Laura Ingraham: 'Iraq Is Worse Off' Now Than Under Saddam Hussein...

[Lakhota]

You know, we couldve saved a whole bunch of time, money and lives if only the republicans didnt have that fucking jingoistic blood lust after 9/11.

You all had it. The Iraq invasion was very much bipartisan.

Americans were overflowing with patriotism after 9/11, and united behind our president. At that time, it would have seemed un-American and unpatriotic not to stand behind Bush. Little did we know that Bush would lie out his ass about Iraq. We didn't learn the truth until it was too late.

 

[kaz]

You know, we couldve saved a whole bunch of time, money and lives if only the republicans didnt have that fucking jingoistic blood lust after 9/11.

You all had it. The Iraq invasion was very much bipartisan.

Americans were overflowing with patriotism after 9/11, and united behind our president. At that time, it would have seemed un-American and unpatriotic not to stand behind Bush. Little did we know that Bush would lie out his ass about Iraq. We didn't learn the truth until it was too late.

Since the buildup to the invasion began less than a year after he took office after 8 years of Democrats controlling the white house and the Senate Intelligence committee, what you are claiming amounts to that he's an evil genius and the Democrats are too naively dumb to breathe. Given the dangerous world we live it, it appears we made the right choice if those are our only options. Of course you're a liar, and the Democrats are liars. Bush believed what he said, and they knew that. But your belief that telling us Democrats are mind numbingly stupid and naive is a bizarre way to convince people to vote for them.

 

[Lakhota]

Saddam ruled like a dictator and died like a man when they lynched him. No begging, crying, or whimpering.

 

[Sunni Man]

Saddam ruled like a dictator and died like a man when they lynched him. No begging, crying, or whimpering.

When he was on the gallows with the rope around his neck about to be hanged.

Saddam said the Shahada (confession of faith) in arabic, and all of the guards in attendance who had been just been jeering and mocking him stood in quiet reverence.

La ilaha illa Allah wa-Muhammad rasul Allah.

There is no god but God and Muhammad is the prophet of God.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's odd that you keep saying that when you've also complained that Obama didn't act soon enough;

you're calling something illegal that you wanted Obama to do, apparently illegally, months ago.

More far left lies and propaganda not based on reality.

For those who say “but Bush negotiated the agreement under which Obama ended up completely pulling out of Iraq,” there is no question that everyone involved in those Bush negotiations expected that the next president would forge a new agreement with the Iraqi government when the time came, and that it would involve leaving some residual forces there. But it was clear that Obama had no interest in doing so; he barely participated in the talks and pulled out when the going got the least bit rough.

Once again the far left will not condemn Obama for his illegal wars.

How is it that you believe obama should have been able to negotiate something bush couldnt when he held all the bargaining chips?

The Sadrist bloc of the Israeli parliament didn't like the agreement because it didn't get the US troops out fast enough. The idea that we were going to stay there by some new agreement is nonsense;

it's the anti-Obama line that the rightwing propaganda machine latched onto and, of course, the mainstream media has obediently granted the appearance of credibility to.

Just be glad we're out and let the deranged rant about it all they want.

 

[Mustang]

You know, we couldve saved a whole bunch of time, money and lives if only the republicans didnt have that fucking jingoistic blood lust after 9/11.

You all had it. The Iraq invasion was very much bipartisan.

I remember something that happened from the Bush years that seemed ridiculous at the time, but is telling now in light of everything we've learned about how Bush and company manipulated the truth and played with definitions in order to state something that might be literally true in one sense but was otherwise fundamentally misleading.

I suppose a little background information is in order. Traditionally, a bipartisan vote on something generally meant any vote that passed with either a majority of both Democrats and Republicans OR a vote that passed with a significant number of votes from both political parties.

With that said, I don't remember what the specific vote was about, but there was a vote that was held in either the House or the Senate. Bush and the Republicans were able to peel off one or two Democrats to vote with them. Such a small number of votes had never been considered an example of a bipartisan vote before since the measure had so little support across party lines. Now, everyone in Washington understood that to be true. But in the heartland of America, that's not as likely to be clearly understood. At any rate, Bush gets out there and declares the measure had bipartisan support. Now, everyone in DC understood that was total BS. But it didn't stop Bush from saying it. And it didn't prevent RW media outlets from claiming it was true.

Like they say, truth is the first casualty of war.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Laura is absolutely correct.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

You know, we couldve saved a whole bunch of time, money and lives if only the republicans didnt have that fucking jingoistic blood lust after 9/11.

You all had it. The Iraq invasion was very much bipartisan.

Americans were overflowing with patriotism after 9/11, and united behind our president. At that time, it would have seemed un-American and unpatriotic not to stand behind Bush.

And yet some had the courage to do just that. Did you?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I suppose a little background information is in order. Traditionally, a bipartisan vote on something generally meant any vote that passed with either a majority of both Democrats and Republicans OR a vote that passed with a significant number of votes from both political parties.

With that said, I don't remember what the specific vote was about, but there was a vote that was held in either the House or the Senate. Bush and the Republicans were able to peel off one or two Democrats to vote with them. Such a small number of votes had never been considered an example of a bipartisan vote before since the measure had so little support across party lines.

