A few presidencies ago, Washington politicians used boundless political and intellectual chicanery to drag America into a ruinous war. Thousands of Americans died and scores of thousands of Iraqis perished due to the official myth of Saddam Hussein as the twentieth hijacker.

Last November, Axios published new damning information on the role of Saudi government officials in bankrolling the 9/11 attacks on New York City and the Pentagon. Private lawsuits against the Saudi regime “unearthed evidence showing one Saudi official—who acknowledges aiding two men who became hijackers—made a drawing of a plane and a mathematical formula that allegedly could have been used to fly into the World Trade Center.”

That was only the latest stunning revelation in a coverup that will celebrate its twenty-fifth birthday this year.

In 2002 and early 2003, the W. Bush administration rushed to exploit 9/11 to justify invading Iraq. But there was a problem with that con job. A 2002 FBI memo stated that there was “incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these [9/11 hijacker] terrorists within the Saudi Government.” A joint House-Senate congressional investigation found extensive evidence that the Saudi government, not Saddam Hussein, propelled the hijackers. The Bush administration succeeded in suppressing the key twenty-eight pages of that congressional report on the Saudi role on 9/11. The late Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) became a leading proponent of declassifying those twenty-eight pages, declaring in 2013:

“If the 9/11 hijackers had outside help—particularly from one or more foreign governments—the press and the public have a right to know what our government has or has not done to bring justice to all of the perpetrators.”

Those twenty-eight page were finally released (mostly) in 2016, revealing how Saudi government officials directly financed and provided diplomatic cover for several of the hijackers in the United States shortly before they unleashed havoc.

Truth delayed is truth defused. Blocking the evidence of the Saudi bankrolling of 9/11 enabled the Bush administration to kill tens of thousands of Iraqis.

The Bush administration sold the Iraq war as payback for 9/11. While false claims by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) have received ample coverage, the Bush Saudi-Iraqi Bait-and-Switch has faded into memory.

In a memo Bush sent on March 18, 2003, notifying Congress that he was launching a war against Iraq, Bush declared that he was acting “to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

Bush invoked this justification even though his administration had never offered a shred of evidence tying Saddam to 9/11. Bush and team continually threw out new accusations and then backed off, knowing that few people were paying close enough attention to recognize that previous charges had collapsed like a houses of cards.

In the first months after 9/11, there was little mention of Iraq in the public pronouncements by Bush and his top officials. But in his State of the Union address on January 29, 2002, Bush stunned many people by announcing that Iraq, along with Iran and North Korea, were part of an “axis of evil.” Since the Global War on Terror had stratospheric support levels in the polls from the American people, the best way to sanctify a war against Iraq was to redefine it as part of the Global War on Terror. Bush declared on September 25, 2002:

“Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn’t, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam’s madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world…You can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. They’re both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.”

The next day, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced that the United States possessed “bulletproof” evidence linking Saddam and Al Qaeda. But it was a bullet that could never be exposed to sunlight. An earlier alleged link between Iraqi agents and hijacker Mohamed Atta meeting in Prague had collapsed, with the story disavowed by both the CIA and the Czech government.

On October 7, 2002, Bush, speaking to a selective audience of Republican donors in Cincinnati, laid out his logic:

“We know that Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist network share a common enemy—the United States of America. We know that Iraq and Al Qaida have had high-level contacts that go back a decade…And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein’s regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.”

The fact that some Iraqis cheered the carnage on September 11 proved Saddam could team up with Al Qaeda for a second 9/11.

The link between Saddam and Al Qaeda then took a three-month recess, returning in the 2003 State of the Union address, when Bush declared that “Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda.” Bush reached for the ultimate hot button:

“Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.”

Three days later, when Bush was directly asked by a journalist at a White House press conference, “Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?” Bush replied, “I can’t make that claim.” Yet, that did not stop him from endlessly making the inference.

But the Bush administration’s new “evidence” failed the laugh test. The Los Angeles Times revealed:

“The Bush administration’s renewed assertions of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda are based largely on the murky case of a one-legged Al Qaeda suspect who was treated in Baghdad after being wounded in the war in Afghanistan.”

Time noted of Bush’s message on Saddam and Al Qaeda:

“If there was no visible evidence to link the two, he just used that fact to argue his point: the danger is everywhere, even if we can’t see it; the threat is growing, even if we can’t prove it. The Administration’s argument for war is based not on the strength of America’s Intelligence but on its weakness.”

In the days after 9/11, when pollsters asked Americans who they thought had carried out the 9/11 attacks, only 3% of respondents suggested Iraq or Saddam Hussein as culprits. But by February 2003, 72% of Americans believed that Hussein was “personally involved in the September 11 attacks.” Shortly before the March 2003 invasion, almost half of all Americans believed that “most” or “some” of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. Only 17% of respondents knew that none of the hijackers were Iraqis. 73% believed that Saddam “is currently helping al-Qaeda.”

American soldiers were hit with more concentrated doses of propaganda than private citizens. A 2006 poll of American troops revealed that 85% believed the U.S. mission sought “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9/11 attacks.” That belief likely helped spur some of atrocities against Iraqi civilians by U.S. troops.

U.S. intelligence agencies always knew that the Saddam-9/11 link was a political concoction by pro-war politicians. In July 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a 511-page report that recognized that the CIA accurately concluded that “to date there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance” in the 9/11 attacks. The report noted that the CIA’s accurate judgments on Saddam, Al Qaeda, and the non-link to 9/11 “were widely disseminated [prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq], though an early version of a key CIA assessment was disseminated only to a limited list of Cabinet members and some sub-Cabinet officials in the administration.”

Neither George Bush nor Dick Cheney were ever held liable for their lies that led to carnage in Iraq. Perhaps that is the biggest lesson that Washington policymakers take from the Iraq War.

On the campaign trail in 2016, Donald Trump sounded as if he recognized the vast folly of invading Iraq to topple Saddam. But Trump’s promise to “end the endless wars” seems like a hundred years ago. An Associated Press poll last month found that 56% of Americans believed that Trump had already “gone too far” with his military interventions abroad. But will pro-war politicians and political appointees fabricate new pretexts to attack Iran or elsewhere?