NBC's Richard Engel Charges in New Book: US Invaded 'Wrong Country'

Photo of Geoffrey Dickens.

Invited on to promote his new book, "War Journal," NBC's Middle Eastern correspondent Richard Engel claimed, on Tuesday's "Today" show, that it wasn't "an opinion piece." However, in the book, Engel reveals a definite anti-war bias as he called the Iraq war "a war of opportunity," and charged, "the U.S. invaded the wrong country."

Engel tried to deny the book's slant in the following exchange with "Today" co-host Meredith Vieira:

MEREDITH VIEIRA: You know this is not a political treatise, but you do take a position about the war. You call it "a war of opportunity." And you write, "The problem was that the U.S. invaded the wrong country, destroying an odious government that was not responsible for 9/11. I don't know how you recover from invading the wrong country, no matter how you spin it." As a journalist, did you worry that you were crossing a line when you said that?

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

RICHARD ENGEL: There are concerns. When, when I do reports for, for this program and for others, you have to tell it as it is. You have to say this is what happened today. These are the trends going on. But when you try and look back and you see what has happened over the last five years, patterns do start to emerge and I think it would be wrong to try and say that there aren't any patterns when you see how before the war has been changing from one stage to another. So, I try and point them out. And I think it's, it's an on-the-ground look at the war and not, not so much an opinion piece.

A little later in the interview, Vieira did point out that Engel writes in the book that things are "getting better," in Iraq but oddly enough that's a bit of news that's rarely reported on NBC News' airwaves. In fact, neither NBC's "Today" show or "Nightly News," has yet to report that in May the fewest number of U.S. servicemen were killed in Iraq in any month since the war began.

The following is the full interview as it occurred in the 8:30am half hour of the June 3, "Today" show:

MEREDITH VIEIRA: Fighting the war in Iraq is tough business. So is covering it.

[BEGIN MONTAGE]

BRIAN WILLIAMS: With us here today, Richard Engel, who has covered the war in Iraq since the--

MEREDITH VIEIRA: NBC's Middle East correspondent Richard Engel is in Baghdad.

RICHARD ENGEL: I started by asking the President about--

ANN CURRY: NBC's Richard Engel--

ENGEL: Controversy centers on a window--

[END MONTAGE]

VIEIRA: For the first past five years, NBC's Middle East bureau chief Richard Engel has lived in a war zone. As a reporter on the front lines, there is little that he hasn't seen.

ENGEL: An IED just exploded next to our vehicle. Inside here, it still smells like gun powder.

VIEIRA: He's dodged bullets on several occasions.

ENGEL: There is still a lot of fire coming at us, some of it is exploding in the car that was hit by an improvised explosive device.

VIEIRA: Escaped kidnaping attempts.

ENGEL: Car stopped in front. Another car pulled up to try to and sandwich me in.

VIEIRA: And has seen too many dead bodies to count. But even with those harsh realities of war, Richard wouldn't think of living anywhere else, driven by his passion for the region and his ambition to tell its stories. And Richard Engel has documented his journey in a new book War Journal: My Five Years in Iraq. Richard, good morning. It's so nice to have you here with us.

RICHARD ENGEL: Thank you very much. It's my pleasure.

VIEIRA: Thank you. You know you, you moved to Iraq back in February 2003, a month before the U.S. invasion but that's not where you start your book. First chapter is dated, September 15th, 2003, al-Dawr, Iraq. That is the day that you and other journalists were taken to the spot where Saddam Hussein was captured. Literally a hole in the ground that you entered to see what that was like.

ENGEL: It was shocking.

VIEIRA: Why did you want to start your book there with that particular anecdote?

ENGEL: Well I think Saddam Hussein's story really is very revealing and telling about the whole journey of Iraq. That this dictator, America's enemy, was found on the run, hiding in a hole. Iraqis couldn't even believe it at the time, that this person who they had seen, a lot of them hated, but at least seen as put on a pedestal was discovered with this beard, hiding from the Americans. Then he was put on trial by the Americans in his former palace, sentenced to death by an Iranian-backed government, the same people who had tried to execute him. So things, his story, alone, I think, encapsulates a lot of the, the struggles and the transformation that Iraq has gone through. I could have started it earlier. I've been living in the region about, about 12 years now, but I thought starting with Saddam and continuing 'til, up until about now, the surge period, shows a, shows a very dramatic change.

