Condoleezza Rice Schools Katie Couric on Why U.S. Invaded Iraq
On December 3, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave CBS's Katie Couric a much-needed lesson on why America invaded Iraq.
When Couric said to her guest during an "HBO History Makers Series" interview, "Documentaries have been made about how intelligence was incorrectly analyzed and cherry-picked to build an argument for war, and memos from that time do suggest that officials knew there was a small chance of actually finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," Rice stopped the host dead in her tracks (video follows with transcript and commentary):
KATIE COURIC: On Iraq, books have been written, as you know, many, many books; documentaries have been made about how intelligence was incorrectly analyzed and cherry-picked to build an argument for war, and memos from that time do suggest that officials knew there was a small chance of actually finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Well, wait a second, what?
COURIC: (Chuckles.) There are -- there are some things that seem to suggest that in the buildup to the actual war that there was some doubt about that, wouldn't you say --
RICE: No. (Laughter.)
COURIC: Well --
RICE: Actually, I don't agree with that premise at all.
COURIC: You don't?
RICE: No.
COURIC: Even with -- when Tony Blair met with the president in Washington --
RICE: Well, you always -- are you 100 percent sure when you're dealing with an opaque, secretive country in which there have been no inspections for years? No, you're not 100 percent sure. But the preponderance of intelligence analysis -- the preponderance of intelligence analysis from around the world was that he had had weapons of mass destruction. We knew he had used weapons of mass destruction. That was not a theoretical proposition.
COURIC: Right. That's correct.
RICE: He'd used them --
COURIC: Against the Kurds.
RICE: Against the Kurds, against the Shia and against the Iranians. So he'd used them several times. And the preponderance of intelligence was that he was reconstituting or had actually, in the intelligence estimate, reconstituted his biological and chemical capabilities.
There was some debate about how far he had gotten on the nuclear front, some saying that with foreign help it could be a year; others saying it would be several years.
So no, it's simply not the case that there was, if you're in a position of decision-making, evidence to say that it was likely that he did not have weapons of mass destruction.
Now, what we found is that he was indeed breaking out of the constraints that had been put there -- we all know the scandal of oil-for-food -- that he was not as far along in that reconstitution as the intelligence had suggested. But the idea that somehow Saddam Hussein was not pursuing or was never going to pursue weapons of mass destruction, I think, is as misplaced as an argument that he had fully reconstituted.
COURIC: Well, if there weren't, ultimately, weapons of mass destruction found, what was then the rationale for war? Without that, is there another rationale other than the world is better off without Saddam Hussein?
RICE: Well, that's a pretty good rationale. (Laughter.) But let me -- let me go back to the premise, the question, in the absence of weapons of mass destruction, what was the -- it's true that you can only -- that what you know today can affect what you know and do tomorrow, but what you know today cannot affect what you did yesterday.
So the premise that somehow, because weapons of mass destruction were not found in stockpiles, the rationale for the war was flawed leaves out the fact that at the time that we decided to go to war, we thought there were weapons of mass destruction. So let's stipulate that.
Now, we didn't worry about weapons of mass destruction particularly in the hands of Russians. The Russians had the hundred thousand -- a hundred times the weapons capability of Saddam Hussein. The problem was that Saddam Hussein had taken the world to war in really destructive wars twice, Iran and the Gulf War in '91; dragged us into conflict again in '98, as President Clinton had responded to the problem there; violated repeatedly Security Council resolutions. The efforts that we were making to keep him in his box, whether it was oil-for-food or the -- or trying to keep his air forces on the ground through flying no-fly zones -- he was shooting at our aircraft every day, he still refused to acknowledge that Kuwait was an independent country, and so on and so on.
This was the most dangerous tyrant in the middle of the Middle East, and he had repeatedly flaunted (sic) the efforts of the international community to control him after '91. And so I think there is an argument that in those circumstances, getting Saddam -- getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a very good thing.
COURIC: So absent of the presence -- or if you had known at the time that Iraq wasn't as far along with its weapons program as it ultimately turned out to be, would all of those other things you mentioned provide rationale for the war?
RICE: Katie, I'm going to repeat: What you know today can affect what you do tomorrow, but not
COURIC: No, but just put yourself back there --
RICE: I did -- I can't -- I can't --
COURIC: I mean, you're saying that that seemed like a good rationale. Do you think it is?
RICE: I can't speculate on what I would have thought if I had known. I think it's not a fruitful exercise. We knew what we knew, and we made the decisions based on that intelligence and that knowledge.
Now I still believe that even in the absence of finding weapons of mass destruction, the world and the Middle East are much better places without Saddam Hussein. And you always can know what happened as a result of what you did. What you can't know is what would have happened had you not done it.
