May 17, 2015 10:30 am -


Maureen Dowd correctly points out that we knew then we shouldn’t have gone to war in Iraq.

It is simply not true, as Republican presidential aspirant Scott Walker said on Friday, that “any president would have likely taken the same action Bush did with the information he had.”

That’s not giving enough credit to W. and his frothing band of Reservoir Dogs.

It took a Herculean effort of imagination, manipulation and deception to concoct “the information” that propelled the invasion, occupation and destruction of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11…

And consider this: Jeb hasn’t even been asked any questions yet about W.’s dark contributions on waterboarding, the deficit and the near-total collapse of the American economy.




D.B. Hirsch
D.B. Hirsch is a political activist, news junkie, and retired ad copy writer and spin doctor. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.

64 responses to Dowd: ‘It’s About What We Knew Then’

  1. Carla Akins May 17th, 2015 at 10:36 am

    Yet, they want to go back to war.

  2. KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker May 17th, 2015 at 11:17 am

    Significant opposition to the Iraq war occurred worldwide including many long time US allies and the UN security council who all questioned the fabricated US intelligence information. Lies from republicans in power then, and again today as they try to rewrite history, are still lies.
    Just remember, there’s never any money to be made by peace.

  3. arc99 May 17th, 2015 at 12:10 pm

    When the discussion turns to the catastrophe that was and is Iraq, right wingers love to trot out their standard boilerplate response, ‘but but but Democrats voted for it too’.

    Never mind what we have been hearing for the past 6.5 years that it is the President who bears the ultimate responsibility for what happens on his watch. That apparently only applies when a President they hate, occupies the Oval Office.

    The bottom line is not complicated

    1. Iraq was a mistake which cost 40,000+ casualties and over $1 Trillion tax dollars
    2. Majority of the Democratic caucus across both houses (57%), opposed the war
    3. Congressional Republicans opposing the war could be counted on your fingers (without using your thumbs) 7 NO votes out of 272 total GOP votes.
    4. Liberals were right. Conservatives were wrong. As usual

    Any questions?

    Point #3 is especially significant to me. The people who tell you that it is their party who is best suited to not only govern America, but to make sound foreign policy and military decisions was dreadfully wrong on the biggest foreign policy issue we have faced in the 21st century. The only thing worse than their epic f*ck-up is their complete lack of integrity in admitting that liberals were right on this.

    The Republican party offers us little more than unrepentant incompetence. America can and should do better. If we do not, it is no one’s fault but ours. I can see the whole sad scenario now if we have another Republican President in the near future.

    – Republican is elected President
    – The President makes a case for all out war.
    – There is no mention of how it will be paid for.
    – Anyone who opposes the war is condemend as a traitor.
    – A few more Dixie Chicks records will be burned.
    – FOX ratings skyrocket

    – A Democratic successor to the latest war President is elected and immediately condemned for not cleaning up the mess left by his predecessor.

    – Ground hog day repeats.

  4. crc3 May 17th, 2015 at 1:38 pm

    Jeb is never going to be able to get past his brother’s terrible legacy. I’m not sure at this point if he even knows how slim his chances are to be nominated by the Repulsives. Not to fear though because the Repulsives have NOBODY that’s any better than Jeb. What a joke the party has become…LOL!!

  5. Gadea May 17th, 2015 at 5:02 pm

    I agree with Rand Paul, when he says that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, at the time.

    Our invasion of Iraq was a mistake, should have never happened.

    • jasperjava May 17th, 2015 at 5:18 pm

      Funny how you have to “agree with Rand Paul”, à certified lunatic, to qualify your comments about Iraq.

      You wouldn’t say that you agree with the millions of liberals who took to the streets, and the many Democratic politicians (such as Illinois State Senator Barack Obama) who knew that this war would be a horrible mistake right from the very beginning.

      You’re an ignorant, gullible, easily-led tool.