VIEIRA: And when you entered Iraq, you know, you saw this as an opportunity, really, because there were so few journalists there at the time. And you were basically a gung-ho war correspondent but discovered along the way that correspondents who are covering wars go through stages.

ENGEL: There are, I'd been living in, I lived in Cairo for four years, learned Arabic and then I did three years in Jerusalem, covering the West Bank and Gaza Strip and then decided the war in Iraq was about to happen. It was clear troops were already starting to arrive in the region. And I thought well, this is going to be the one. This is going to be the game changer. I have to get there. Took some money, about $20,000 and went into Iraq, was staying at people's house and waiting for the invasion to begin. And at this stage, I was probably in what I've called, "stage one." I'm invincible. I'm ready. I'm excited. You're living on adrenaline. Then as the war goes on and the insurgency begins, you start to go into the next stage where you think, "You know what? This is dangerous. I could get hurt over here." And that really starts to sink in. Then the war continues and friends start to get kidnaped or killed and you see bodies on the streets and they early stages of a civil war. And you think, "You know what? I've been over here so long, I'm probably going to get hurt."

VIEIRA: Yeah.

ENGEL: And then, at a certain stage, you hit rock bottom and you feel, "I've used up my time. Stage four. I'm going to die in this conflict." And that's a dark place to go into. You know, you occasionally, go in and then you pull out. And it's no place, it's no place you want to spend a lot of time. And then it fluctuates.

VIEIRA: It fluctuates, yeah. You know this is not a political treatise, but you do take a position about the war. You call it "a war of opportunity." And you write, "The problem was that the U.S. invaded the wrong country, destroying an odious government that was not responsible for 9/11. I don't know how you recover from invading the wrong country, no matter how you spin it." As a journalist, did you worry that you were crossing a line when you said that?

ENGEL: There are concerns. When, when I do reports for, for this program and for others. You have to tell it as it is. You have to say this is what happened today. These are the trends going on. But when you try and look back and you see what has happened over the last five years, patterns do start to emerge and I think it would be wrong to try and say that there aren't any patterns when you see how before the war has been changing from one stage to another. So, I try and point them out. And I think it's, it's an on-the-ground look at the war and not, not so much an opinion piece.

VIEIRA: You also talk about how people's perceptions of the war and interest in the war, here in the United States have changed. That's how you end the book. You say, "Now we have crews and bureaus here but the world has moved on. People don't want to hear about Iraq anymore. It's frustrating. Sometimes I wonder why I have done all this." So, when you ask yourself that question, five years later, what is the answer?

ENGEL: The problem was and I'll put you in the mind-set where I was. I first arrived in Baghdad and as I was watching "Shock and Awe," from the Palestine Hotel, watching the Saddam statue come down, and be torn down by, by Iraqis and with, with the help of U.S. troops. I, everyone, it was such a moment of excitement. Everyone want to know every sound, and picture and image that we could get out of Iraq. Now five years later, we have a huge infrastructure in the country, but the interest level has dropped dramatically.

And that's one of the most frustrating things when you're in Baghdad and you want to tell a story and people don't want to listen. Even two years ago, when I would comeback on visits like, like this to see my family and friends in the states, I couldn't go out to dinner without people saying, "Well, what's going on? Who are the Sunnis and Shiites and what's Muqtada al-Sadr's story?" Now nobody asks any more. People don't want to hear it, even on a, on a personal level. So you do start to reflect. And has it been worth it, has it been, all the sacrifice? And I think it has. And I think it's a very important story that hasn't ended yet. And I think it's important--

VIEIRA: And the irony is--

ENGEL: --we need keep focusing on.

VIEIRA: And the irony is that things are actually getting better, as you point out in your book. Richard Engel, always a pleasure to have you here.

ENGEL: Thank you very much.

VIEIRA: Wonderful reporting. The, the book is called, "War Journal: My Five Years in Iraq."