The Iraq that we're talking about today, our debate about Iraq today -- our concerns about Iraq today are, of course, about continuing violence. But the conversation is whether Shias, Sunnis, Kurds can within their new democratic institutions form the first multi-confessional democracy in the Arab world. That's a really interesting discussion, and it's different than a discussion that we might have been having about whether or not the nuclear competition between Ahmadinejad in Iran and Saddam Hussein in Iraq is a greater danger than having taken Saddam Hussein out.
COURIC: Do you --
RICE: So I actually think that might have been where we were.
COURIC: Do you think that democracy will hold in Iraq?
RICE: I do. The Iraqis are a tough people, and they're not easy. But I do think that they've got a chance in these new institutions to find a way to resolve their differences without somebody having to oppress somebody else, which has been the whole history of Iraq and in fact the whole history of the Middle East.
It will take some time. The first couple of outcomes may not, in fact, be very pretty to watch. But history has a long arc, and I think they've got a pretty good chance.
Makes you wonder if liberal media members will ever understand this.
Those interested can watch the entire interview, which took place at the Council on Foreign Relations, here and/or read it here.
(H/T Breitbart)
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
I'm so glad Rice is putting
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:24pm.
I'm so glad Rice is putting herself out there. She is a wonderful spokeswoman for coverservatives, and with grace and class, puts the libs in their place!
Rice Isn't Speaking for Conservatives
Submitted by JustAl on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 1:00pm.
If you dig a little you will see she has a soft spot for many liberal causes. The fact that she is intelligent and pragmatic does not necessarily mean that she is a conservative.
Nonetheless, I agree, we need intelligent and pragmatic people of notoriety to engage in the issues of today, not the least of which is the degeneration of the old media into an amateurish propaganda mill.
Whip smart
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:28pm.
Stand Rice next to Obama and you will see the difference between smart and book-smart. Condoleezza Rice is sooooooo smart and it really, really shows. She is a credit to humanity.
Trolls
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:31pm.
I'm still waiting for the grades to determine if The One is even "book smart." There has to be a reason for them to be sealed. It sure as hell ain't to keep us from finding out how much smarter he is than the receptionist at your local SSA office.
From what I can see most of my kids are more intelligent than the dim bulb.
What's the reason?
Submitted by ThisnThat on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:54pm.
There are only 3 reasons why we can't see obama's college transcript:
My vote is actually #2. I don't think obama has completed anything in his life.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
There is Also "#4"
Submitted by JustAl on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 1:02pm.
He gained entrance to the university as a foreign student and or muslim student on his entrance form via a quota. Needless to say, he wouldn't want anyone to see any signed paperwork stating either.
BHO's Records
Submitted by miss911ninja on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 2:06pm.
I disapprove of what Wikileaks is doing, but if they're gong to do it, wouldn't it be great if they came up with some of BHO's records?
Levels of "Secret"
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 4:13pm.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Somebody Will Talk
Submitted by miss911ninja on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 4:38pm.
I see your point. So, maybe Wikileaks could release a record of someone's statement about SEEING the records. Like for, example, one of the officials in Hawaii who saw the birth certificate before they locked it away in a vault somewhere.
Maybe there is no such statement yet, but as the Dims' disenchantment with BHO grows, I think somebody WILL talk.
Ninja,
Submitted by 26CX on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 4:48pm.
the stories are already making their way into the sunlight.
Astonishing
Submitted by miss911ninja on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 8:28pm.
That was fascinating. I read every word, and was astonished to learn that his lofty "this was the moment when our planet began to heal" speech was NOT delivered after he was elected president, but after he beat Hillary in the primaries!
Missing records
Submitted by Anndee on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 8:44pm.
Will we ever know why his records are missing?
Could be he went to school as a foreign student or foreign sources paid his way?
It should be mentioned that part of one of the hijac
I would bet he made it in on
Submitted by BD on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 2:35pm.
I would bet he made it in on some racial quota. The left is fearful this will become known as it gives the lie to the notion of affirmative action so all of the universities he attended are holding back this information.
I'd say there's even a #5
Submitted by b-dob on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 3:38pm.
Barry doesn't want the public to see the courses he took. I'd wager a lot of them were racial and/or religious in nature, not to mention political.
Give that man a cigar! We
Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 4:23pm.
Give that man a cigar! We have a winner!
Ah...something other than
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 6:15pm.
"Incest is Best" to amuse you now?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
#6
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 11:41pm.
His college thesis might have been on how to fundamentaly transform the greatest country on Earth to a socialist ooootopia
We Are The 53%
It's a good bet
Submitted by donabernathy on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 3:41pm.
that not only did he have poor grades...but likely sacammed the system by gaining admittance and financial aid as a foreign student.
roflmao
Smart?
Submitted by Emma Grump on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 5:31pm.
