Iraq war judged a mistake by today's White House hopefuls

[webfact]

Iraq war judged a mistake by today's White House hopefuls
By CONNIE CASS

WASHINGTON (AP) — A dozen years later, American politics has reached a rough consensus about the Iraq War: It was a mistake.

Politicians hoping to be president rarely run ahead of public opinion. So it's a revealing moment when the major contenders for president in both parties find it best to say that 4,491 Americans and countless Iraqis lost their lives in a war that shouldn't have been waged.

Many people have been saying that for years, of course. Polls show most of the public have judged the war a failure by now. Over time, more and more GOP politicians have allowed that the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq undermined Republican President George W. Bush's rationale for the 2003 invasion.

It hasn't been an easy evolution for those such as Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, who voted for the war in 2002 while serving in Congress. That vote, and her refusal to fully disavow it, cost her during her 2008 primary loss to Barack Obama, who wasn't in the Senate in 2002 but had opposed the war.

In her memoir last year, Clinton wrote that she had voted based on the information available at the time, but "I got it wrong. Plain and simple."

What might seem a hard truth for a nation to acknowledge has become the safest thing for an American politician to say — even Bush's brother.

The fact that Jeb Bush, a likely candidate for the Republican nomination in 2016, was pressured this past week into rejecting, in hindsight, his brother's war "is an indication that the received wisdom, that which we work from right now, is that this was a mistake," said Evan Cornog, a historian and dean of the Hofstra University school of communication.

Or, as Rick Santorum, another potential Republican candidate, put it: "Everybody accepts that now."

Santorum didn't always see the war that way. He voted for the invasion as a senator and continued to support if for years. Last week, he mocked Jeb Bush's reluctance to give what now seems the obvious answer when he was initially asked to reconsider the war in light of what's known today. "I don't know how that was a hard question," Santorum said.

It's an easier question for presidential hopefuls who aren't bound by family ties or their own congressional vote for the war, who have the luxury of judging it in hindsight, knowing full well the terrible price Americans paid and the continuing bloodshed in Iraq today.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz weren't in Congress in 2002 and so didn't have to make a real-time decision with imperfect knowledge. Neither was New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who served an earlier stint in Congress.

All these Republicans said last week that, in hindsight, they would not have invaded Iraq with what's now known about the faulty intelligence that wrongly indicated Saddam Hussein had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, in an interview Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation," summed up that sentiment: "Knowing what we know now, I think it's safe for many of us, myself included, to say, we probably wouldn't have taken" that approach.

Rubio, in a long exchange on "Fox News Sunday," tried to navigate the Iraq shoals once again, making a glass-half-full case that while the war was based on mistaken intelligence, the world still is better off with Saddam gone.

Those politicians didn't go as far, however, as war critics such as Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a declared Republican candidate who says it would have been a mistake even if Saddam were hiding such weapons. Paul says Saddam was serving as a counterbalance to Iran and removing him from power led to much of the turmoil now rocking the Middle East.

Former President George W. Bush and his vice president, Dick Cheney, still maintain that ousting a brutal and unpredictable dictator made the world safer.

In his 2010 memoir, "Decision Points," Bush said he got a "sickening feeling" every time he thought about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction and he knew that would "transform public perception of the war."

But he stands by his decision.

The war remains a painful topic that politicians must approach with some care.

Jeb Bush, explaining his reluctance to clarify his position on the war's start, said "going back in time and talking about hypotheticals," the would-haves and the should-haves, does a disservice to the families of soldiers who gave their lives.

Cornog, the historian, said even if a majority of Americans have turned their backs on the war, many never will.

"I think if I had lost a loved one in that war I would be unwilling to say it was a futile effort or destructive of America's security," he said. "How we interpret it depends on how we are invested in the question at hand."

When he finished withdrawing U.S. troops in December 2011, Obama predicted a stable, self-reliant Iraqi government would take hold. Instead, turmoil and terrorism overtook Iraq and American leaders and would-be presidents are struggling with what to do next. The U.S. now has 3,040 troops in Iraq as trainers and advisers and to provide security for American personnel and equipment.

For the most part, the public and the military — like the politicians — are focused less on decisions of the past than on the events of today and how to stop the Islamic State militants who have overrun a swath of Iraq and inspired terrorist attacks in the West.

"The greater amount of angst in the military is from seeing the manifest positive results of the surge in 2007 and 2008 go to waste by misguided policies in the aftermath," said retired U.S. Army Col. Peter Monsoor, a top assistant to Gen. David Petraeus in Baghdad during that increase of U.S. troops in Iraq.

"Those mistakes were huge and compounded the original error of going into Iraq in the first place," said Monsoor, now a professor of military history at Ohio State University. "There's plenty of blame to go around. What we need is not so much blame as to figure out what happened and use that knowledge to make better decisions going forward."
___

Associated Press writers Jim Kuhnhenn and Robert Burns contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-05-18

[khwaibah]

Closing the barn door after the cow got out. What a no-brainer.