      • Gadea May 17th, 2015 at 5:49 pm

        Rand Paul has said in the past and recently,
        that our invasion of Iraq was an error.
        RP said ask that question is Iraq better off now than it was before we invaded, is there more chaos is ISIS more of a threat.
        I think most reasonable humans would say yes to all 3.

        I agree with Rand Paul on this issue and others.

        I did process the arrest of those that took to the streets. I am not a Police Officer, never have been a Police Officer, but I do work as a clerical employee processing arrest.
        Many of those arrest were people that took to the streets.

        • Obewon May 17th, 2015 at 6:18 pm

          You “agree with Rand Paul” supporting Citizens United, continuing $60 B in annual Big Oil-war Tax credits preserving ‘Leave no billionaire behind.’

          Verses he and his GOP constitutional illiterates, disregarding SCOTUS rulings upholding the U.S. Constitution for any womens right to choose, ACA HC reducing federal deficits by $1.5 T+, Civil rights for all Americans, while RiP vows to illegally disband Social Security, Medicare, USA’s Federal Reserve Central bank returning $100 B+ annually to taxpayers via Keynesian economics reversing every recession, Great Recession and Great Depression.

          He’s a self certified Eye glass salesman! That’s all folks see him as.

          • Gadea May 17th, 2015 at 6:19 pm

            I agree with Rand Paul, when he says that our invasion of Iraq was an error.

          • Obewon May 17th, 2015 at 6:24 pm

            Even a complete idiot knows Halliburton Cheney’s $6 T+ Iraqi jobs program is ‘ the worst foreign policy decision in U.S. history.’ Leaving Bush Jr’s Cheney admin the “Worst” on everything.

            238 Presidential scholars polled annually since 1981: “Bush is the worst president of the modern era, bottom five of all time.”

          • William May 17th, 2015 at 6:38 pm

            our invasion of Iraq was an error.
            “ERROR” my ass. President Cheney and his pet squirrel George knew exactly what they were doing.

          • Gadea May 17th, 2015 at 6:59 pm

            GWB never knew what he was doing.
            Cheney ran him.

          • Obewon May 17th, 2015 at 7:06 pm

            You voted for GWB / Cheney in 2000 and 2004? Or who then and ‘each election’ since 1980?

          • Gadea May 17th, 2015 at 7:30 pm

            I always vote.

            Jimmy Carter in 1976 and 1980, Ronald Reagan 1984, 1988 GHWB, 1992, Bill Clinton, 1996 Bill Clinton, 2000 Al Gore, 2004 John Kerry,
            2008 John Sydney McCain 2012 Barack Hussein Obama II.

            2016, Not sure yet. There may be a candidate that has not yet announced and may come out of the blue.

            Hillary was the front runner, until she wasn’t.
            I’ll make up my mind before 11/04/2016.

          • burqa May 17th, 2015 at 11:56 pm

            You forgot to include Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Gore and Kerry’s middle names.

          • whatthe46 May 17th, 2015 at 8:37 pm

            that’s not true. he knew 6 mons. prior to the invasion that there were no WMD’s and still invaded.

          • Gadea May 17th, 2015 at 8:49 pm

            GWB could want whatever, but he was in charge in name only. Cheney was The Decider, not GWB.
            Maybe late in GWB’s 2nd term, when Iraq blew up in their face, GWB began trying to take over the reins a little more, but by then the GWB tenure had Cheney’s stamp all ver it. Too little, too late.
            Even during 9/11, it was Cheney giving the orders,
            while GWB sat in the classroom staring into space.

            GWB was the frontman, but Cheney was in charge.

          • whatthe46 May 17th, 2015 at 9:06 pm

            i don’t care who was giving the orders. he was the “president” and it was his signature signing off on an unnecessary war. and the right still won’t take responsibility for the chit storm they created. and they still want war.