BO Smart? I can read lines scripted by someone else on a teleprompter, I can do it with British, Spanish, Russian, Italian, French, Indian, and Middle Eastern accents, can't speak most of those languages, but I know accents well enough to fake it. That doesn't make me a smart person, just a good reader with a unique talent , and BO is just a good reader, who uses head gestures and word emphasis to get his point across. His technique only works when the teleprompter is there, and it is painfully obvious he is a stammering idiot without it. And they have the N-E-R-V-E to mock Bush!
I got it....
Submitted by richard on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 6:54pm.
....If Barry is such a good reader, with gestures, voice inflictions. word emphasis and God knows he is the master at speaking the Muslim language with perfect accents, it seems to me that he has the best shot at replacing Katie Couric at Cleez B.S., when she moves on.
Schooling Katie Couric ...
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:28pm.
requires a degree in Special Education.
She's "special!"
Yes she is.
Submitted by Clutch1956 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 11:46pm.
Her momma said so as li'l Special K got on her little short bus to take her to school, Unkle Joseph's Skool for Budding Communist Propagandists. She graduated first in her class and got a special pair of kneepads for her interviews (she wore out the ten pairs her parents were forced to purchase for her while she was learning her technique, which was documented and sold to hookers worldwide to help them incrrease their profits!)
I love Condy!
Submitted by Paleo2k on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:28pm.
I love Condy!
KC looked like a child in
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:29pm.
KC looked like a child in that setting. Out-classed, over-matched, and pitiful as she tried to drive home the liberal talking points. What a dullard.
As usual, Couric approached
Submitted by BD on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 2:38pm.
As usual, Couric approached the argument through the historically "There was only one rationale for the invasion..." nonsense.
While Rice did not use terms I would to knock it down Couric's teeth and into her minuscule brain compartment - she did list a heft dose of the other rationale for the invasion.
What say you Jer?
Dullard She Definitely Is
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 10:45am.
What did Special K think? Condi was just going to roll over and agree with her? Obviously, her Palin "gotcha" monent went to her head. She must figure that she can spout her talking points at will and her "guests" will either just agree with her or be knocked speechless. What a maroon!
Rice should consider running
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:31pm.
for office in 2012...
She'd likely have my vote. I
Submitted by Kat Outta the Bag on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 2:27pm.
She'd likely have my vote. I honestly can't say that about Palin, but I can about Rice.
I wonder if she could handle the
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:02am.
racial spin that would be put on it and her with these "fine people" calling her the lowest of the low and basically not addressing issues, just spitting their poisons.
You know, if the Republicans
Submitted by ironchefofmunchies on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:32pm.
You know, if the Republicans nominated Rice for political office (hypothetically) it would be endlessly entertaining to watch the MSM and Dems go after her without further alienating the black vote.
However, after seeing what Colin Powell has done since leaving office I would suggest a more thorough vetting of Rice's political beliefs. But she IS whip smart-that is for sure.
The lesson of Colin
Submitted by HelenS on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 6:55pm.
I agree. I had the same thought about Condi. LOVE her but I'd be afraid she'd swerve left. I saw her make a few supportive comments about Obama in an interview recently that had me feeling a bit sad that we can't seem to find the iron spine we really need.
But she rocks. Completely thumped little Katie Couric.
Me - "The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years - the cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil."
Had Gore and the democrats
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:36pm.
Had Gore and the democrats won in 2000 what a different world we would live in today.
Yes, it would be so much
Submitted by gadropout on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 2:35pm.
Yes, it would be so much worse.
Well...
Submitted by Clutch1956 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 11:54pm.
at least we probably wouldn't have crazy Uncle Al, the Commies Pal, running around squawking about this global warming B.S. (as the mercury hits 14F in Hot-lanta tonight). But if he was Prez on 9-11-2001, he would still be wringing his d!ckbeaters over "what did we do so wrong to make them hate us so?" and the world would be a much less safer place than it is now (yes, i know if is dangerous out there now, but think of how much worse it COULD be if Al Gore, the Orifice, had been President instead of Bush)...
I need another drink, just pondering the bullet we dodged.
I never could figure out why
Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:42pm.
I never could figure out why, during Bush's second term, the Bush administration didn't use and press the argument that Saddam was in violation of the cease fire from Gulf War '91. The fact is, Saddam routinely violated the conditions of the cease fire by not allowing inspections, by not providing lists of materials, by not obeying the no-fly zone, etc. The fact that cease-fire terms were violated is really the only rationale that matters.
Hey Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 1:02pm.
Maybe it was because the 2nd Persian Gulf War was already nearly 2 years old at that point. You are not very bright at all are you? In fact, you are very stupid. Yep, as stupid a troll as we have ever seen.
Troll?
Submitted by JustAl on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 1:10pm.
His timing may be off, but he makes a valid point. Violation of the terms of cease fire should have automatically resulted in renewed hostilities, otherwise cease fire agreements become useless. If Clinton had actually been a president instead of a player the strike aircraft would have passed the outbound UN inspectors at the edge of Iraqi airspace.
