Fiscal Frauds: Conservatives Support Policies That Blew Up The Debt


From the Heritage Foundation to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) to purely political organizations like FreedomWorks and the Club for Growth, nearly the entire infrastructure of the right criticizes President Obama for the current state of our national debt. It is instructive to look back on these groups’ positions on the two primary drivers of both recent and future deficits: President Bush’s tax cuts and the expansion of the war on terror to Iraq. AEI, Heritage, and the Hoover Institution may be debt hawks now, but their roles in pushing the costly and misguided invasion of Iraq began almost before the wreckage was cleared at Ground Zero in New York City. And while it’s unremarkable that conservative institutions would support reducing taxes, the promises made in debate over the Bush tax cuts by Heritage, Americans for Tax Reform, and the like fly in the face of their current griping about our indebtedness.

Conservative Institutions Blame President Obama’s “Spending Binge” For Rising Debt


Heritage Foundation Decries Obama’s “Vision” Of “Deeper Deficits.” From the Heritage Foundation’s response to President Obama’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2013: “The Administration’s apparent vision is one of bigger government, more spending, higher taxes, and deeper deficits. At a time when runaway spending and swelling deficits must be reversed, President Obama increases both.” [, 2/28/12]

Heritage: America’s Future “Not As Bright As It Should Be” Because Of Rising Debt. From a post on the Heritage Foundation’s blog, The Foundry, by Senior Fellow J.D. Foster: “Of course, the election will be in large part about President Obama’s dreadful handling of the economy, which is finally showing real signs of life despite—not because of—Obama’s policies. And the election will also be about America’s future, a future that is not as bright as it should be because the national debt will have risen by more than $5 trillion over the course of Obama’s term.” [, 2/23/12]


AEI President Criticizes Obama For “Runaway Deficits To Be Repaid In The Undefined Future.” From an article by AEI President Arthur Brooks: “The president’s proposed new budget has three noteworthy characteristics: continuing unfunded entitlements to the middle class, runaway deficits to be repaid in the undefined future, and immense tax increases on the entrepreneurial class. Many commentators have complained about the damage this budget would do to our national prosperity. Less has been said about the effect it will have on something far more important: our national character. […] Is this where we want to go? If not, then we had better recognize that the right path to fiscal consolidation is not to find creative new ways to push debt into the future or vacuum more taxes out of the wealthy. It is to cut spending and reform entitlements right now. It means actual sacrifice–and that is not a bad thing.” [, 2/24/12]

AEI’s Pethokoukis: Obama’s Economy Is “Built On Debt.” According to AEI’s James Pethokoukis: “Obama added $5.3 trillion to the federal debt to juice the economy—and this is the best his old-fashioned Keynesian policies could do? You could call it a ‘sugar high,’ but it doesn’t even qualify as a sugar buzz, really. And now Obama wants to add another $7 trillion in a second term, according to his new budget, just to keep the wheels grinding along. The ‘built to last’ economy is a ‘built on debt’ economy and thus unsustainable.” [, 2/15/12]


Hoover Economist John Taylor: “We Could Get Into A Situation Like Greece.” In a February 6, 2012, interview on Bloomberg Television, Stanford economist and Hoover Institution Senior Fellow John Taylor said: “We could get into a situation like Greece, quite frankly. People have to realize it is a precarious situation. The debt is going to explode if we don’t make some changes. What seems to be more important is that people can get back on track, the country can get back on track, with just some sensible adjustments. I argue just bring spending back to where it was in 2007. That’s not so long ago. We’ve had an enormous spending binge in the last few years. If we undo that binge, shouldn’t be that hard, we can get back to some sensible pro-growth policies.” [Bloomberg Television via, 2/6/12]


ATR: Obama Refuses To “Confront The Nation’s Largest Debt-Drivers.” From Americans for Tax Reform’s response to President Obama’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2013: “The spending blueprint mirrors other plans he has put forward during his administration. It keeps spending at unprecedented levels, fails to address the looming entitlement crises and uses budget gimmickry to claim fake savings and unrealistic projections. […] [T]he President bankrupts the entitlement programs by once again refusing to confront the nation’s largest debt-drivers.” [, 2/13/12]