          • Gadea May 17th, 2015 at 9:25 pm

            I’m not saying that GWB was not responsible and that he can do a Pontius Pilate and wash his hands.
            He cannot, because, as you way, signed the orders.
            But he wasn’t the IT guy in his own administration. Even Colin Powell knew this, when he gave that dog & pony show, at the UN, trying to get the world on our side. The GWB knew they were lying, from the beginning. It wasn’t that they found out 6 months before attacking Iraq. They always knew that Iraq did not have the WMD’s.

          • whatthe46 May 17th, 2015 at 9:33 pm

            the fact is, these repukes are tip toeing around the issue. knowing what we know… and they are being obtuse. rand won’t say WHY just say he wouldn’t. spell it out. say it out loud, i wouldn’t have because they knew. say it out loud, it was a war based on a lie. but its his party and he won’t go there.

          • Gadea May 17th, 2015 at 9:37 pm

            Rand Paul did say it out loud.
            He has said so repeatedl for a number of years, not just recently.
            Rand Paul has said it.

          • whatthe46 May 17th, 2015 at 10:05 pm

            in 2003… considering you suggested for many of years, he says this. by the way, he’s only stating this recently because he has to, because it makes sense. on rightwing watch.

            “While speaking with Iowa-based radio host Jan Mickelson yesterday, Paul criticized efforts by the U.S. and the United Nations to settle Iraqi refugees in the country. Mickelson was even more sweeping, attacking efforts to settle Muslim refugees in general. ”

            ““We won the war in Iraq, why would we be giving political asylum to people to come from a country where we won the war?” Paul asked. “It’s one thing if you’re trying to escape Castro or trying to escape communism in Russia or Vietnam or somewhere else or China, I can understand asylum, but when you win the war, why would you give people asylum? And if the 60,000 coming here are friends of the West, wouldn’t you want that 60,000 to be in Iraq helping to form a better country over there?””

          • Gadea May 17th, 2015 at 11:07 pm

            That is a separate issue, RP is against settling the Iraqi’s in the U.S.

          • whatthe46 May 17th, 2015 at 11:32 pm

            actually it isn’t. like the vietnam war, that shouldn’t have been. we gave them asylum. he knew we shouldn’t have invaded iraq when he made that statement yet, he was adamant about not giving them aslyum, which means he had no problem about invading.

          • burqa May 18th, 2015 at 11:10 pm

            I agree.
            Paul shows dramatic ignorance of the state of Iraq after all that war. We went in and tore that country up and the least we can do is give asylum to refugees from the destruction we brought about.
            This is a major reason we brought in the Vietnamese refugees in spite of the fear mongering that came from the Right. Your point is spot-on.
            We should not greet refugees with locked doors, fear and suspicion; rather, we should greet them with a smile and a covered dish…

            Paul fails to understand what America has long been about. It’s right there in the Declaration of Independence, the seventh reason in the list of problems we had with King George III who opposed immigration.
            That lovely Statue of Liberty and the poem by Emma Lazarus are so beautiful and so AMERICAN. Let other nations be xenophobic, we have found that being a refuge brings in people who make wonderful citizens who contribute greatly to our country.

          • whatthe46 May 19th, 2015 at 12:15 am

            nicely put. thank you.

          • burqa May 17th, 2015 at 11:52 pm

            Please supply the quote in which greasy-haired Rand Paul detailed the reasons why he was against the invasion of Iraq. All I have ever heard were vague allusions but never anything specific.
            I would like to see what he had to say about the aluminum tubes, the mobile WMD labs, the al Qaeda/Iraq connection, the WMD-armed UAVs, etc that were the rationales the Bush administration put forth for the invasion.

          • Gadea May 18th, 2015 at 1:44 am

            WATCH: Rand Paul Says Dick Cheney Pushed for the Iraq War So Halliburton Would Profit

            As the ex-veep blasts Paul for being an isolationist, old video shows the Kentucky senator charging that Cheney used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq and benefit his former company.