For the record, I said often during the build up to the war that WMDs, whether absent or not, was not a smart rationalisation since, by their very nature, they can be easily hidden or moved. The cease fire violations were more than enough to not only justify, but require the use of force in my opinion.
His point was made by Congress 6 months before the war.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 3:25pm.
For the record, Congress has the power to declare war. They did so in October of 2002 with the authorization of the use of force in Iraq which includes this -
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
See that? Now what did the Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo troll say? ...the argument that Saddam was in violation of the cease fire from Gulf War '91. The fact is, Saddam routinely violated the conditions of the cease fire by not allowing inspections...
Congress listed the EXACT reasoning in October of 2002 VERSUS the Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo troll wanting President Bush to REPEAT the exact same reasoning more that 2 YEARS later.
Yes it is a troll, and not a very bright one at that.
Seems like he's brighter than you on this point
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 7:07pm.
You repeat it because it's clear that people didn't get the message the first time. Using your logic, Ms. Rice shouldn't have said what she said to Katie because they made the same argument years ago. It's called setting the record straight. If more of it had been done instead of letting the dems control the messaging, Bush might have a higher approval rating, and things may have turned out differently in 2008. Instead, the popular meme is Bush lied us into an illegal war.
Did I argue against Miss Rice?
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 7:27pm.
Do us all a favor and quote where I dismissed anything Miss Rice said.
What do you want from me?
You repeat it because it's clear that people didn't get the message... - How is that my fault and why are you attacking me?
Using your logic, Ms. Rice shouldn't have said what she said to Katie... - No idiot. I was denouncing a troll that said the President of the United States should demean himself by ARGUING WITH PEOPLE BELOW HIM. You want the President to demean himself, STATE IT. Don't give me this using your logic crap
If more of it had been done instead of letting the dems control the messaging... - How is that my fault and why are you attacking me?
...Bush might have a higher approval rating... - Did I have any control over that?.
Instead, the popular meme is Bush lied us into an illegal war... - Only with idiots. Again, was that my fault?
Again. what do you want from me? Are you another incest loving troll lover?
The complete Stupid of the Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 3:22pm.
1. Incest is A-OK
2. The U.S does not have a 2 party system.
3. The poor in the United States will rejoice at a 30% sales tax.
4. President Bush should have waited to sell the Iraq War until 2005, 2 years after it started.
5. Ixchel, one of the numerous pagan gods of the pagan ancient Mayan religion was not pagan, although all the other gods of the pagan ancient Mayan religion were.
6. The split image half black/half white picture of President Obama was not racist because President Obama is half white and/or half black.
7. Journalists have a right to conduct interviews even though they were exlicitly told not to and Sarah Palin should be forced to answer any questions even though she explicitly refused to because she was signing books not conducting interviews. Whatever, tie her down and force her to answer questions because it is a public sidewalk.
8. There is no such thing as public airwaves.
9. Yippee for Assange and wikileaks! Expose everything that our secretive government has been covering up.
10. It is called the holiday shopping season because it includes Thanksgiving even though the holiday shopping season does not start until Black Friday, the day AFTER Thanksgiving.
11. People exchange gifts on Thanksgiving too.
12. Executions should be televised.
13. Sarah Palin is stupid.
14. The Supreme Court is actually the 14th Court of Appeals.
15. There is no such thing as greed.
16. Only nwahs nwahs is allowed to use the word retard.
Still say he is not a stupid troll?
We agree. As for my timing,
Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 4:05pm.
We agree. As for my timing, the open criticisms of the invasion of Iraq really surfaced in the election season and in Bush's second term. That's when the left's WMD argument really gained steam. So that's why I say I never understood why the Bush administration did not make the case to Americans that the cease fire was violated. Instead, they allowed the left to control the terms of the argument (as Republicans always do), but that was mainly because they had been too busy using the WMD argument to the international community prior to the invasion. Granted, in the wake of 9/11 it was an important argument, but ultimately all that mattered was that Saddam had violated the cease fire agreement.
Shut up Butt Hurt Stupid Satchomo Troll
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 4:14pm.
The case against Iraq was made by the United States Congress in 2002. Only idiots like you think President Bush should have been in front of cameras in 2005 explaining why we went to war 2 YEARS earlier.
Don't worry, your Iraq War stupid is listed in your complete list of Stupid here.
Those children still out in front of your house nwahs?
You're right
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 7:12pm.
Much better that he surrender the point, and allow dems to define why we went to war in Iraq instead.
Yeah, that is what I am doing.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 7:29pm.
Pointing out the stupid of a stupid troll equals letting the Democrats to define us.
The troll needs a little break...
Submitted by ThisnThat on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 8:47pm.
Because a box of rocks, squirrels, buttered toast and mashed potatoes all beat him in an IQ test. Don't know how you can lose to a box of rocks, but he found a way.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Satch
Submitted by MrShy on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 4:49pm.
