Donald Trump’s Unique Human Decency on Iraq.

“What did he say?” not merely “When did he say it?”

“What was the purpose of this whole thing (the war on Iraq)? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing.” (Emphasis, JW)

Donald Trump on Iraq War, August, 2004, reiterated verbatim, August, 2016.

“Obviously I have thought about that a lot in the months since (her October 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution).   No, I don’t regret giving the President authority.”

Hillary Clinton on Iraq War, April, 2004.

As election day approaches, it is time to ignore the noise of the moment and think clearly about the crucial issues facing us, none of which is more important than war or peace.  The War on Iraq has been a touchstone for these issues over the last 14 years.

On Iraq, Clinton and her operatives have sought to avoid at all costs an accurate comparison of her position over the last 14 years to Trump’s.  “What did Trump say?” has been buried by the Clintonites and company.  “When did he say it?” has been slyly substituted for it.  The time line has been used to equate the positions of Hillary the most notorious of hawks with that of Trump. (1)

Physical Gold & Silver in your IRA. Get the Facts.

Let us have a look at Trump’s words as well as the dates they were uttered.  And compare them to Hillary’s:

2002. Trump utters four words of wavering assent in September but no animated support. Hillary votes for war “with conviction” in long speech in October.

First come Trump’s famous four words “Yeah, I guess so.” These are the four words that Trump uttered on September 11, 2002 , a month before the Senate vote on the War, when Howard Stern asked out of the blue whether Trump favored invading Iraq (2).  These four words can be regarded as a half-hearted, off the cuff assent to the war, but they hardly amount to a well-considered position let alone a policy statement (3).

The next month in October, 2002, then Senator Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the War on Iraq “with conviction” and emerged as an enthusiastic proponent of the war.  She retained that “conviction” without wavering until January, 2008, at least, when Obama threatened her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination by presenting himself, falsely, as a peace candidate (4).

2004.Trump makes a passionate, humane denunciation of the war, now unchanged for 12 years. Clinton sticks to her vote for war.

Now we come to 2004 and Trump’s first clearly articulated position on the war to appear in print.  This was the inspiring statement and it has been buried in the timeline.  It was published in Esquire in August of 2004, and, though not long, it is rarely quoted in full.  Here it is:

“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 country? 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.

“What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing.”  (Emphasis, JW)

Trump calls attention to the death and injuries inflicted on Americans, as have other politicians who have criticized the war.  But then he goes on to lament the deaths of innocent Iraqis as well.  No other major political figure, so far as this writer knows, has expressed such sentiments.  They stand in stark contrast, for example to those of Madeleine Albright, who famously declared that the deaths of 500,00 children, due to Clinton era sanctions of the 1990s, were “worth it.”

Thus, from a humanitarian standpoint, the content of Trump’s condemnation of the war is outstanding.  In fact to grieve over the lives of Americans but not the people of Iraq is a form of racism.  Trump is virtually unique among major politicians in taking this stand on the lives of innocents the US has attacked.  He should be praised for it.

Let us now look at one example of how this statement of Trump’s has been handled in the “progressive” media, in an article in Mother Jones by Tim Murphy entitled, “What did Donald Trump Say on the Iraq War and When Did He Say it,” by Tim Murphy.  When Murphy gets to the Esquire article above, he quotes only the first of the two paragraphs and leaves out the second, which refers to the needless loss of life.  And therefore it leaves out the impressive section, which I  have italicized above, bemoaning the loss of Iraqi lives!  Do you think that is honest, dear reader?  Or would you call it a lie of omission?

What about Trump’s consistency?  The statement above remains Trump’s position; he quoted every word of it, word for word, in his foreign policy address of August, 2016.  Thus he has stood by his position for 12 years. (5)

In 2004, Clinton stuck to her vote on the Iraq war.  She said to Larry King on April 20:  “Obviously I have thought about that a lot in the months since (her October 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution).   No, I don’t regret giving the President authority.”

2007. Trump adds one new feature to his critique:  The war was not a mistake but based on lies by Bush. Clinton remains solidly committed to her Iraq War vote.