ATR Criticizes “Obama-Pelosi-Reid Spending Binge.” According to an Americans for Tax Reform statement on January 12, 2010: “A short look back on the fiscal recklessness of the last few years shows that if President Obama is upset about budget hostilities in Washington, he has no one to blame but himself.” The statement goes on note that “$16.4 Trillion [is the] amount of debt held by the nation after three years of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid spending binge.” [ATR Statement, 1/12/12]

Norquist: “100 Percent Of The Fiscal Crisis We Face Is Due To An Over-Spending Problem.” According to ATR President Grover Norquist’s 2010 testimony before the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform:

The Problem Is Not Deficits—It Is Spending

A “deficit” is merely the difference between total taxes and total spending.  Just focusing on the deficit ignores whether a fiscal crisis is predominately on the tax side or the spending side.  The proper metric is not deficits—it is spending.

100 percent of the fiscal crisis we face is due to an over-spending problem in Washington. [Norquist Testimony, 6/30/10, emphasis original]


Club For Growth: Balanced Budget Necessary To “Avoid The Fate Of Other Nations Crippled By Enormous Debt.” From a press release from Club for Growth president Chris Chocola on March 16, 2012: “Balancing the budget within 10 years or less is vital to restoring confidence in America’s financial future and to avoid the fate of other nations that are crippled by enormous debt. The Club for Growth is strongly concerned that any budget that does not balance within this reasonable timeframe is simply an exercise in futility. It is important to also note that President Obama and Senate and House Democrats have entirely abandoned the field when it comes to creating a credible budget, and they show zero interest in reducing spending or balancing the budget in any time frame.” [, 3/16/12]

Club For Growth, Citing Debt, Named Obama “Comrade Of The Month” Less Than Three Months Into His Term. From a Club for Growth press release: “It only took two and a half months of the Obama presidency for Club for Growth members to award President Obama the Club for Growth’s Comrade of the Month Award for the month of March. […] The Club’s Comrade of the Month Award is given to the politician or public figure who best embodies big-government policies and restrictions on economic growth. It is not difficult to see why President Obama won this award. Since he entered the White House, he has sought to grow the size of government by unprecedented proportions, spending taxpayer dollars recklessly and running up the country’s debt. His $3.6 trillion budget proposal is chock full of new government spending, tax increases, and onerous government regulations. According to the Heritage Foundation, the country’s public debt will double in ten years’ time to $12.5 trillion as a result.” [, 4/7/09]

President Bush’s Tax Cuts And Wars Fueled Dramatic Increase In Debt

Prior To President Obama’s Inauguration, President Bush Had Already Created A Projected $1.2 Trillion Deficit For Fiscal Year 2009. From the Washington Times: “The Congressional Budget Office announced a projected fiscal 2009 deficit of $1.2 trillion even if Congress doesn’t enact any new programs. […] About the only person who was silent on the deficit projection was Mr. Bush, who took office facing a surplus but who saw spending balloon and the country notch the highest deficits on record.” [Washington Times1/8/09]

  • FY 2009 Deficit Rose To $1.4 Trillion, “Largest Deficit As Share Of The Economy Since The End Of World War II. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: “The deficit for fiscal year 2009 — which began more than three months before President Obama’s inauguration — was $1.4 trillion and, at 10 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the largest deficit relative to the economy since the end of World War II.” [, 5/10/11]

NYT: President Bush’s Policy Changes Created Much More Debt Than President Obama’s. The New York Times published the following chart comparing the fiscal impact of policies enacted under the Bush and Obama administrations:


[New York Times, 7/24/11]

Over The Coming Decade, The Bush Tax Cuts Are The Primary Cause Of Federal Budget Deficits. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities prepared a chart showing the deficit impact of the Bush tax cuts (orange), the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the recession itself, and spending to rescue the economy:


[, 5/10/11]

CBPP: Bush Tax Cuts And Wars Are Driving The Debt. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

The complementary chart, below, shows that the Bush-era tax cuts and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars — including their associated interest costs — account for almost half of the projected public debt in 2019 (measured as a share of the economy) if we continue current policies.


[Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/20/11]

Conservative Groups Touted Bush Tax Cuts As Road To Economic Growth, Lower Deficits


Heritage Foundation Predicted Passage Of 2001 Bush Tax Cuts Would Mean “The National Debt Would Effectively Be Paid Off By FY 2010.” From an April 2001 Heritage Foundation paper on the economic impact of the Bush tax cuts: “Under President Bush’s plan, an average family of four’s inflation-adjusted disposable income would increase by $4,544 in fiscal year (FY) 2011, and the national debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010.” [, 4/27/01]

Heritage Foundation Predicted 2001 Bush Tax Cuts Would Boost Economy And Household Income “While Substantially Reducing Federal Debt.” From an April 2001 Heritage Foundation paper on the economic impact of the Bush tax cuts: “To assess the plan’s economic and budgetary effects and to help frame this debate, analysts in The Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis (CDA) conducted a dynamic simulation of the proposals in the President’s tax relief plan. The final results show that the Bush plan would significantly increase economic growth and family income while substantially reducing federal debt.” [, 4/27/01]

  • Heritage Foundation Projected 1.6 Million New Jobs And An Increase In Income Of Nearly $5,000 Per Year For A Four-Person Family. From the Heritage Foundation: “There’s more good news. The Congressional Budget Office says unemployment will average 4.9 percent from 2002 through 2011. But our analysis suggests that the tax cuts will help businesses create 1.6 million more jobs-enough to lower the unemployment rate to 4.6 percent. We also found that a family of four would receive $4,680 in extra disposable income per year under Bush’s plan, allowing the typical family to boost its consumer spending by $3,513 and its savings by $1,024 per year.” [, 2/21/01]


2001: AEI Worried Bush Tax Cuts Were Too Small And Warned Of “Scary” Possibility Of Government Paying Off The National Debt. From a May 2001 post on “Without a major tax cut, the budget surpluses forecast over the next decade will generate an unprecedented hoard of cash for the U.S. Treasury. That prospect may sound delightful, but in practice it would almost certainly have disastrous consequences. […] The [CBO] graph depicts something that has never happened before, in America or anywhere else in the world. It shows a government that has retired all the debts it can and begun accumulating vast ‘uncommitted funds’—a concept so new that the CBO had to invent the phrase. In theory, these surplus tax dollars will just sit there and sit there. In practice, however, they will be put to use. And that’s the scary part. […] A tax cut could prevent both of those consequences, but a cut of the size offered by President Bush—a total of just $1.6 trillion, phased in slowly, during a period when the federal government will be collecting about $25 trillion in taxes—is unlikely to be large enough or quick enough to prevent the scary graph from becoming reality.” [, 5/1/01, emphasis added]

AEI’s Makin In 2001: Cut Rates Even More Deeply Than Bush Proposal. From an article for the Weekly Standard by AEI resident scholar John Makin: “Today, as the U.S. economy enters what looks to be a serious recession, a Republican president is proposing tax rate cuts and a modest fiscal stimulus equal to barely 1 percent of GDP while the ratio of publicly held debt to GDP is 33 percent and falling and the surplus is approaching 3 percent of GDP. Today’s protests about tax cuts being too large because the debt paydown is threatened are the result of a dangerous, mistaken idea that somehow debt paydown caused the prosperity of the 1990s. In truth, the prosperity of the 1990s caused the debt paydown. Tax rate reductions are an even better investment in 2001 than they were in 1962. It is worth noting that although the Kennedy tax cuts were not enacted until February 26, 1964, three months after the assassination of the president, they helped to sustain three years of noninflationary growth averaging 6.6 percent from 1964 through 1966. In 2001 the negative pressures on the U.S. economy, not to mention the global economy, are serious enough to justify far more aggressive tax rate reductions. Indeed, the most prudent course would be to aim for moderate budget deficits and an attendant moderate rise in the ratio of debt to GDP.” [, 4/16/01, emphasis added]