Why are you/we belaboring that war? We won it. Iraq's days of tyranny are behind them and us.
Bush was one of the better Commander in Chief presidents we've had. I thank my lucky stars he was the man in charge in the '00's and not some turd like The Goracle, who would just be Do-Nothing Part Deux to BJ. The world and the M.E. region are safer places with many of the key bad guys in Iraq and Afghanistan dead now... by the truckloads, even.
What the frack are we going on about in nearly 2011?
- Shy Dance Moves
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Who's belaboring it? A blog
Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 5:45pm.
Who's belaboring it? A blog entry was created about it and we are discussing it. You misunderstand if you think I wasn't in favor of it, and I don't think anyone here said Bush wasn't one of the better Commander in Chiefs we've had. If you don't think it should be suitable for discussion, take it up with Mr. Sheppard who created the entry.
You are Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo Troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 5:51pm.
You think that since Couric gets to say Stupid things about the Iraq War, it gives you the right to say even Stupider things about the Iraq War.
Put away your Stupid, Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo Troll, no one wants to hear from an idiot.
What happens when you let the media think for you
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 1:08pm.
So I see you were either asleep or not paying attention during the 2003 State of the Union, and have permitted the media to form your thinking for you on this subject.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Because it was done during his first term...
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 1:14pm.
and was call UN Security Council Resolution 1441, adopted unanimously on November 8, 2002. Among the numerous Resolutions covering disarmament, 1441 stated material breach of the ceasefire terms of Resolution 687. It was the media and folks like Katie Curic who chose to ignore this, not the Bush Administration.
Looks like bkeyser saw the stupid of the BHSST too.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 2:14pm.
I quoted the Authorization of the Use of Force above Sir. You point out the U.N resolutions. Both 6 months before the war started versus 2 YEARS after as the Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo Troll wanted. The Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo Troll is not very bright at all.
Vet
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 2:26pm.
It seems to me I remember a certain Colin Powell putting agreat deal of effort into drumming up support at the UN; not that I cared at the time for UN support, but the State Department did, as did the media. And I'm quite sure that he didn't monopolize the argument simply on the WMD issue. Personally, I always thought that was ancillary anyway; I thought we should go in order to establish a base of operations in the fight against radical muslims. Plus, had we not, I figured a good portion of the Afghani Taliban would end up in safe haven under Saddam.
Personally, I always thought
Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 4:16pm.
Personally, I always thought that was ancillary anyway; I thought we should go in order to establish a base of operations in the fight against radical muslims. That is why Iraq was chosen as a front in the war on terror. The cease fire violations were the easy, no-brainer rationale. By establishing a foothold in Iraq, the US would be able to create a geographical (and hopefully political) wedge between Iran and Syria to disrupt the flow of material and material support for terrorists.Wow you is smart Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 4:25pm.
Iraq under Saddam Hussien was an enemy of Iran. They even fought a war in the 80's. So yeah, all kinds of material were flowing through Iraq to/from Syria and Iran. Wudn't it?
Your special brand of Stupid ain't contagious is it? Looks like we have another one for the list. number 16.
1. Incest is A-OK
2. The U.S does not have a 2 party system.
3. The poor in the United States will rejoice at a 30% sales tax.
4. President Bush should have waited to sell the Iraq War until 2005, 2 years after it started.
5. Ixchel, one of the numerous pagan gods of the pagan ancient Mayan religion was not pagan, although all the other gods of the pagan ancient Mayan religion were.
6. The split image half black/half white picture of President Obama was not racist because President Obama is half white and/or half black.
7. Journalists have a right to conduct interviews even though they were exlicitly told not to and Sarah Palin should be forced to answer any questions even though she explicitly refused to because she was signing books not conducting interviews. Whatever, tie her down and force her to answer questions because it is a public sidewalk.
8. There is no such thing as public airwaves.
9. Yippee for Assange and wikileaks! Expose everything that our secretive government has been covering up.
10. It is called the holiday shopping season because it includes Thanksgiving even though the holiday shopping season does not start until Black Friday, the day AFTER Thanksgiving.
11. People exchange gifts on Thanksgiving too.
12. Executions should be televised.
13. Sarah Palin is stupid.
14. The Supreme Court is actually the 14th Court of Appeals.
15. There is no such thing as greed.
16. Saddam Hussein was facilitating the flow of material between Iran, his enemy, and Syria.
17. Only nwahs nwahs is allowed to use the word retard.
Yes, I know it was. That
Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 4:09pm.
Yes, I know it was. That doesn't mean that Bush couldn't have argued about the cease fire violation when criticism and attacks were brought up in later years, especially during his second term. Precisely because the media ignored it is exactly why the Bush administration should've been arguing it; they allowed the left and the media to set the terms. Unfortunately, that was the story for much of Bush's presidency; he was reluctant to defend himself.