In 2007 Trump added one more component in an interview with Wolf BlitzerThe added component is that the war was based on lies – not mistakes, not faulty intelligence but lies.  Again no major political figure has said this, certainly not Hillary Clinton.

In the interview Trump says: “Look, everything in Washington has been a lie. Weapons of mass destruction was a total lie.  It was a way of attacking Iraq, which he (George W. Bush) thought was going to be easy and it turned out to be the exact opposite of easy. … Everything is a lie.  It’s all a big lie.”  Here again Trump has remained consistent.  In one primary debate he confronted Jeb Bush with the fact that his brother lied us into Iraq.

What was Hillary’s position in 2007?  She remained committed to her 2002 vote, despite the call of many antiwar Democrats to apologize and admit it was a mistake. To an audience in Dover, New Hampshire, in February, she said defiantly: “If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from.”   She could afford to be defiant.  She was the front runner for the Democratic nomination at that point. Little did she know that Obama would be a serious contender.

2008. Trump’s position is unchanged. Hillary lies about the reason for her Iraq War vote.

By 2008 Obama was endangering Hillary’s bid for the presidency by presenting himself in the Democratic primary as the antiwar candidate – falsely as we can now see.  In the second Democratic presidential debate, Hillary claimed she voted for the war with the understanding that Bush would wait for UN inspectors to finish their job of searching for weapons of mass destruction.  But as Carl Bernstein and others have pointed out, she voted against the Levin amendment, which would have imposed precisely that restriction on Bush.  In other words, she lied.

We could go on and try to pierce the fog of words in the present election to wriggle out of her strong advocacy for the criminal adventure in Iraq.  But her deeds as Secretary of State speak much louder than any words she and her advisors might engineer.

More than anyone else she was responsible for the illegal bombing and regime change operation that overthrew Gaddafi and plunged Libya into a failed state riddled with Islamic extremists.  She is still pursuing the same policy of regime change or destruction in countries of the Middle East and North Africa that have defied the US.  Her advocacy of a no-fly zone in Syria right now is more of the same – and it assures war with Russia according to General Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and possibly nuclear war.  She remains virulently hawkish – irredeemably so one might say.

Is the impression conveyed by Clinton and her apologists that there is no difference between Trump and Clinton on the Iraq War correct?  It is not.  And it tells us that there will be an enormous difference between a Trump and a Clinton presidency.  Since that difference involves the very question of human survival, what does that say about our responsibility come November 8?


(1) For example, a fund raising appeal from Code Pink recently popped into my inbox with this line: “Both candidates supported the Iraq War at its inception, though both have now walked back that support.”  Clearly the implication is that the two candidates have the same stance on Iraq.  A vague timeline is trotted out but not a word about the content of what the candidates said.

(2) To be complete there were actually thirteen words, “Yeah, I guess so.  I wish the first time it was done correctly.”

(3) Trump also claims that he had frequent verbal fights with his friend Sean Hannity over the period leading up to the war with Hannity pro and Trump con.  Hannity backs him up on that, but in fairness that is not evidence because it is not in the public domain.  Memory can be tricky in these situations especially when a friend seeks support.  So we simply cannot make a judgment about that.

(4) To be complete, there was another Trump statement in 2003, although it is quite ambiguous and directed more at tactics than policy. In January, 2003, Trump in an interview with Neil Cavuto, before the commencement of “Shock and Awe” in March, made some comments on the War.  This time there was no endorsement of the War – not even an off the cuff endorsement.  Instead there was confusion, and the discussion revolved around tactics of war.  Trump said, “Well, he (Bush) has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps (he) shouldn’t be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know.”   No endorsement, no outspoken opposition.   (The brief interview can be found here and Trump’s summary of it in his August, 2016, foreign policy address.)

(5) Was Trump’s stand on Iraq opportunist?  Trump took his position on Iraq long before he was in politics.  He entered the presidential race as a candidate for the Republican nomination, not the Democratic one. At the time he entered the race, the GOP was the reliable party of war, dominated by the neocons.  His position on Iraq could hardly have helped him with that crowd.  So let us not call Trump’s position opportunist, designed to get votes.  As he became a more serious contender, the neocons left the GOP to join the Democrats and support Hillary.