Club For Growth President Backed Grand Promises Of Bush Tax Proposal In Op-Ed. From a 2001 op-ed by the Club for Growth’s then-president Stephen Moore: “President Bush’s tax and budget plan tells the American people they can have it all: lower taxes, more spending for education and the military, prescription drug subsidies for seniors–and on top of all this, nearly $2 trillion in debt retirement. Is this just naive political happy talk? Is Bush relying on voodoo economics? Not at all. […] Debt reduction doesn’t cause growth; growth causes debt reduction. The biggest problem our economy faces is not debt but a tax drag. Taxes as a share of gross domestic product are now higher than at any time since the height of World War II.” [Moore Op-Ed via Los Angeles Times, 3/12/01]

In TV Ads, Club For Growth Likened Republican Resistance To 2003 Bush Tax Cuts To French Reluctance To Join Iraq Invasion. From Newsweek: “Two moderate Republican senators, Ohio’s George Voinovich and Maine’s Olympia Snowe, are under intense pressure to renege on their pledge to hold Bush’s tax cut at $350 billion. The conservative Club for Growth is running an ad in Ohio with a photo of Voinovich next to a French flag. The group’s press release calls Voinovich a ‘Franco Republican.’ The same ad is slated for Maine with Snowe pictured alongside the French flag. A narrator equates the senators’ opposition to the full Bush tax cut with French opposition to the Iraq invasion.” [Newsweek, 4/17/03]


ATR Said Bush Tax Cuts Would Increase Revenues. From an Americans for Tax Reform press release dated May 15, 2001: “Those who study economic history know that when taxes are cut, Government revenue increases.  It happened in the Coolidge, Kennedy and Reagan administrations when government revenue increased by 61%, 33% and 54% respectively.  ‘Liberals should not fear this tax relief package.  In previous Presidential administrations when taxes were cut, there was a 49% increase in government revenue.  It happened then and it will happen again if the Bush tax relief is passed,’ Norquist concluded.” [ via, 5/15/01]

In Addition To Pressuring Democrats To Support Bush Tax Cuts, ATR Helped Keep Moderate Republicans “In Line.” From the Washington Post: “Republicans have a much easier task. Some moderate Republicans want to link tax cuts in future years to whether the budget surpluses actually materialize. But anti-tax groups such as the Club for Growth and Americans for Tax Reform are gearing up to keep Republicans in line. ‘I feel extremely comfortable that something like the Bush plan will pass,’ said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. The GOP is ‘all on board. They have voted for this stuff before. They all voted for marriage penalty relief. They all voted for elimination of the death tax. Rate reductions are in the grand historic tradition of the Republican Party.’ Norquist said his group will generate ‘outside the Beltway passion for the Bush plan,’ in part by encouraging 10 states with all-GOP legislatures that have at least one Democratic senator to pass resolutions urging passage of Bush’s plan.” [Washington Post, 2/8/01, via Nexis, emphasis added]

Norquist: “What Mae West Observed About Sex Is True About Tax Cuts…Even Bad Tax Cuts Are Good Tax Cuts.” At a December 2000 press conference, ATR president Grover Norquist said: “Americans for Tax Reform strongly supports efforts at complete reform which get us to a single rate tax that taxes income one time. We also support eliminating of the death tax, getting rid of the marriage penalty tax, expanding IRAs and 401(k)s, George Bush’s idea of an across-the-board tax cuts, getting rid of the 3% federal excise tax. These are not in conflict with the ultimate goal of reform, they are part of it and steps toward it. What Mae West observed about sex is true about tax cuts: All tax cuts are good tax cuts, even bad tax cuts are good tax cuts.” [Norquist Remarks via, 12/7/00]