—Geoffrey Dickens is the senior news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

another military genius heard from

Butt Biscuit has never looked at the map of the Middle East with a military eye. The strategy is to surround Iran by taking Afghanistan and Iraq. With Pakistan as an ally and the Emirates on our side, we only have to have the Saudis stay basically neutral until we can settle the hash. The idea is to destabilize Iran internally by giving hope to the Iranians. Iraq has always been a secular state and prone to Capitalism. Afgoofystan is a basket of snakes, but one we can hopefully stabilize. Pakistan's ISI is more problematic in this strategy than one would hope for, but the Talibums are taking serious losses and the tribal chiefs are tired of hearing widows crying. It's a long shot, but without Iraq it had no hope at all.

Both Are Dangerous

It is a difficult and problematic part of the world.  The fantaicism alone is not dangerous. But the ready access to money and ever more potent weapons makes the combination untenable.

As Iran's Supreme Leader said:

  "world terrorists could attain nuclear weapons and take peace away from all the people in the world."

So it wasn't the wrong war Richard. We are just not done yet.

If Obama the Socialist

If Obama the Socialist gets into office...we're done...for. 

____________________________________________________

"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right." ~ Isaac Asimov

Iraq

I pray frequently that perhaps 2 or 3 weeks before the election our ground forces will drag Osama Bin Laden out of some filthy cave and put him in a cage in Kabul for all of the media to interview so we can get his side of the story. Then hang him.

Iraq

I pray frequently that perhaps 2 or 3 weeks before the election our ground forces will drag Osama Bin Laden out of some filthy cave and put him in a cage in Kabul for all of the media to interview so we can get his side of the story. Then hang him.

I hate it when people say

I hate it when people say this "The problem was that the U.S. invaded the wrong country, destroying an odious government that was not responsible for 9/11. I don't know how you recover from invading the wrong country, no matter how you spin it."  I cant stand it because they just dont understand the idea of strategy and tactics.  Germany did not atatck us in WWII either, or actually attacked us in similar fashion as Iraq did.

Iraq attacked us daily in the air and tried to thwart us at every turn.  Iraq is a good startegic position and we need more position in teh ME.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Libs; false premise on WOT

I think the libs' premise is that the war on terror should be all about punishing the people involved in 9/11. As long as Osama bin Laden is at large, the WOT is considered a failure. And Iraq distracts from that goal.

Saddam might well have gone on to fund terrorist attacks on America had he been left in place. He was already rewarding the familie of the homicide bombers who were terrorizing Israel. Also, Saddam was in violation of the truce terms at the end of the first Gulf War. Clinton and the U.N. should have held him accountable years before.

When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.

It wouldn't have mattered

It wouldn't have mattered what Bush did or didn't do, it would have been wrong in the eyes of Libs and other Bush-Haters.

Proof of abuse by U.S. Troops.

"Bedfellows make strange politics." - Publius

exactlyhad it been

exactly

had it been clinton that invaded iraq - the MSM would celebrate their liberation

but that's not the case

any desperate attempts by the pathetic BDS crowd to spin Operation Iraqi Freedom as a mistake have failed miserably...

nkviking75: Very

nkviking75:

Very perceptive.  The liberals today do not view the current conflict as a war, instead they view it in the filtered prism that is the modern court room teledrama such as "Law and Order" in its myriad forms.

Most liberals would have preferred that instead of the US Army we dispatch 5 FBI agents and 2 US Marshalls to Afghanistan with a handful of US Attourneys to ask the local LEA to please arrest all the members of Al Queda and then to allow their deportation to the US for hearings.  Like THAT would have been successful. 

Liberals see modern war through that law enforcement prism.  Conduct raids on Al Queda Safe houses in Aghanistan?  "Why LTC BD you did not knock and order the occupants to throw up their hands therefore we wish the court to throw the case against Abu Hamdan out of court."

They cannot see the wisdom of the invasion of Iraq because it cannot be filtered through their "Perry Mason" mentality.

 

 

BD...I don't know what

BD...I don't know what liberals and Democrats you hang out with, but, after 9/11, I, and every Democrat I knew fully supported the use of whatever military force it might require to liquidate the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and hopefully bring the head of bin Laden back in a bag.

Regarding Iraq, I believed, as did prominent conservatives such as William Buckley and George Will, that our intervention there, at that time, was ill-advised.  But I applaud the recent successes in Iraq and hope we are proved wrong.

Jer

Thankfully, being military

Thankfully, being military and living in a military town I do not have to face liberals on a daily basis other than in the media.