          • burqa May 18th, 2015 at 10:58 pm

            Oh sure, by 2008 and 2009 the invasion of iraq was widely accepted as being a blunder.
            Was greasy-haired Rand Paul out front opposed to the invasion in 2003 or 2004? It wouldn’t surprise me if he was, I just don’t remember.
            The logical reply to Cheney would have been for greasy-haired Rand Paul to point out that isolationism has long been an aspect of conservatism, and what Cheney supported was a far left Wilsonian policy.

            By the way, even though he is ahead of all the other currently announced contenders for the GOP 2016 nomination in the RWDC, he’s not going anywhere. He is headed for being an object of hatred within the GOP. He is too stuck on Libertartianism, which turns people off across the political spectrum. Libertarianism tries to attract both the Left and Right but ends up repelling both in practice.

          • tracey marie May 18th, 2015 at 11:46 pm

            he was for the war in Afghanistan and against withdrawing from Iraq, he said he probably would have voted against the Iraq war, but is not sure. All the facts

          • allison1050 May 18th, 2015 at 7:16 am

            Yes, you did absolve the president of any responsibility go back and read your comments.

          • Gadea May 17th, 2015 at 8:55 pm

            I don’t think GWB or Cheney ever believed that Saddam had any WMD. After all it was GHWB that was the head of the CIA, and knew what was up with Saddam. They knew what weapons Saddam had and didn’t have because they gave him the weapons, when they backed Iraq against Iran. They had other motives for wanting to invade Iraq, none of them had to do with WMD. But it had everything to do with coveting Saddam’s oil fields and Middle East Foreign Policy. Israel felt Iraq was a threat. They manufactured a reason so that the American public would go along with it. That’s all.

          • whatthe46 May 17th, 2015 at 9:04 pm

            “That’s all.” and millions suffered and died and so did our economy. “that’s all.”

          • Gadea May 17th, 2015 at 9:25 pm

            And it is still going on.

          • whatthe46 May 17th, 2015 at 9:30 pm

            and whose fault is that?

          • burqa May 17th, 2015 at 11:43 pm

            GHWB did not have any dealings that I am aware of with Saddam when Bush was DCI. He only held the job for about 11 months, spent a lot of time away from the office, launched no significant operations I am aware of and made no significant changes. His value was that of a backslapper and cheerleader within the agency.
            During his time as DCI Hank Knoche id much more than Bush to actually run the agency.
            While the Reagan administration opened the doors for Iraq to purchase nerve agents to make chemical weapons, I am unaware of any weapons we sold Iraq during the war. Can you supply any details as to what weapons we sold them?
            M-1 tanks?
            Apache helicopters?

          • jasperjava May 18th, 2015 at 1:12 am

            MILLIONS of sane Americans say that the invasion of Iraq was a disaster.

            Yet you agree with the broken clock who is right only twice a day? Instead of agreeing with millions of sane people who say the same thing, and are right about other things besides?

            What a tool you are.

          • Gadea May 18th, 2015 at 1:45 am

            You can’t expect to agree on everything with anyone.

          • allison1050 May 18th, 2015 at 7:04 am

            We can expect you to agree with a person based on more than 1 thing.

          • allison1050 May 18th, 2015 at 7:03 am


          • allison1050 May 18th, 2015 at 7:02 am

            And that’s all? Seriously you would vote for someone just based on that alone?? If that’s the case then you’re one of the many reasons that have contributed to what’s gone wrong from the city/county/state then federal level…you have blinders on so therefore aren’t able to see the bigger picture. You don’t vote or I should say you should NEVER vote for anyone based on just one thing. jeezz

        • burqa May 17th, 2015 at 11:22 pm

          Greasy-haired Rand Paul opposed major portions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
          Greasy-haired Rand Paul blamed the U.S. for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
          Greasy-haired rand Paul also claimed to know of numerous cases of children who suffered severe brain damage after taking vaccines, and said that mandatory vaccines were the first step to martial law.
          Greasy-haired Rand Paul likes to whip up fear, like the time he claimed the U.S. government was going to be murdering Americans with drone-fired Hellfire missiles shot into American cafes.