Yes Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo Troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 4:16pm.
President Bush should have been in front of the cameras arguing why we went in to Korea and Vietnam as well. All wars that had been started before 2005.
Idiot.
Umm, Vet
Submitted by Jito463 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 6:19pm.
I'm not saying I agree with Satchmo (I'll need to more thoroughly read his posts to determine that), but your beginning to come across as a troll yourself. For pete's sake, calm down. It's possible to disagree without sounding like a raving lunatic. Your posts do not serve to make me want to read further. Even in agreement, I'd still want to find the *ignore* button. Please, skip the caffeine next time. I think you've had enough.
Hey Vet*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 6:46pm.
Here you go. Made a special pot of coffee just for you, cajun style, double drip. Want bisquits with dat sweetie?
Thanks cajun2.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 8:22pm.
Looks like another idiot wants to join in, ckc1227. Must be no end to the number of idiots that think Presidents should demean the office by arguing with their critics. I guess they must have missed what it looks like with President Obama stooping to argue with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Congressmen in the House and Senate, Policemen that arrest his friends, Tea Partiers, and people opposed to the mosque in New York City.
Yeah, President Bush should have been out on TV every night whining how no one understands why we went to war. That would have looked really wunnerful for idiots.
All right.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 6:56pm.
I documented his 16 cases of Stupid. It is now your turn to document the next case. Apparently you have no qualms with incest lovin' idiots but would rather diss on me publicly. nothing wrong with that at all , well, other than bolstering the morale of a very very stupid troll. He now thinks he is free to pump up the stupid bag and swing it around even harder.
All right. Take over troll basher. Because you won't say anything to the troll's 16 documented cases of stupid and the 14 more posts here. Nope. You got to hammer me.
So thanks for that buddy. I got it. I am the problem. I am not saying where the hell you have been for the past 3 weeks when he was insulting the inteligence of everyone here. Oops . I guess I am. So thnaks for picking a public fight with me in front of a prolifically stupid troll. I feel really special now.
~So, JWF...
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 7:37pm.
Were you instrumental in the banning of anyone in particular, oh, say, 39 weeks and 3 days ago?
I got my suspicions.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 8:34pm.
There has been too many now. And our history is gone. An me leg mum, me leg done work so well now. Can't be runnin 'em down liken I used to.
~That
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 8:57pm.
is what the scope is for, darling. Happy hunting.
Jito463---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 11:37pm.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Yours is noted.
My opinion is, if you don't cotton to what the Vet has to say, pass on by.
MD
I'm just saying
Submitted by Jito463 on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 6:16am.
He doesn't help his case by coming across like a raving lunatic. I've read some of those posts he links to (FYI, the links themselves are broken, I had to find them myself), and I don't disagree with him, just the method he chose to get his point across.
~Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 10:14am.
Whatever shall we do? The Vet has been judged by Jito and found wanting: how can we mend this calamity?
Ooh, I know! We shall ask The Vet to hang up the troll hammer and bring out the soft, fluffy, pink bunnies. They will copulate with trolls all over the threads and peace shall spread over the intertubes in an ever-widening circle till all the world is drinking Coke, singing Kum-Ba-Yah, and weeping softly into lace-edged hankies. Yes, I can see it now....
Ya know Bru
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 8:51pm.
I am getting all misty eyed thinking about how wunnerful it will be!
Things must be getting bad over at MM, if Soro's is outsourcing jito to India
We Are The 53%
Yep, i noticed you said not one thing to correct anyone here.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 11:32am.
Not one. But you did manage to whine about me twice. Once after I told you to take over. You will call me a raving lunatic but you don't have the guts to face a troll down.
Did you even bother to correct one of the many people here that think the President of the United States should go about repeating nearly verbatim the reasons listed in the Authorization of Force in Iraq. After the war had started? To please people that are unwilling to listen anyway?
I did. Where were you?
Or how about us creating a wedge between Syria and Iran, as though Saddam Hussein was not already at odds with Iran? Where were you on that one?
Or where were you really for the last seven weeks the Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo troll has been posting?
Nah, you would rather whine about me. Sorry the links were bad. I built a woodshed forum but did not save it because we cannot edit or delete woodsheds now. Looks like something went wrong when I copied everything out. Yeah, I'll fix them. But it will have to be later because I ain't getting paid for this. So EXCUSE ME for the broken links. Nice of you to give us some working links seeing as how you went and found what i was talking about. Yeah, you will go look. But you won't help out in slapping around one of the stupidest trolls to wander in here in a long while.
*sigh*
Submitted by Jito463 on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:17pm.
Admittedly, I came in what was - apparently - the middle of the conversation. I was merely pointing out that your methods were extremely negative. I was trying to provide constructive criticism, I do apologize if it came across wrong. I agree with your message, I just thought your methods were overly adversarial. Keeping in mind, that I had read hardly any of Satchmos posts before I wrote the first comment. I was simply basing my comment on what I read from you.