But I am related to severe, hardcore liberals who wanted to do precisely as I said.  Send 3 FBI and a US Marshall to serve an arrest warrent.  (Sadly, they are all lawyers or journalists, sometimes both.)

I will also remind you of some of the very prominent libs such as Richard Gere who took similar tacts, preaching no-response.

Regarding the adviseability of the invasion of Iraq: 

1.)  What do you propose is the Islamic Fascists strategic Center of Gravity? 

2.)  How do you propose to effect it in such a way as to cause the enemies defeat?

Germany did not atatck us

Germany did not atatck us in WWII  

You're right to a point here.  We delcared war on Japan on December 8th.  We didn't declare war on Germany until the 11th.

But, during that interceding time (actually the morning of the day we declared) Germany - by way of it's treaty with Japan - did declare war on us.  After which, we declared war on Germany (in response to their declaration against us).

Germany was also actively invading and conquering nearby nations.  Iraq was not.

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

Germany was also actively

Germany was also actively invading and conquering nearby nations.  Iraq was not.  So Iran and Kuiat are not adjacent to Iraq?  You miss the reasons we declared war on Germany and why we fought the Germans first while neglecting Japan and the Pacific.  The reasons why we did that are similar to the reasons we took Iraq, startegic position and overall planning.

Until Germay surrendered we lost many good men and women in the Pacific theatre to what amounted a token resistance effort.  It was not politicaly expedient for the American politicians to do so, but they recognized the value of such actions.

Saddam was a danger to the US interests as was Iran and we needed a foothold in the region besides Afghanistan.  We neeed to rid ourselves of the pest that was Saddam also.  Like I said before it was a practical and strategic move.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Good Thoughts

 Saddam was a danger to the US interests as was Iran and we needed a foothold in the region besides Afghanistan. 

Let me respond to this in two parts...

Saddam was a danger to the US interests as was Iran.

We were certainly told by the administration that Iraq was a threat.  But, prior to Sept. 11, then Sec. of State Collin Powell said Saddam and Iraq were in no way a threat... not even to his neighbors.

"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

Full transcript here...

http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/933.htm

Video here...

http://www.spike.com/video/colin-powell/2651125?cmpnid=800&lkdes=VID_2651125

Next part now... 

we needed a foothold in the region besides Afghanistan. 

I'd have no problem with this logic.  Except I can find no example of where the president says this prior to the war or Sept. 11.  Can you provide something?

One other thing... 

So Iran and Kuiat are not adjacent to Iraq? 

Of course they are.  But, Germany was actively invading next door nations.  Iran and Kuwait were invasions from, at the very least, more than a decade old.  And when he invaded Kuwait, we were there.  But, in 2002... Iraq was invading no one.

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

We were certainly told by

We were certainly told by the administration that Iraq was a threat. 

And those who overflew the no-fly zone performing surveillance patrols who had to react to incoming SAM fire KNEW Iraq was a threat.  or perhaps you allow enemy countries to regularly engage US troops fulfilling a UN Mandated LIC operation?

But, Germany was actively invading next door nations. 

wanna parse words huh?  Actually , a tth time we declared war on Germany, they had not invaded anyone "Actively" in some time.  of course, they were FIGHTING everywhere, but this is what you get when you parse like Billy C. 

But, in 2002... Iraq was invading no one.

Just rippling off a batch of latest generation SAM at US aircraft, but hell, US Pilots are fair game, right?

Payments of greater than $20,000 to families of successful suicide bombers in other lands as an inducement for further bombing, hell thats AWFUL PEACEFUL activity.

 

 or perhaps you allow

 or perhaps you allow enemy countries to regularly engage US troops fulfilling a UN Mandated LIC operation?

Tough call.  And I know I'm not knowlegable to have a clear answer on this one.  But, I do know that we haven't declared war everytime one of our troops have been threatened... even killed.  Do these acts warrant attention... absolutely.  Do they warrant war?

a tth time we declared war on Germany, they had not invaded anyone "Actively" in some time.

Poland?

But, I will change my wordage.  Germany was actively "occupying" another nation.  (invaded Poland in 39).  Iraq hadn't occupied anyone in more than a decade.

Payments of greater than $20,000 to families of successful suicide bombers in other lands as an inducement for further bombing, hell thats AWFUL PEACEFUL activity.

