin among Republicans and conservatives, those who would in normal times have denounced Putin as an oppressive dictator; a bloodthirsty enemy of liberty; and a geopolitical menace whose expansionism threatened the Pax Americana. So very telling….
The Atlantic…
Say what you want about Putin, at least he’s got a pair. I dare say Ronald Reagan would not have let Vlad walk all over him like Barry Hussein and “Russian Reset Button” Hillary Clinton did. I also don’t think Reagan’s State Department would have allowed the sale of North American uranium assets to the Russians after a fat donation the the Clinton Global Foundation. But I’m sure that’s just coincidence.
At a rally in Michigan, Donald Trump discussed his praise of Vladimir Putin, addressing critics who say the Russian president is responsible for the murder of journalists in his country.
“Then they said, ‘You know, he’s killed reporters,’” Trump said to the crowd, “and I don’t like that. I’m totally against that. But I do hate them. I hate some of these people, but I’ll be honest, I would never kill them.”
As appalling as Trump’s bromance with Putin is and as outrageous it is that he goes on Russian television to criticize the American free press, you have to laugh when Trump says, “but I’ll be honest.” When will that be? We’re waiting, Donald.
Where does he get those huge, ridiculous ties — at the Barnum and Bailey Second Hand Shop?
The same place HiLIARy gets those hideous pant suits designed by a tent maker.