[worgeordie]

A mistake,an understatement,but it made a lot of money

for a lot of people,does that make it OK ?

regards Worgeordie

[oneday]

OH, isn't "hindsight" the most wonderful invention.

Stupid politicians.

[FangFerang]

"while the war was based on mistaken intelligence, the world still is better off with Saddam gone." -- This is a crock argument meant to forgive it as 'somehow' justified. It was a bald faced mistake, made under false pretenses. Colin Powell told them the information was incorrect, but Haliburton wanted profits. Really? It's okay to kill 70,000 civilians in three days to get rid of one man? What foul lies.

"Sen. Rand Paul, a declared Republican candidate who says it would have been a mistake even if Saddam were hiding such weapons. Paul says Saddam was serving as a counterbalance to Iran and removing him from power led to much of the turmoil now rocking the Middle East."

No shit Sherlock. ...where is Holmes so the war mongers can declare in a chorus --"Brilliant Holmes!"

Mission accomplished!!

[sanuk711]

Iraq war judged a mistake----

Oh surly not ---not when it was all for the good of the people & a safer world............I actually thought Dick Cheney's (VP Halliburton) plan at the time was quite good.

Just divide Iraq into three parts.................... unleaded, premium, and diesel.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But Seriously ---The Iraq War was not a "mistake" -- Don't let all these would be candidates for the white house get away with saying that -----it resulted from calculated deception. The fact was that we were all lied to.

Now is the time to see what one of the "I want to be president", has the guts to stand up & say that.

Edited May 18, 2015 by sanuk711

[granuaile]

I've never believed that it was mistaken intelligence that led to the Iraq invasion. Rather, just my view, I think that Bush came into office seeking to expand US dominance internationally. I never liked Saddam Hussein after his use of chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds, but Iraq was nonetheless far more stable under his government and people, especially minorities enjoyed far more individual rights and benefits. I'm not really sad he is dead, but he faced execution far more bravely than many would have. At the time I said the reasons we invaded were based on lies. George Bush thought it would be easy, and his saber-rattling at Iran and Syria proved impotent as he bogged us down there and ultimately created the climate that led to IS.

[DaddyWarbucks]

Iraq war judged a mistake----

Oh surly not ---not when it was all for the good of the people & a safer world............I actually thought Dick Cheney's (VP Halliburton) plan at the time was quite good.

Just divide Iraq into three parts.................... unleaded, premium, and diesel.

...unleaded, premium, and d'israel.

[shaurene]

The US and the Brits put Sadam in power. He ruled the country as a police state, that was the only way Iraq could be run. There where to many Tribes and it could never be run like a democracy end of story. Bush wanted to Finnish what his Dad started.

The weapons of mass destruction (that where false) where a way to persuade the other country's to join the US. One of the 2 biggest cock ups by the USA the other was Vietnam. They left the people in those country's to fend for them selves when the USA did the runner.

[sdanielmcev]

I've never believed that it was mistaken intelligence that led to the Iraq invasion. Rather, just my view, I think that Bush came into office seeking to expand US dominance internationally. I never liked Saddam Hussein after his use of chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds, but Iraq was nonetheless far more stable under his government and people, especially minorities enjoyed far more individual rights and benefits. I'm not really sad he is dead, but he faced execution far more bravely than many would have. At the time I said the reasons we invaded were based on lies. George Bush thought it would be easy, and his saber-rattling at Iran and Syria proved impotent as he bogged us down there and ultimately created the climate that led to IS.

IS was formed in 1999.

While I think it is a silly question to be asking candidates as it is akin to asking if we should have fought the Germans as they didn't bomb Pearl Harbor.

[oxo1947]

While I think it is a silly question to be asking candidates as it is akin to asking if we should have fought

the Germans as they didn't bomb Pearl Harbor.---- sdanielmcev

Don't want to get off topic "sdanielmcev", butJust a little bit of history that talking to Americans friends seems to be missing from their School syllabus, you had no options but to fight Germany------they declared war on You First--not as many Americans may think the other way round. It was debatable whether you would have declared war as American companies (DuPont etc) had so much capital tied up in the German war machine.

However once Germany & Italy had both declared war on you---congress was recalled and 12 hours latter in a face saving exercise--voted to declare war on the 2 countries that had already declared war on them.

On December 11, 1941, Germany declared war upon the United States, in response to what was claimed to be a series of provocations by the United States government when the US was formally neutral during World War II. Later that day, the United States declared war on Germany.-----http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States_%281941%29

[quandow]

[Robby nz]

If what I have read is true then there were in fact WMD.s that were sold to Saddam (by guess who) for use against Iran in the Iraq Iran war these, according to an account I read, included several strains of Anthrax.