Absolutely a horrific practice.  But, again... while we detest it... does it warrant war?

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

Do they warrant

Do they warrant war?

From my perspective, abso-friggin-lutely.  We have hung our troops out on the clothesline to be beaten for so long that the world has become accustomed to it.  Perhaps if we spanked Iran in 1979, or took down the Habr Ghidr Clan in 1994 as they deserved, we would be surffering less today.

The world needs to know not to "mess with uncle."

a tth time we declared war on Germany, they had not invaded anyone "Actively" in some time.

Poland?

That was more than two years before, Since you were parsing I figured I got to do so as well.

What is the real diffeence between two years and ten when it comes to this situation.  I say nothing real.

Payments of greater than $20,000 to families of successful suicide bombers in other lands as an inducement for further bombing, hell thats AWFUL PEACEFUL activity.

Absolutely a horrific practice.  But, again... while we detest it... does it warrant war?

Yes, it does. 

So does holding US citizens hostage.  Bombing our embassies, killing our envoys, attacking our warships peacefully at anchor, and murdering a single US citizen.

We can't declare war every

We can't declare war every time something like that happens, realistically. Not even Reagan did that. 

Ronald Reagan did not need

Ronald Reagan did not need to after the first couple (Grenada, Libya)....

Pax Americana baby!

Forgive my ignorance on

Forgive my ignorance on Reagan-era military ventures, but did we actually declare war on either of those?

Nope. The Grenada

Nope.

The Grenada Invasion was ordered following the coup in Grenada and with knowledge that the Cubans were building facilities there.

The Libya strike occured following the attack on the German Disco in which Libyan agents attacked and killed US personnel.

I do not think Reagan even consulted with congress prior to either on a formal basis.  He might have calle din Tip O'Neill and told him, but there was no effort to sway the libs.

Concur, BD!

Indeed!

Perhaps you remember Khadafy's reaction to 11 September 2001.  He couldn't wait to tell the United States he had absolutely nothing to do with it.  His memories of Eldorado Canyon served him well. 

(In fact, I remember well on that fateful day, I and some fellow ROTC cadets were holding a discussion, the subject of which was "If Reagan were in office, how much of the Middle East would be in flames by now?") 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Good 'nuff

 From my perspective, abso-friggin-lutely.  We have hung our troops out on the clothesline to be beaten for so long that the world has become accustomed to it.  Perhaps if we spanked Iran in 1979, or took down the Habr Ghidr Clan in 1994 as they deserved, we would be surffering less today.

I completely respect where you're coming from.  I may not totally agree... but, I can't say you're wrong about what you're saying.  I think here, its a matter of personal choice about what constitutes going to war.

 What is the real diffeence between two years and ten when it comes to this situation. 

The only difference I'd say here is that Germany was still there.  Iraq had long been gone and no longer an occupier.

So does holding US citizens hostage.  Bombing our embassies, killing our envoys, attacking our warships peacefully at anchor, and murdering a single US citizen.

Again, I won't disagree with you on anything here.  Personal opinion and, while I don't agree entirely, yours is a legitimate one.

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

Does this count, BD?

... Actually , a tth time we declared war on Germany, they had not invaded anyone "Actively" in some time.  of course, they were FIGHTING everywhere, but this is what you get when you parse like Billy C. 

I guess it depends on what your definition of "in some time" is.

Between April of 1940 and June of 1941 [the latter date just six months before Pearl Harbor], Germany invaded Denmark, Norway, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Greece and Yugoslavia, commenced U-boat attacks on our merchant fleet in the Atlantic, entered into an alliance with Japan and Italy, engaged in the Battle of Britain as a prelude to the invasion of that nation, and launched operation Barbarosa--the invasion of the Soviet Union.

Jer

edit:  I meant to add that after June of 1941, Hitler had essentially run out of any more countries to attack.

 

Barbarossa

Um, Jer, if one decides to invade the Soviet Union, do you REALLY NEED other countries to attack???   :-) 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Sea Lion...er, maybe not.

Probably not a very good idea, Unsane.  In fact, I think I would start 'uninvading' every other country I had previously attacked, which Hitler did, in a sense, re. Britain.  :-)

Jer

The previous comment was

The previous comment was designed to show the stupidity of the "But it has been nearly ten years since he last abused us" remark made by the Curator.