          Please drop the deception. You’re a dyed-in-the-wool Libertarian. You know there’s something wrong with that, which is why you do what so many other Libertarians do in forums like this – they try to appear as something they are not. When the Tea Party has eliminated greasy-haired Rand Paul from the race for the GOP nomination, you’ll vote for whomever they select.
          Don’t give us this “I may vote for Hillary” tripe.

          • Scopedog May 17th, 2015 at 11:35 pm

            Yep–Paul’s a fraud, to be blunt. But I guess some would want us to drop trou for him just because he was against the invasion of Iraq (notice how no proof is offered?) and spoke out against drones (which he reversed on later).

      • tracey marie May 17th, 2015 at 6:42 pm


      • whatthe46 May 17th, 2015 at 8:39 pm

        funny how the question that’s never asked of them is: knowing that bush KNEW there were no WMD’s 6 months prior to the invasion, do you believe the invasion was the wrong thing to do?

        • burqa May 17th, 2015 at 11:10 pm

          HEAR! HEAR!
          This is an advantage of having a Bush in the race. One hopes this debate heats up again to refresh their memories (and those of the voting public).
          Then they could be asked why they would have invaded, because for each reason, there was intelligence before the invasion saying it was not so.
          Just walk-em through it and at the end they’d have no reason to invade….

          • whatthe46 May 17th, 2015 at 11:27 pm

            silence in the room. then… but ben something or rather.

    • burqa May 17th, 2015 at 11:06 pm

      We-ell, actually he did, during the administration of Ronald “Dutch” Reagan.
      They planted barometrically-triggered bombs aboard American airliners. One of these bombs exploded on a flight from Tokyo to Honolulu and killed a kid, but the plane landed safely, otherwise. Not long after an identical bomb was discovered aboard a Miami-Rio de Janiero airliner.
      We didn’t know who did it until an Iraqi agent defected in Switzerland. He had been sent to bomb a hotel where a lot of Jews were staying, but he couldn’t go through with it. He brought us the suitcase bomb he had been issued to use in the attack and our experts were certain it was made by the same bomb maker who built the 2 barometric pressure bombs aboard the 2 airliners.
      Saddam tried using his foreign intelligence service as a terroist group and they failed miserably. I recall one chap blew himself (and no one else) up in a London hotel. Saddam’s thugs were so inept he began to subcontract, mainly to Abu Nidal, who assassinated a number of Iraqi dissidents abroad.

      Of course Ronald “Dutch” Reagan didn’t do anything about it that airliner bombs, other than give Saddam top secret satellite intel and even sent CIA analysts to Baghdad to make sure Saddam knew just what he was seeing and also knew our capabilities and limitations in this form of intelligence gathering. Oh, and “Dutch” Reagan authorized the sale of chemicals used to make poison gas by the Iraqis….

    • GreatLakeSailor May 17th, 2015 at 11:17 pm

      The invasion of Iraq wasn’t a mistake. It was a crime.

  6. allison1050 May 17th, 2015 at 7:19 pm

    Other than to usual “if you knew then what we know now” question then I have a question for to so called media, WHY HAVEN’T ANY OF YOU put on your big boy pants and asked about the economy past and present, the collapse of the infrastructure and do any of them have any ideas about job creation that pay a livable wage? They won’t answer if you don’t ask.

    • burqa May 17th, 2015 at 10:55 pm

      Nicely put. I would add they need to be specific and ask for examples of when their ideas worked better than the best-performing policies of the Democrats. That’s what we should have – the policies that have been proved to work the best.

      • allison1050 May 18th, 2015 at 6:39 am

        I totally agree with that burqa.

  7. burqa May 17th, 2015 at 10:51 pm

    The big lie they are trying to push is they didn’t know till after the invasion that their rationales were bogus. No, that’s when the rest of us found out, but I have found that they knew every one of their main rationales had been shot down or called into serious question.
    They just failed to tell the rest of us and they failed to tell Congress.
    Because they deceived everyone, those in Congress who voted to authorize the president to use force can not be held culpable because fraud negates consent.