You recall incorrectly.

Voting "yes" were 29 Democrats and 48 Republicans. Voting "no" were 1 Republican, 21 Democrats, and 1 Independent.

OnPolitics (washingtonpost.com)

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 455

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

Hardly a peel off of one or two, but nice try.

 

[Erand7899]

Therein lies the ignorance of left wing America. It is not our place to determine whether Iraq or Afghanistan wants us there. It is our place to determine whether the national security of the United States of America requires us to be there.

In the case of Iraq, it doesn't nor did it ever.

Your ignorance is noted. Apparently, you would prefer to fight the Islamic terrorists in the streets of American cities, and in American public schools and shopping malls, than in their own backyard.

I will remind you that a free society cannot protect itself from a determined terrorist threat. We either lose our freedom, or we lose the war.

 

[Mustang]

I suppose a little background information is in order. Traditionally, a bipartisan vote on something generally meant any vote that passed with either a majority of both Democrats and Republicans OR a vote that passed with a significant number of votes from both political parties.

With that said, I don't remember what the specific vote was about, but there was a vote that was held in either the House or the Senate. Bush and the Republicans were able to peel off one or two Democrats to vote with them. Such a small number of votes had never been considered an example of a bipartisan vote before since the measure had so little support across party lines.

You recall incorrectly.

Voting "yes" were 29 Democrats and 48 Republicans. Voting "no" were 1 Republican, 21 Democrats, and 1 Independent.

OnPolitics (washingtonpost.com)

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 455

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

Hardly a peel off of one or two, but nice try.

That's not the vote to which I was referring.

 

[AceRothstein]

Therein lies the ignorance of left wing America. It is not our place to determine whether Iraq or Afghanistan wants us there. It is our place to determine whether the national security of the United States of America requires us to be there.

In the case of Iraq, it doesn't nor did it ever.

Your ignorance is noted. Apparently, you would prefer to fight the Islamic terrorists in the streets of American cities, and in American public schools and shopping malls, than in their own backyard.

I will remind you that a free society cannot protect itself from a determined terrorist threat. We either lose our freedom, or we lose the war.

Iraq was never a threat to attack America.

 

[Erand7899]

In the case of Iraq, it doesn't nor did it ever.

Your ignorance is noted. Apparently, you would prefer to fight the Islamic terrorists in the streets of American cities, and in American public schools and shopping malls, than in their own backyard.

I will remind you that a free society cannot protect itself from a determined terrorist threat. We either lose our freedom, or we lose the war.

Iraq was never a threat to attack America.

You know that because your crystal ball is working, or because you have blind faith in your partisan idiocy? Afghanistan was never a threat to attack America, but terrorists working out of Afghanistan, did attack America. I have no reason to believe that Saddam would not work through terrorists to attack America.

However, that is all history. We live now, and our children live in the future. We have to deal with the world as it is now, and not how it was twelve years ago. Turning Iraq over to ISIS would be a mistake that our children, and their children will suffer terribly from.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Saddam ruled like a dictator and died like a man when they lynched him. No begging, crying, or whimpering.

When he was on the gallows with the rope around his neck about to be hanged.

Saddam said the Shahada (confession of faith) in arabic, and all of the guards in attendance who had been just been jeering and mocking him stood in quiet reverence.

La ilaha illa Allah wa-Muhammad rasul Allah.

There is no god but God and Muhammad is the prophet of God.

That is a lie. I saw a tape with audio of the hanging and from beginning to end SH was being mocked loudly by them, he jeered back and began saying the Shahada so they pulled the lever. There was no break in the video.

 

[Mustang]

Therein lies the ignorance of left wing America. It is not our place to determine whether Iraq or Afghanistan wants us there. It is our place to determine whether the national security of the United States of America requires us to be there.

In the case of Iraq, it doesn't nor did it ever.

Your ignorance is noted. Apparently, you would prefer to fight the Islamic terrorists in the streets of American cities, and in American public schools and shopping malls, than in their own backyard.

I will remind you that a free society cannot protect itself from a determined terrorist threat. We either lose our freedom, or we lose the war.

Oh, for cryin' out loud. 9-11 changed the whole approach that America takes to people entering our country whether it's driving across our land borders, or flying in and/or arriving by ship.

Since I originally grew up in a northern state very close to the Canadian border, I can tell you that it was quite common years ago to go back and forth across the border with minimal hassle. I didn't even need a passport to go either way. That's all changed. In fact, an American will actually have an extremely difficult time getting back in the USA without a passport because they actually changed the laws which now require one upon reentry.

Consequently, the idea that foreign terrorist will just be able to get into the US en masse is laughable. Or do you think the only reason we haven't had any widespread terrorist attacks in the US in the last few years is because they're too busy fighting us "over there" to send anyone?

 

[Wry Catcher]

You know, we couldve saved a whole bunch of time, money and lives if only the republicans didnt have that fucking jingoistic blood lust after 9/11.

You all had it. The Iraq invasion was very much bipartisan.