Does it really matter if the bad guy abused you yesterday or ten years ago.  he is still "THe Bad guy."

Got it?

"Germany was also actively

"Germany was also actively invading and conquering nearby nations." - While limp-wristed appeasers like you were waving signed documents in the air.

"Iraq was not." - unless you count invading Kuwait and gassing the Kurds.

mattm: Most of those "limp-wristed appeasers"

mattm:  Most of those "limp-wristed appeasers" prior to our entry into World War II were in the conservative wing of the Republican party.

Jer

Actually the "limp wristed

Actually the "limp wristed appeasers" were the "progressives" and communists of the time. Who up until Americas involvement in WW2 were holding rallies warning the US not to be "warmongers", etc. you know don't rush into anything over there, it's a regional thing, not our business. Guess what day the protests stopped?

From then on it was the burning of German books in the street and "let's go"! and "Freedom Cabbage"

You mean appeasers like the

You mean appeasers like the several thousand from the American Left who formed the Abraham Lincoln brigade to fight Franco and the Fascists in the Spanish civil war?

Or an appeaser like FDR who was continually thwarted by Republican isolationists in Congress in his attempts to assist Great Britain in confrontinig Hitler?

I read the long article you linked.  It is interesting revisionist propaganda.  There are some useful insights in the essay, many of which are factually supportable.   [There were definitely many progressives and Democrats who were isolationists.]  But its central thesis remains unproven and unpersuasive.

Jer

No, I meant the millions

No, I meant the millions who called Churchill a warmonger and who hailed Neville Chamberlain as a champion for peace...

You are the revisionist propagandist, or your a victim of such.

Millions where?  Great

Millions where?  Great Britain?  Europe?  USA?

Jer

BTW, I misread your original post.  My bad.

FOrgetting

You are forgetting that Chamberlain was very much the product of his electorate. He was voted into office by an electorate that vividly remembered WWI, and wanted to avert war at any and all costs.

Churchill's warnings were ignored by that same public for the exact same reasons. 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Curator: 1.)  We had

Curator:

1.)  We had already been a t war with Iraq prior to the 2003 re-invasion.  The War ended with a ceasefire (Armistice) that left us technically at war with Saddams government that was conditional upon Saddam's coorperation. 

We never received this requesite cooperation.  Indeed Saddam not only put a bounty on the heads of captured US aircrew overflying the No-fly zone, but actually ordered his IAD system to fire upon US aircraft monitoring the zone in accordance with the armistice.

2.)  Saddam had invaded both Iran and Kuwait (See # 1 above for armistice).

3.)  Saddam never cooperated with the inspectors as we now know he wished the west to assume he had WMD, just not proof.  Thus he furter violated the Armistice.

4.) Saddam actively funded terrorist campaigns against our allies in the region.

5.)  Saddam attempted to assasinate the standing president of the US while under the armistice, a further violation.

Therefore, we were MORE legally justified in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 than we were in seeking war with them on 10 Dec 1941.

I don't entirely disagree

BD,

You make a lot of good points.  The previous invasions were dealt with when we invaded in the early 90's.  As of 2002, he was impotent.  As evidenced by the above comments from Sec. Powell.

Which leads me to believe, that the threats Saddam were making were 'empty' threats.  He could talk all he wanted.  But, there was nothing he could do about any of it.  Again, those were Sec. Powell's feelings (of course, as I'm interpreting).

 The War ended with a ceasefire (Armistice) that left us technically at war with Saddams government that was conditional upon Saddam's coorperation. 

Technically, the Korean War has never ended either.  When do we invade?

 

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

The War ended with a

The War ended with a ceasefire (Armistice) that left us technically at war with Saddams government that was conditional upon Saddam's coorperation. 

Technically, the Korean War has never ended either.  When do we invade?

Those of us who have spent time on the DMZ (Me, not for a very long time) realize we are still at war with nKorea.  WHiel I was there over a decade ago we had weekly firing incidents on the DMZ and confirmed incidents when nK SOF infliltration teams were killed (DMZ infiltrators headed south and a submarine crew who tried to sail into restricted waters)

If you were to study the situation in the Korean peninsula you would realize that the tactical situation does not parallel at all the situation in Irag in 2003.  Desiring the resumption of hostilities with Iraq to furhter the GWOT does not logically flow a desire to resume full scale hostilities on the Korean peninsula.