Don't bother. He's a flaming
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:25pm.
Don't bother. He's a flaming troll who also appears to be mentally unstable. Best to just ignore him. As for his little list, he only got 3 out of 17 correct (and I have no idea what the last item is).
There ya go Jito.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:32pm.
What is your response here?
Satchmo
Submitted by Jito463 on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:33pm.
Make no mistake, I'm not on your side in this. I was merely hoping to help Vet get his point across better. Hence the term, "constructive" criticism.
Mind you, I'm relatively new to the comments section of NB (and, I've been out of the loop of reading NB for a few weeks now), so I don't know enough about your ideas to say I disagree with everything you say. However, I have read enough of your recent posts, to know that I'm generally in agreement with Vet. I merely disagreed on his methods of voicing (so-to-speak) his views.
I'm not asking you to be.
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:47pm.
I'm not asking you to be.
Looks like you have been dismissed Mr. Jito.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 10:10pm.
You had a reasonable respectful post to the troll and everything you wrote was dismissed by a one line post. So much for respect. You kinda insulted me twice but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. You said you were new. All right. I am an understanding man. That was me.
This troll just spit in your face Sir. No other way to say it. You opened a discussion, said some reasonable honest things, and the troll told you to pack sand.
Your response to the troll now Sir?
All right sir.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 9:54pm.
I'm easy. All is forgiven. Wish you would have PM'd me with your concerns. Yes. I go overboard sometimes. It is what I do. Until you and the loon ckc1497 gave comfort to the troll, he was methodically being shut down. Now we have been set back days, maybe weeks. He now feels emboldened to lie and fully display his stupid even more.
It's OK. Newbie mistake. I have to warn you. This is one viscious nasty little turd troll. It is utterly stupid and has no shame so it will be spamming up the joint until the Admins finally get tired of it or troll bashers drive it into a troll meltdown. Nearly 20 lies/stupid in 3 weeks is really really really bad. As an example, I have 2 trolls in the woodshed that I documented 110 lies in a year and another that had 130 in 4 years.
I suggest you keep an eye on this idiot because he will by no means feel any imperative to quiet down his Stupid now. You don't like my method, let's see how you can shut down a troll and give the community a break. It is what we are here for. Contribute buddy. Give something back.
~"If it came across wrong"
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:52pm.
What a limp-wristed way to say, "I put my big, fat foot in my mouth".
Keeping in mind, that I had read hardly any of Satchmos posts before I wrote the first comment.No sh!t, Sherlock.
Gee
Submitted by Jito463 on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:56pm.
I'm sorry for trying to be helpful. I guess NB is an exclusive community, that doesn't like new people making comments. I'll just be a good boy and shut up now. Sheesh.
Can you be a little bit polite? At all?
Why are you all so confrontational?
~Helpful?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 2:16pm.
So, do people on your planet like being told how to behave by condescending strangers? Is it considered "polite" to walk into a room and start correcting everyone in it?
The shocking thing is...
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 4:30pm.
You would be surprised at just how many people like telling other people how to behave in a condescending manner, and how many people think such behavior is great. Our new poster here is one of them. Bruzilla is another.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Now who is being stupid?
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 7:17pm.
"President Bush should have been in front of the cameras arguing why we went in to Korea and Vietnam as well. All wars that had been started before 2005."
That would be you.
It is called sarcasm idiot.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 7:31pm.
Does anyone know who this antithetical little snot is?
~ckc
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 7:36pm.
is a loser who has to pay for it, which is why he wants prostitution to be legal. He's tired of posting on NB from the prison library.
Ummmmm.... They did, the
Submitted by BD on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 2:39pm.
Ummmmm.... They did, the press just hyperfocused on the one issue they could understand - WMD.
Which is likely why you do not understand this. You followed the press's reporting rather than the actual facts.
The media focused on the WMD
Submitted by Satchmo on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 4:10pm.
The media focused on the WMD argument because of Powell's presentation and because the Bush administration used it in the context of 9/11 and terrorism rather than the cease fire.
Prove it Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 4:28pm.
When did the Bush ADMINISTRATION use the context of 9/11 as a prelude for war in Iraq.
Back it up you little lying turd troll.
We are waiting Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo Troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 6:22pm.
Is interacting with adults another problem with your feeble mind? When did the Bush administration use the context of 9/11 and terrorism as a prelude to the Iraq War?
Come on. We need to add some more numbers to your list of Stupid.
Nonsense. Powell and the
Submitted by BD on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 9:29pm.
Nonsense.
Powell and the other members of the administration fielded a pair of briefs of the rationale for war to both joint houses of congress and the UN. In those presentations sixteen seperate rationale were presented INCLUDING cease fire violations and UN violations.