But of course he had used them all by the time Bush decided an excuse was needed.

Anyway its taken these presidential hopefuls long enough to realise the 'mistake', well not really they will have known it for many years its just that its now become politically expedient to admit it.

[pitrevie]

Obviously not Sen. Lindsey Graham, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who said Bush invaded Iraq with “faulty intelligence...but with intelligence the entire world believed. Sen. Lindsey Graham also said he’s now “99.9 percent” certain he’ll run for president. “I blame Obama for Iraq, not Bush,”

Not sure what "entire world" he is talking about maybe there is a parallel universe somewhere.

[Thakkar]

All the froth over this question and the way the press is covering it is insidious. The "debate" begins with the assumption that the best intelligence available at the time made a case for war. We know for a fact that this isn't true. It was known at the time that the intelligence was flawed, that people were asked to ignore contravening evidence, that the press knew but chose to fan the propaganda flames for war (Knightrider service being the notable exception).

All this is being whitewashed with the phrasing: "if we knew then what we know now"

Don't fall for it, people.

T

[Anthony5]

If what I have read is true then there were in fact WMD.s that were sold to Saddam (by guess who) for use against Iran in the Iraq Iran war these, according to an account I read, included several strains of Anthrax.

But of course he had used them all by the time Bush decided an excuse was needed.

Anyway its taken these presidential hopefuls long enough to realise the 'mistake', well not really they will have known it for many years its just that its now become politically expedient to admit it.

I wonder where they were used as I haven't seen of any reports of chemical war in Iraq or Iran.

They aren't suitable to spray the insects in a vegetable garden, are they?

[NickJ]

The Boston Bomber was just handed the death penalty for using a waepon of mass destruction......so........I guess we were not lied to . Also the term terrorism now is used for just about anyone who disturbs the peace.All plays on words.....

[Scott]

Some off-topic posts and replies removed.

[ExPratt]

I half suspect when many people have said ,they Had Bin laden and Al Qaeda leaders trapped in Afghanistan Tora Bora Mountains , they let him escape. Had they captured and killed him then it is possible that the population of the US would not have wanted to go into Iraq as the job would have been done and honour restored

I have watched and read many accounts and apparently the Pentagon refused more troops when they had him trapped, whether that was to consciously allow him to escape or not is open to debate

Edited May 18, 2015 by ExPratt

[stevenl]

All the froth over this question and the way the press is covering it is insidious. The "debate" begins with the assumption that the best intelligence available at the time made a case for war. We know for a fact that this isn't true. It was known at the time that the intelligence was flawed, that people were asked to ignore contravening evidence, that the press knew but chose to fan the propaganda flames for war (Knightrider service being the notable exception).

All this is being whitewashed with the phrasing: "if we knew then what we know now"

Don't fall for it, people.

T

One of the questions here is of course did the intelligence community already know their information was flawed, or maybe worse, did they invent this to suit political purpose.

[Chicog]

All the froth over this question and the way the press is covering it is insidious. The "debate" begins with the assumption that the best intelligence available at the time made a case for war. We know for a fact that this isn't true. It was known at the time that the intelligence was flawed, that people were asked to ignore contravening evidence, that the press knew but chose to fan the propaganda flames for war (Knightrider service being the notable exception).

All this is being whitewashed with the phrasing: "if we knew then what we know now"

Don't fall for it, people.

T

One of the questions here is of course did the intelligence community already know their information was flawed, or maybe worse, did they invent this to suit political purpose.

The whole war was a fraud and made lots of people very rich.

And some of those people deserve to be in jail.

But it will never happen.

[elgordo38]

A mistake,an understatement,but it made a lot of money

for a lot of people,does that make it OK ?

regards Worgeordie

Thailand is asking for accountability and I think the Americans should to. This idea of flawed intelligence just does not fly. Presidents should be held accountable for their decisions not just be able to walk away into retirement. The Iraqi war was more serious than the flawed rice scheme here. Lost money vs lost lives on both sides just does not wash. The whole presentation that was given to the UN was flawed plus the lengthy war that followed mired the taxpayers into debt. Well at least the arms dealers and sellers came out winners. They do add a lot to the GDP. We spend more on arms than helping the poor. I am not a true conspiracy theorist but I have a friend that is. He raises some interesting points on past happenings. It is not beyond belief that governments would engineer situations to suit their beliefs and not those of the people that put them in office.

Edited May 18, 2015 by elgordo38

[Kondiao]

The US and the Brits put Sadam in power. He ruled the country as a police state, that was the only way Iraq could be run. There where to many Tribes and it could never be run like a democracy end of story. Bush wanted to Finnish what his Dad started.