The Iraq War: Brought To You By AEI, Hoover, And Heritage


Washington Monthly: “The Whole Idea That Regime Change In Iraq Should Be At The Center Of American Policy Was Nurtured At AEI.” From a 2003 feature in Washington Monthly: “Indeed, the whole idea that regime change in Iraq should be at the center of American policy was nurtured at AEI, by current and former AEI fellows who became the architects of the administration’s war in Iraq.” [Washington Monthly, December 2003]

Slate: “The Iraq War Was, To A Remarkable Extent, An AEI Production.” From Slate: “The Iraq war was, to a remarkable extent, an AEI production. Vice President (and Hawk-in-Chief) Dick Cheney was an AEI fellow immediately before joining the Bush White House, and his wife Lynne still is. … So was Laurie Mylroie, the leading academic proponent of the crackpot theory that Iraq was behind 9/11. Richard Perle is an AEI scholar. So is John Bolton. So is John Yoo, the Bush Justice Department’s former torture maven.” [Slate, 10/11/07]

Dallas Morning News: American Enterprise Institute Sought To “Provide Intellectual Fuel To The Iraqi Fire.” From the Dallas Morning News: “Arguing that ‘the security of our nation and the hope of millions depend on us,’ President Bush said Wednesday that disarming Saddam Hussein would pave the way for democracy in Iraq and throughout the Middle East no easy task, he acknowledged. […] Many of his comments echoed arguments made in years past by members of the American Enterprise Institute. They include Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser who often argues the administration’s case on television. Vice President Dick Cheney is an alumnus, and his wife, Lynne, still has an office there. The campaign to take action against Mr. Hussein began shortly after the Persian Gulf War. Its adherents argued it was a mistake to leave Mr. Hussein in power, especially after he brutally crushed a revolt of the Kurds in northern Iraq. The American Enterprise Institute is only one of the organizations seeking to provide intellectual fuel to the Iraqi fire. The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine, has also called for regime change, devoting an issue to the subject on Dec. 1, 1997.” [Dallas Morning News via Nexis, 2/27/03]

AEI’s Laurie Mylroie Authored A Wall Street Journal Op-Ed Two Days After 9/11 Suggesting The Attacks Originated With Iraq. From an op-ed by Mylroie published on September 13, 2001: “Whether Osama bin Laden was involved in Tuesday’s terrorist assault remains to be seen. Yet if that proves to be so, it is extremely unlikely that he acted on his own. It is far more likely that he operated in conjunction with a state–the state with which the U.S. remains at war, namely Iraq.” [Mylroie Wall Street Journal Op-Ed via, 9/13/01]

In October 2002, AEI Began Monthly Conferences “Focusing Not Only On The War, But Also Its Aftermath.” From the American Enterprise Institute’s newsletter in early 2003: “Focusing not only on the war, but also its aftermath, AEI has held, since October, a monthly conference series titled ‘Post-Saddam Iraq,’ which has addressed the process of Iraq’s potential transition to a democratic regime.” [, 3/1/03]

  • At First “Post-Saddam Iraq” AEI Conference, Richard Perle Called For “Liberation Of Iraq” And Regime Change. From the American Enterprise Institute’s newsletter in early 2003: “At the first event of that [Post-Saddam Iraq] series, AEI fellow Richard Perle stressed the importance of a regime change in Baghdad: ‘The liberation of Iraq, the removal of Saddam Hussein from power . . . can’t stop with a short-term objective, however important, of removing from his hands the weapons of mass destruction,’ he insisted. ‘Can one imagine sending in the Chicago police to take Al Capone’s weapons away, and leaving him there? Can anyone imagine that if the weapons of mass destruction were disgorged tomorrow, we could be confident with Saddam in place that we wouldn’t face the same problem again?’” [, 3/1/03]

