Problem is, almost everyone in this country did. I remember telling my dad while I was a freshman in H.S. that Sadam obviously couldn't afford WMDs because of what we did in the 90s + Iran v. Iraq. Anyone too young or unaffected by 9/11 could tell. Like everyone riding the post-9/11 wave, he just shrugged it off and claimed that the government must have been right. That was the actual sentiment of most people at the time, politicians being even worse than my father. Don't get me wrong, Trump is a fool but Iraq is more of a collective guilt thing. We should have focused on Afghanistan.

Wall Mounted Display?

@motoDrizzt Weapon(s) of Mass Destruction

In the UK we had protests/demonstrations/marches against the war. Didn't do much good though.

@TimB As far as I know, the whole globe pretty much had those.

@blake-ebron you could add to the answer that they didn't find any evidence to support the claim that he opposed the war before it started, either. So it seems he's been against it shortly after it started, but before that there is no record of his opinion or it is somewhat in favor.

@Andrew Scott Evans, It's not that support was ever that high. Even in the range of those that were "affected" by 9/11. It's that we had just gotten "attacked" even though we "had warning" and "could have done something" (of course in hine-site). So when someone goes "there pointing WMD at us and our allies", it's really hard to ignore. That was the general "call to war" at the start. We're in danger, we need to defend our selves. 9/11 showed us that we should pay attention to these claims. But even then, war was not how a lot of people thought we should defend ourselves.

It wasn't till after the war actually started that the "war cry" went from "They have WMDs pointed at us!" to "Well he should have let the inspectors in" and finally "Free Iraq! Go Democracy!" That, more then anything else tanked Bush's approval rating to the lowest ever in presidential history with the exception of maybe Truman.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… around Jan 2003

@TimB Hard to say whether protests did much good or not. There haven't been any large-scale foreign invasions by US&UK since Iraq (just small-scale ones like interventions in Libya and Syria). Whether public opposition contributed to that is impossible to prove, but I'd say it's plausible that it's one of several contributing factors.

@TimB just because there were protests doesn't mean mass disapproval. Typically protests are by a very small and highly vocal group, who may or may not have the support of larger sections of the population.

@AndrewScottEvans The US should focus on the US, and making sure its citizens / companies don't exploit other sovereign nations.

@SBoss so what, when other countries and foreign companies take an interest in us or attack us we do nothing. that's a bit retarded don't you think. truly, you don't believe we are the only ones playing the game. For gods sake, the Chinese are practically facist and are much, much worse. If a Taliban supported group attacked them, they would probably commit genocide. No sir, remove your blinders. We are actually one of the most benevolent powers in history. We meddle the same as everyone else. Feel lucky.

@AndrewScottEvans In a completely hypothetical made up situation, others might do even worse - as far as excuses go, I don't think one can do worse than this one. You probably shouldn't call others retarded and then follow up with stuff like this.

@jwenting I agree with you about "typical" protests, but the February 15, 2013 protest in London was not exactly "typical".