Not all of us. Not even the members of Congress. See:

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The R's vote in lock-step for war; the D's. not so much. The majority of D's in the H. of Rep. voted NO; in the Senate only a few more voted yes than voted no. All but one of the R's in the H. of Rep. voted for war.

 

[Plasmaball]

More and more people seem to be coming around to the fact that the Middle East is a fucked up place with strange politics. Let's stay the fuck out of it and let them sort their own house.

More like Laura is saying this because its obama in the white house. the idea she is being honest is laughable

 

[Rikurzhen]

Wow, i have to admit i'm very surprised such a loyal Neocon has come around this way. Looks like she's become a 'Recovering Neocon.' Kudos to her for speaking the truth.

Let's step back to the Bush-Gore debates and see what Republicans thought about nation-building:

BUSH: Somalia. It started off as a humanitarian mission then changed into a nation-building mission and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price, and so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow a dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case, it was a nation-building exercise. And same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either.

LEHRER: What about Lebanon?

BUSH: Yes.

LEHRER: Grenada?

BUSH: Yes.

LEHRER: Panama?

BUSH: Yes.

LEHRER: Obviously, the Persian --

BUSH: With some of them I've got a conflict of interest on, if you know what I mean.

LEHRER: I do, I do. -- the Persian Gulf, obviously.

BUSH: Yes.

LEHRER: And Bosnia and you've already talked about Kosovo. But the reverse side of the question, governor, that Vice President Gore mentioned, for instance, 600,000 people died in Rwanda in 1994. There was no U.S. intervention, there was no intervention from the outside world. Was that a mistake not to intervene?

BUSH: I think the administration did the right thing in that case. I do. It was a horrible situation. No one liked to see it on our TV screens, but it's a case where we need to make sure we've got a, kind of an early warning system in place in places where there could be a ethnic cleansing and genocide the way we saw it there in Rwanda. And
that's a case were we need to use our influence to have countries in Africa come together and help deal with the situation. The administration, it seems like we're having a great love fest tonight, but the administration made the right decision on training Nigerian
troops for situations just such as this in Rwanda. And so I thought they made the right decision not to send U.S. troops into Rwanda.​

And here's Gore's response:

LEHRER: Vice President Gore, do you agree with the Governor's views on nation-building, the use of military, our military for nation-building as he described it then defined it?

GORE: I don't think we agree on that. I would certainly also be judicious in evaluating any potential use of American troops overseas. I think we have to be very reticent about that.

But look, Jim, the world is changing so rapidly. The way I see it, the world's getting much closer together. Like it or not, we are now --the United States is now the natural leader of the world. All these other countries are looking to us. Now, just because we cannot be involved everywhere and shouldn't be doesn't mean that we should shy away from going in anywhere.

Now, both of us are kind of, I guess, stating the other's position in a maximalist extreme way, but I think there is a difference here. This idea of nation building is kind of a pejorative phrase, but think about the great conflict of the past century, World War II.

During the years between World War I and World War II, a great lesson was learned by our military leaders and the people of the United States. The lesson was that in the aftermath of World War I we kind of turned our backs and left them to their own devices and they brewed up a lot of trouble that quickly became World War II. And acting upon
that lesson, in the aftermath of our great victory in World War II, we laid down the Marshall Plan, President Truman did; we got intimately involved in building NATO and other structures there. We still have lots of troops in Europe.

And what did we do in the late 40's and 50's and 60's? We were nation building. And it was economic. But it was also military. And the confidence that those countries recovering from the wounds of war had by having troops there, we had civil administrators come in to set up their ways of building their towns back.​

Republicans reject nation-building. Democrats support nation-building. What happened? 9/11 seems to have flipped a switch in Bush. This though doesn't mean that conservatives all followed him, some did, maybe most, but there were actually schisms and purges in the Republican camp. Prominent conservatives were written out of the movement. This went down to the grass roots as well.

 

[gipper]

I suppose a little background information is in order. Traditionally, a bipartisan vote on something generally meant any vote that passed with either a majority of both Democrats and Republicans OR a vote that passed with a significant number of votes from both political parties.

With that said, I don't remember what the specific vote was about, but there was a vote that was held in either the House or the Senate. Bush and the Republicans were able to peel off one or two Democrats to vote with them. Such a small number of votes had never been considered an example of a bipartisan vote before since the measure had so little support across party lines.

You recall incorrectly.

Voting "yes" were 29 Democrats and 48 Republicans. Voting "no" were 1 Republican, 21 Democrats, and 1 Independent.

OnPolitics (washingtonpost.com)

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 455

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

Hardly a peel off of one or two, but nice try.

Thanks for posting this. The vote is instructive. It shows both parties were aligned to approve the war.

Yet many on the Left somehow think the Ds were not also responsible for that stupid war, that has only made matters worse in the ME and cost America dearly.

Here is the vote in the House...and many Ds voted for it, just as in the Senate...

United States House of Representatives
Party Yeas Nays NotVoting
Republican 215 6 2
Democratic 82 126 1
Independ 0 1 0
TOTALS 297 133 3

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

One reason to stop being the world's bully....

Or stop trying to be the world's 'savior.'