AEI’s Donnelly: “I Would Bet My Mortgage We’ll Find WMD.” From the St. Petersburg Times: “So where are the weapons of mass destruction? Five days into the war to disarm Iraq of chemical and biological weapons, U.S. troops have yet to find any. They have seized a plant that might contain the weapons, but by Monday afternoon, they had not confirmed the contents. Defense analysts and U.S. officials say it is still early in the war and they are confident that weapons of mass destruction – known as ‘WMD’ in military shorthand – will be found. ‘I would bet my mortgage we’ll find WMD,’ said Tom Donnelly, a defense analyst with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. But finding the weapons will take time, Donnelly said. ‘We have things that are of more immediate priority – winning the war – than digging up things that have been hidden.’” [St. Petersburg Times via Nexis, 3/25/03, emphasis added]

President Bush Came To AEI In February 2003 To Reframe Iraq War As A First Step To A Peaceful Middle East. From the Edmonton Journal: “George W. Bush, facing deep suspicion worldwide about U.S. motives, expanded his case against Iraq by laying out a vision Wednesday night of a peaceful Middle East after Saddam Hussein. Looking beyond military action, the U.S. president focused on the democratic changes a war could bring to stabilize the Arab world. ‘All patterns of conflict in the Middle East can be broken,’ Bush said in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank. ‘From Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward political reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom to other nations of the region.’ His remarks, in which he barely mentioned his suspicions Iraq intends to use weapons of mass destruction against the U.S., were part of an administration-wide attempt in recent days to re-package its troubled campaign to use military might against Saddam. Bush faces the daunting task of trying to convince the world that a war is worth it. His expanded sales pitch came at the end of a day when his officials conceded that it could cost the U.S. as much as $95 billion to take on Iraq, not including post-war expenses.” [Edmonton Journal, 2/27/03, via Nexis, emphasis added]


Time: Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board Agreed That Regime Change In Iraq Should Be A Piece Of U.S. War On Terror “Immediately Following September 11.” From Time: “Immediately following September 11, the Defense Policy Board convened a two-day seminar at which it was generally agreed that removing Saddam should be one of the objectives of the U.S. war on terrorism, even in the absence of any link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The point was underscored, on September 20 in an open letter to President Bush by Perle and a number of prominent conservatives (many of them Defense Policy Board members). ‘Even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the [September 11] attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq,’ they wrote. ‘Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.’” [Time, 8/21/02]

Defense Policy  Board Included Several Hoover Members, “Repeatedly Urged Unilateral Action” Against Iraq. From the San Francisco Chronicle: “‘[The Defense Policy Board is] taken seriously enough that the secretary (Rumsfeld) meets with us every time we meet, and there’s a very high degree of interaction,’ said [Pete] Wilson, a visiting fellow at Hoover. In addition to [George] Shultz and Wilson, the board’s Hoover members include: Martin Anderson, a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers; Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker; former National Security Adviser Richard Allen; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; political science Professor Kiron Skinner; and Henry Rowen, a former assistant secretary of defense. Amid the administration’s internal debate over Iraq, which has pitted administration hawks against the more dovish Secretary of State Colin Powell, the board — chaired by former Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle, nicknamed by opponents ‘the Prince of Darkness’ — has repeatedly urged unilateral action. It will continue to do so, says Wilson, if the U.N. Security Council fails to endorse Bush’s request to authorize an Iraq invasion.” [San Francisco Chronicle via Nexis, 9/15/02]

Hoover Fellow George Shultz Was “Prominent Advocate Of Unilateral Action.” From the San Francisco Chronicle: “Another prominent advocate of unilateral action is [George] Shultz, who was secretary of state for eight years under President Ronald Reagan and is currently the Thomas W. and Susan B. Ford Distinguished Fellow at Hoover. In a telephone interview Friday, Shultz warned that the administration could be wasting time by asking the United Nations for new authority. ‘Maybe there will be still another attempt at (U.N.) weapons inspection. I don’t think it will get very far, and the more time passes, the more possibility Saddam has to build a nuclear arsenal, with greater risk of loss of life — not just in his region but everywhere in the world.’” [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/15/02, via Nexis]