It would be like saying "you seemed to enjoy the chemo that treated your cancer or at least it was effective, lets give it a try it for your bunions." 

 If you were to study the

 If you were to study the situation in the Korean peninsula you would realize that the tactical situation does not parallel at all the situation in Irag in 2003. 

I hear you.  And, I think pointing out that the situations do not parallel is what I was trying to point out in our above conversation about Iraq and Germany.

I'll defer to you on Korea, however.  It's a conflict, admittedly, I'm not as familiar with.

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

More whining from the curator

 As of 2002, he (Saddam) was impotent.  And you will CONSTANTLY WHIMPER and WHINE that in spite of the facts that prove otherwise.  If he was so impotent and harmless, how come the pilots that patrolled the no-fly zones weren't cruising through them as uneventfully as a Southwest Airlines 737 flying from Love Field to San Antonio International? 

I shudder to think just how much of the United States would have to be completely destroyed and how many millions would have to perish before you would even consider doing something about it. 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

A reminder for Curator

A reminder for Curator

Foreign policy discussions

For the sake of his pride and ego, the curator really should just steer clear of any discussion that centers on any portion of territory that lies outside the bounds of the United States.  Unless, of course, he LIVES for embarrassment. 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

The "Iraq not responsible

The "Iraq not responsible for 9-11" argument has to been one of the most simple minded, short-sighted, and truly ignorant arguments anyone can make.  It is a third grade argument at best and signifies a total lack of understanding of islamofacism we are battling against.  It is the kind of thinking that caused 9-11 to occur in the first place.

FT... Amen to all of your

FT...

Amen to all of your nail on head post...

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

Iraq War

 Where does the miserable cs-msm get it that people don't want to hear about this war. Millions of Americans want to hear about this war, and they want the truth, the bad and the good, and they beleive that the good will win in the end. We are tired of hearing all the bad, all the lies, and all the negative spin the cs-msm reports, to grind their liberal axe against the war and try to force us out in defeat so they can say "i told ya so". No thanks to the cs-msm, we are hearing reports that the war is going well and we are closing in on victory. When this war is over i would like to see every cs- 2-bit talking head, men and women, fired from they're cushy jobs, and i hope the returning soldiers and the tru Patriotic Americans spit on every one of em. cs- stands for "chicken droppins".

kilrod   (GRINS)

 Remeber, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier

...another page filled

...another page filled piece of trash called a book that I wouldn't waste a penny on or open the cover...this despicable POS has been against this administration and this war from the beginning...I got to where if he was going to report I immediately clicked it....especially when he would come on Imus whining in the mornin babbling his obvious biased spin...

I despise Richard Engel.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

"US Invaded 'Wrong

"US Invaded 'Wrong Country'"

Oh, please. Liberals always say that, instead of taking "this military action", we should have taken "that military action", when, in fact, they would protest any military action, period.

Chris, puh-leeze...

Liberals...would protest any military action, period.

You mean like the tens of thousands of liberals who took to the streets after 9/11 to protest the military action in Afghanistan?  NOT!

Jer

Rushing to be an apologist

Jer - In your rush to be an apologist for Leftists, you clearly did not read various issues of The Economist post 9/11/01.

There most certainly were anti-war protesters making lots of noise in a city I call Москва-на-Тихий Океан; what others call San Francisco, over our then-pending ops in Afghanistan.

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Well, Unsane...since my

Well, Unsane...since my lefty sister has called San Francisco "home" for the past 40 years--and I plan on speaking with her tomorrow--I will see if I can obtain a first-hand report.

I don't doubt there are anti-war Kalifornia kooks who would protest a rehowing of "Patton" at a local theatre.  But "tens of thousands" of liberals taking to the streets right after 9/11?...I'll need to see some independent evidence of that.

Jer

Verification, anyone?

But "tens of thousands" of liberals taking to the streets right after 9/11?...I'll need to see some independent evidence of that.  As you should demand to see...even if in you case that ONLY applies to accusations lofted at Leftists.

I have shown you the way.  Be thankful that some months later I moved to AK and had to ditch my copies of The Economist from that time.