    * They knew before the invasion the uranium deal allegation was bogus – it came from the discounted stories file at the CIA – dug up by amateurs set up to do an end around CIA analysts. It was based on bogus, ridiculously bogus documents.

    * They knew before the invasion the moblie chem/bio weapons lab allegation was phony and was based on the story of a drunk who was in no position to know, but they didn’t tell us that.

    * They knew before the invasion that those aluminum tubes were not sutable for use in a centrifuge, as the administration claimed, because when tested, the damned things fell apart in a centrifuge, but they didn’t tell us that.

    * They knew there was no Iraq/al Qaeda connection, but didn’t tell anyone of the intel reports that said so.

    * They lied outright when they said Saddam’s brother-in-law told us the Iraqi nuke program was going full speed. When he defected, the bloke told us it had been shut down for a decade or so. They didn’t tell us that.

    * They lied when they said Saddam would give WMD to terrorists. Some in Congress knew this, but it was classified so they couldn’t tell the American people that the intel contradicted the Bush administration.

    * Had they bothered to check with our best UAV experts in the Air Force, they would have been told that Iraqi UAVs were incapable of carrying the WMD and spraying equipment needed to use them to deliver WMD, but they didn’t ask. They just made stuff up about it.

    * They likewise refused to tell us that the CIA had recruited over 30 family members and close friends of Iraqi WMD scientists and engineers. These agents went into Iraq before the invasion with questions on the WMD program, and they all came back, unanimous in telling us everything had been shut down a long time ago.

    • granpa.usthai May 18th, 2015 at 1:51 am

      and we never got to color a day yellow!

  8. William May 17th, 2015 at 11:52 pm

    yet there was one man who predicted with complete accuracy, precisely what would happen if we invaded Iraq.

    “know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

    I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.”

    Barack Obama

    Oct.2, 2002

    • granpa.usthai May 18th, 2015 at 1:44 am

      lucky guess?

  9. granpa.usthai May 18th, 2015 at 1:43 am

    jumping in with both feet and no plans for exiting ain’t exactly a strategy.

    BUTT –

    it’s all for the historians now. The most important thing to remember is that under Democratic Leadership our Nation has remained secure and prosperous.
    Under Republican Leadership, we totter on the brink of the fascist Abyss.
    If RepubliKONs are ever allowed full control of the federal government again, it’s adios America – Chinese Military Tribunals and deportation for the destroyers of the Chinese profits – probably to North Korean potato fields to keep the peace.

  10. Warman1138 May 18th, 2015 at 5:23 am

    Frankie does Hollywood’s version of ” War ”, nuff said.

  11. booker25 May 18th, 2015 at 9:29 am

    And knowing what we do now we still have the rightwing idiots not able or willing to say they wouldn’t of invaded Iraq. This includes Jeb and Rubio.

  12. Bunya May 18th, 2015 at 4:32 pm

    If I’m not mistaken, the reason Bush was “appointed” president was so he could have the opportunity to invade Iraq. Funny how conservatives now say they didn’t know anything about Dubya’s plan for Iraq back in 2000. Nope, no idea. Why, they were as innocent as pups fresh out of their mothers’ wombs back then.

  13. Gadea May 18th, 2015 at 8:45 pm

    How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons

    On August 18, 2002, the New York Times carried a front-page story headlined,
    “Officers say U.S. aided Iraq despite the use of gas”.

    Quoting anonymous US “senior military officers”, the NYT “revealed” that in the 1980s,
    the administration of US President Ronald Reagan covertly provided “critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war”.

    The story made a brief splash in the international media, then died.

    • burqa May 18th, 2015 at 10:37 pm

      As I recall, this hit the news with the Riegle Report circa 1994…

  14. burqa May 18th, 2015 at 10:36 pm

    If there was any justice in the world I would be dating Maureen Dowd.

  15. Gadea May 19th, 2015 at 10:14 pm

    Why did we invade Iraq?