Hoover’s Richard Allen Signed Open Letter To President Bush Calling For Saddam Hussein’s Removal On September 20, 2001. From the letter, co-signed by Richard V. Allen: “We agree with Secretary of State Powell’s recent statement that Saddam Hussein ‘is one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth….’ It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a ‘safe zone’ in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means.” [Letter to President Bush via, 9/20/01]

A Month After 9/11, Allen Testified To Congress That “I Rather Suspect It Was A Joint Venture In Which Iraq Has A Very Substantial Hand.” At an October 11, 2001, hearing of the House Intelligence Committee’s Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, Richard Allen said: “It may be that Osama Bin Laden is not the only guy. This could have been a joint venture. In fact, I rather suspect it was a joint venture in which Iraq has a very substantial hand. I have no evidence of that, but there are beginning to be little shreds of information and — and as — I talked of a wiring diagram with the office of Governor Ridge — the wiring diagram of the terrorist network is absolutely extraordinary. They do exist. You can find them now. It’s — it’s a mind-bending exercise, the cross currents, how free societies also permitted the incubation of this terrorism — Germany, Great Britain, France is threatened even internally, and now us. We — who knows how many more ideologically motivated, dedicated sleepers that we have in this country.” [Allen Testimony, House Intelligence Subcommittee On Terrorism And Homeland Security via Nexis, 10/11/01, emphasis added]


Three Weeks After 9/11: Heritage Foundation Called For U.S. To “Target Iraq’s Terrorist Regime, Not Just Osama Bin Laden, to Win War on Terrorism.” From a Heritage Foundation report titled “Target Iraq’s Terrorist Regime, Not Just Osama bin Laden, To Win War On Terrorism,” published on October 2, 2001: “President George W. Bush has declared war against international terrorism in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks that killed more than 6,000 innocent people. That war will require eradicating Osama bin Laden’s global terrorist network and uprooting its Taliban protectors from Afghanistan. But that alone will not be enough to stop terrorism. Troubling questions have been raised about possible Iraqi support for bin Laden’s network; this is not surprising, given Iraq’s past support for terrorist attacks against America and its allies. Regardless of whether Iraqi involvement with bin Laden’s network can be established conclusively, any war against terrorism that leaves Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in power will be judged a failure. Saddam’s brutal regime is propped up by systematic terrorism against its own people and neighbors. It could soon become even more of a threat due to its relentless drive to obtain nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction. The United States must push hard and fast for regime changes in both Baghdad and Kabul if terrorism is to be defeated. […] To prevent Iraq from crossing the nuclear threshold and becoming an even more dangerous terrorist state, the Bush Administration should consider a full range of military options to disarm and remove Saddam’s dangerous regime.” [, 10/2/01, emphasis added]

April 2002: Heritage Foundation Called For “An Intense And Hard-Hitting Information Campaign” To Convince British Voters Of “The Need For A Military Response” Against Iraq. From an April 2002 Heritage Foundation report on European views of a potential attack on Iraq: “A March 2002 opinion poll for The Guardian suggests that only 35 percent of British voters would back British support for a U.S.-led strike on Iraq, with 51 percent against it. This makes very bad reading for the Blair government and illustrates the need for an intense and hard-hitting information campaign by Downing Street and the White House to highlight the dangers posed by the Iraqi regime and the need for a military response.” [, 4/1/02, internal citations removed]

“Evidence Of Links Between Hussein And Bin Laden…Needs To Be Developed And Pushed To The Forefront.” From an April 2002 Heritage Foundation report on European views of a potential attack on Iraq: “Voters in the U.K. are simply not convinced in sufficient numbers that Saddam Hussein poses as great a threat, or even a much greater threat, to British security than does the al-Qaeda network. Evidence of links between Hussein and bin Laden is starting to emerge, and this evidence needs to be developed and pushed to the forefront by the intelligence services and information departments of the U.S. and British governments.” [, 4/1/02, internal citations removed]