Here we go again. Donald Trump likes to say that he has good foreign-policy instincts because he was opposed to the Iraq War from the beginning and pushed back against the invasion. Problem is, that claim has been thoroughly debunked over and over again. He may have expressed some concerns after the war started, but not before. And, in fact, BuzzFeed even found a radio interview with Howard Stern in which Trump said he supported the invasion about six months before the war started.

The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd, though, writes her column Sunday as if the debunkings are not the first thing that pop up when you type Trump and Iraq into Google. In Dowd’s piece, she claims that the election could end up being between “Hillary the Hawk against Donald the Quasi-Dove,” noting that “in some ways, Trump seems less macho than Hillary.” And then Dowd notes that “the prime example of commander-in-chief judgment Trump offers is the fact that, like Obama, he thought the invasion of Iraq was a stupid idea.”

Dowd goes on:

You can actually envision a foreign policy debate between Trump and Clinton that sounds oddly like the one Obama and Clinton had in 2008, with Trump playing Obama, preening about his good judgment on Iraq, wanting an end to nation-building and thinking he could have a reset with Russia.

Except, of course, Obama actually opposed the Iraq war, loudly and clearly months before the invasion took place.

Read more Slate coverage of the 2016 campaign.