The problem in 2002 and early 2003 was that Bush didn't get those tough questions. Just like there are no real tough questions about U.S. policy in Libya, Syria, etc., now.
What we are getting is Trump raising these issues years later when it seems some of the public is finally/still willing to hear the facts. And that's commendable because the Establishment has tried to just keep rolling along with wars and deceits after the Iraq invasion. No accountability, no nothing.
To answer the Weekly Standard's question -- the truth still hasn't come out fully since Bush and other pro-war deceivers, who included not just neoconservatives but many "liberal interventionists," have managed thus far to get away with it all.
The only problem with what Trump is saying is that he's not saying it loudly and strongly enough. He didn't support impeachment of George W. Bush for the Iraq invasion, which was the point of one of the questions to him, though several legal scholars have done so, including Francis Boyle, Jonathan Turley, Bruce Fein and Elizabeth Holtzman. Reps. Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney and John Conyers, in different ways and at different times, pursued the possibility.
Some are deriding Trump for apparently exaggerating his objections to the Iraq War in 2003 and 2004. Maybe so, but the fact of the matter is that most who spoke out meaningfully against the Iraq War early were drummed out of establishment media and politics.
Trump is serving as Pat Buchanan 2.0, meaning some real bad comes with some reasonable positions opposing America's imperial overreach. And quite arguably in a post 9/11 world, the good is more important than it was in 1992 when rightist commentator Buchanan challenged President George H.W. Bush's New World Order.
As I've written elsewhere, I have no idea what Trump would actually do in office and what his current motivations are. He's been contradictory, but the thrust of his comments is quasi-isolationist or quasi-realist. His campaign could be an opening to groups wanting to reach out to millions of working-class whites on issues of foreign policy, trade and some core economic issues.
Of course, even on foreign policy, Trump can be extremely dangerous. For example, the apparent force behind his anti-Muslim comments is Frank Gaffney, a rightwing pro-Israel militarist.
The point is that Trump is appealing to an electorate that is sick of deceit and perpetual wars and there's a lot of good that comes with that. It should be an opportunity for anyone claiming to care about peace to reach out to a large segment of the American population that previously was considered wedded to right-wing "patriotic" appeals to militarism.
It should not be a time for "progressives" to simply mock the people supporting Trump.
But, for Democrats, the significance is this: What's it going to look like if Trump is the Republican nominee and Hillary Clinton, a war hawk who voted for the Iraq War and co-authored the Libyan conflict, is the Democratic nominee.
Trump -- with very good reason -- will tie the stench of perpetual wars and the lies that accompany them around her neck. She will make the 2004 John "I-was-for-the-war-before-I-was-against-it" Kerry look like a stirring exemplar of gracefully articulated principles.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).