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

I have read the Economist

I have read the Economist very rarely over the years, but in light of your frequent references to it, I think I'll try to make it more of a habit.

You ditched the copies from that time?  Well, now...how con-veeen-yant!  :-)  Actually, I wish you still had them to quote from the relevant articles.

Jer

These books always come out

These books always come out around election time.

Sway the vote and cash in at the same time.

"Never murder a man when he's busy committing suicide" ~Woodrow T. Wilson

Never mind.

Never mind.

mv... You are exactly

mv...

You are exactly right...LOL!

Byt he way I am gonna' kill Monica Crowley if I ever see her again...heheee 

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson

bt, Who's this Margaret

bt,

Who's this Margaret Hoover who's been appearing on O'Reilly, as part of his Blonde Gal Brigade? From what she's says, I get the idea she's a "sorta, kinda, Republican".

Howdy Chris... She's

Howdy Chris...

She's Hoover's granddaughter I think it is...and she is more kinda' leaning to the left most times that I have seen anyway...you know more or less a left leaning moderate....heheheee...anymore I either turn the segment or tune it out....just depends on what I'm doing. 

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson

That Hoover, huh? Yeah, she

That Hoover, huh? Yeah, she doesn't represent the right too well (giggles too much also, in my opinion). O'Reilly had taken a turn for the worse since Michelle Malkin rightly quit. Although, I've got to say, the more frequent appearances of Mary Katherine Hamm (is that right?) has been a turn for the better - Now, if O'R would just let her finish a comment without cutting her off and talking over her - like last night.

BTW: I have come to the conclusion that his "body language" bs "expert" is about as useful as a kickstand on a car.

A kick-stand on a

A kick-stand on a car...that is lol funny....couldn't agree more either...what a waste of time she is.

...also agree with the rest of your post...as far as I am concerned what I have heard BOR want to do is completely police the internet and it makes me furious...I understand about his care for kids, but what he proposes I fear in the first place...govt. wants to get their hands in on the internet in the worse way...they don't care how...and he is opening the door on it, the leftists will just use the kids as an excuse like they do everything else to gain control.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson

It happens...

It's a good quote.

Just like to see credit where credit is due.

mv... Well so do I...or I

mv...

Well so do I...or I wouldn't of changed it...I just trusted what I heard...thanks for all the digging you did.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson

Silly boy

ENGEL: Now five years later, we have a huge infrastructure in the country, but the interest level has dropped dramatically.

And that's one of the most frustrating things when you're in Baghdad and you want to tell a story and people don't want to listen.

... And has it been worth it, has it been, all the sacrifice? And I think
it has. And I think it's a very important story that hasn't ended yet.
And I think it's important--

Seriously? He really thinks no one is interested, that "people don't want to listen?"

Bunk!

Silly boy. Didn't he realize he's been working for NBC News - the  antiwar, anti-Bush network -  an unabashed political arm of the liberal left? Engel was used, I'm afraid. His storyline didn't always fit their narrative of negativity.

No wonder he's frustrated.

Strategy Lessons For a Liberal Reporter?

Yeah, that's the ticket!  lets take our Military and Security strategy guidance from a dim-wit liberal reporter!

They've got the best hindsight of anybody out there!

We're going to get pucked on by these types for the next 5 months!

My first simple question

My first simple question would be....if we invaded the wrong country, what country do you have in mind that would have been the right country to invade?

Well Greg

My question before invading Iraq was this:

17 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, so you want to invade Iraq?  Do they all look alike to you?

If there had been a legislator willing to ask this question, I don't think we would have invaded.

But we cannot forget the cease fire, its violations, the agreement to allow inspections, and Bill Clinton's authorization of cruise missile attacks on Baghdad during his presidency.

It can be successfully argued across three administrations the Gulf War never ended, and Saddam's continued violations justified escalation.

  • LYDSEXICS UNTIE

I got all that, but

I got all that, but regarding Engal's statement, he said we invaded the wrong country.  He's a reporter, a writer, so he knows how to use words.  If we should have invaded no country, then his statement should have been just that...we should not have invaded any country....but he said we "invaded the wrong country."  The implication of that statement is that he has a "right country to invade" in mind.  So someone needs to ask him, so he can say we should have invaded no country, hence going completely against his own premised statement.

understood Greg

I understood yo