The weapons of mass destruction (that where false) where a way to persuade the other country's to join the US. One of the 2 biggest cock ups by the USA the other was Vietnam. They left the people in those country's to fend for them selves when the USA did the runner.

There is a big difference: the U.S. got into the conflict in Vietnam in order to stop to the communist takeover. The communists violated the UN resolution by sending guerillas to the South to murder people in order to bring about the collapse of the government in South Viet Nam. The fact that South Korea is now a viable functioning country with a prosperous economy - BECAUSE UN and U.S. troops stopped the communists invaders - as they had stopped the Russians from rolling over all of Germany in 1945, and kept them out of West Germany from 1945 until the destruction fo the Berlin Wall - is deliberately ignored by overyone who wants to still claim that we were on the wrong side in Viet Nam and that the Vietnamese won their war against us. When I came back to the States in 1970 school girls used to spit on us who served in Viet Nam and children are still taught in school that we were criminals and lost the war - though no one has ever told me any battle that we lost there. And no one wants to mention that the communists murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians and veterans after they liberated Viet Nam and millions in Cambodia after that was was over. These inconvenient facts don't fit in with the accepted conventional wisdom of a people's war of independence.

WHEREAS, RE: Iraq, George Bush LIED to the American people about these fictitious WMD's; he ordered his intelligence people to lie about the supposed evidence about these weapons. In fact this lack of real evidence was argued before the invasion and in hindsight it is excused - like Oops! how silly of me. A mistake that caused so many deaths and maybe destabilized that part of the world - so that makes George Bush a well-intentioned moron, but not a war criminal.

The political and social climate in 1968 demanded that everyone profess to believe the communists' position - that they were fighting to free their people from us, And those of us who fought are still said to be criminals - but it is old news and we are supposed to be quiet about it and act like we are ashamed. The accepted wisdom today is that the U.S. military and police have the right to go and kill anyone anywhere, in and out of the U.S.A. when they murder innocent people it is within the parameters of the law - because they are under a lot of stress and they are heros fighting against bad guys everywhere to protect us ignorant commoners.

Not the same situation at all.

[simple1]

If what I have read is true then there were in fact WMD.s that were sold to Saddam (by guess who) for use against Iran in the Iraq Iran war these, according to an account I read, included several strains of Anthrax.

But of course he had used them all by the time Bush decided an excuse was needed.

Anyway its taken these presidential hopefuls long enough to realise the 'mistake', well not really they will have known it for many years its just that its now become politically expedient to admit it.

I wonder where they were used as I haven't seen of any reports of chemical war in Iraq or Iran.

They aren't suitable to spray the insects in a vegetable garden, are they?

Don't believe the US actually delivered WMD, but did contribute to the Iraqi effort to build chemical & biological weapons. The USA was not the sole country, many other countries also provided the means for producing weaponised chemical & biological systems that were deployed against external and internal enemies of the dictatorship.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program#Iran.E2.80.93Iraq_War

Edited May 18, 2015 by simple1

[Jonmarleesco]

'... Clinton wrote that she had voted based on the information available at the time, but "I got it wrong. Plain and simple."' Funny, numerous people - at least outside of the US - could see the warmongering for what it was, and based on much of the same questionable information. What was Hillary looking at, then, that hindsight ultimately changed

[ggt]

I believe most would agree...that what the White House has done best over the past several years...is to make mistakes...both domestic and internationally...

Clean up you own act...before requiring others to follow your misdirection...

[willyumiii]

You permit an idiot controlled by Devil Dick Cheney to assume office ( not by popular vote),

and you expect a government who will do the right thing for the people and not the corporations???

[BKKBobby]

If what I have read is true then there were in fact WMD.s that were sold to Saddam (by guess who) for use against Iran in the Iraq Iran war these, according to an account I read, included several strains of Anthrax.

But of course he had used them all by the time Bush decided an excuse was needed.

Anyway its taken these presidential hopefuls long enough to realise the 'mistake', well not really they will have known it for many years its just that its now become politically expedient to admit it.

I wonder where they were used as I haven't seen of any reports of chemical war in Iraq or Iran.

They aren't suitable to spray the insects in a vegetable garden, are they?

Chemical weapons were used by Saddam Hussein.

Halabja chemical attack:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

[fvw53]

I remember the unsuccessful efforts by the G W Bush administration to provide evidence that Saddam was hiding terrorists

Now 10 years after the invasion ...Iraq is full of terrorists ... "mission accomplished"?

[impulse]

The whole war was a fraud and made lots of people very rich.

And some of those people deserve to be in jail.

But it will never happen.

I'm a non-participant in the political process.

But I'd register, go home, volunteer as a campaign worker, and vote for the candidate that promised to put the whole bunch on trial for war crimes.

But you're right. Not gonna happen.