BUt the press did not cover it from this angle. THey simply boiled it down as they usually do. The chick who made her bones in the news industry as the 5:20 weather chick simply did not understand any other rationale than the WMD one and that is what they hyperfocused on.
So therefore, Katie Couric assumes only one rationale was used for war and that is the going consensus of her colleagues.
Those boneheads will write the first history of the war in their self serving books.
When the real historians begin writing things will look amazingly different.
Sponge
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 4:32pm.
Again, you failed to pay attention to the 2003 State of the Union address. You have also failed to pay attention to various UN Resolutions and additionally you have failed to pay attention to foreign media reports since about 2000 or so.
Thanks for telling all of us you are a total media sponge, and that the media forms your opinions, beliefs and attitudes.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Question for Katie
Submitted by golds1 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:45pm.
Tell me, Katie - what do you read?
Katie Replies
Submitted by miss911ninja on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 2:11pm.
I read whatever Mika Brezinski is reading. She makes an extra set of White House talking points note cards for me.
g1
Submitted by Noel Sheppard on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 6:06pm.
g1,
Nice. Two thumbs up!!! ns
WMDs including Nukes
Submitted by BigAlSouth on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:47pm.
I have a premise, too. Were it not for U.S. combat intervention in Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be in power in 2010 and would have a nuke capability. All of the arguments made that no chemical or biological WMDs were found used by the Left to marginalize the reasons for the war matter little to me.
Don't tell me that Saddam was "contained" and that sanctions were working. THey clearly were not. Saddam was buying influence with oil dollars and his trading partners, such as Russia, had no real desire to contain him. Libs love to say that we could have contained Saddam while little is being done today to keep Iran from acquiring an operational weapon. Do you think for one minute that the Iraqi Arabs would allow the Iranian Persians to be the only country with a nuke?
Very true. Here's something else...
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 4:37pm.
France as well was routinely breaking sanctions as early as 2000 if not well before that. Their excuse was that "it was for the children". BS. It was for France lining France's coffers because they need their Nanny State financed somehow.
You are on the money. Anyone who gets on NB and starts bellyaching about how Saddam was "contained" was not remotely paying attention to things at all.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
So Condi is on our side
Submitted by gadropout on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:48pm.
So Condi is on our side again? That's good. Now if only Colin Powell would realize that our president's skin color isn't the most important thing to our country.
Maybe Couric and Walters
Submitted by ant on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:51pm.
Maybe Couric and Walters should just interview each other from now on. It is really difficult to think on your feet when the answer you get doesn't reinforce the talking points memo you hold in your talon... er,I mean hands. It is amusing when leftists don't get the "gotcha" response they were hoping for, they just repeat the question again then again then again then it's off to the editing room.
Draft Condi 2012!!!
Submitted by jimbo297 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:55pm.
Sooooo refreshing to hear soeone talkl authoritatively about the basis for invasion. It's like half of America has selective amnesia about Iraq's bad behavior in the last half of the 1990's. Bubba ignored the problem and, as I reember it, was a pretty big talking point during the 2000 election. I still remember GW saying that he would fionally take care of the problem of Saddam taking pop-shots at our planes and violating the no-fly zone. Part of the reason I voted for him was that he wasn't going to let some rogue dictator be a destabilizing factor in the Middle East.
Condi said: "we all know the scanadal of oil-for-food"
No, Condi, they don't. The whole world needs a loooong lesson on exactly how oil-for-food played out. From the corrupt UN staff and higher-ups who deserve to rot and die in jail to the fact that one of Osama Bin Laden's primary motivations for 9/11 was tha fact that kids were dying by the thousands in Iraq from hunger--hunger caused by the corruption of the UN.
Rice/Bolton 2012? Rice/Palin 2012? Rubio/Rice 2012?
Draft Condi in 2012? Not
Submitted by MikeB on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 4:17pm.
Draft Condi in 2012? Not necessarily a good idea. Yes, she slapped Katie down like a red-headed step-child. However, we should want more from a President than that. What are her positions on taxation, on the Second Amendment, on Nationalized Healthcare, on Education, on Government overreach, on Government overspending, on border security, on TSA violating the 4th amendment, and on and on. We should want someone who is a Reaganite conservative instead of a "compassionate conservative" like W who gave us the No Child Left Behind, gave us the Medicare Part D plan, further stressing an already over-stressed Medicare system that is entirely extra-legal.
The Liberal press are afraid of intelligent conservatives
Submitted by walleyehunter on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:57pm.
Katie knew early that she was not going to to compete with Condi intellectually, she wanted out. Couldn't even get a few good sound bites. A pleasure listening to Condi.
I like the laughter; that says how absurd Couric is
Submitted by TheHistorian on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:58pm.
Katie, you now know that Obama is NOT the budget cutter and tax cutter he claimed to be. Does that mean that you no longer support him? No? Why not? YOU can second-guess your positions with a heck of a lot less angst than invading another country, but do you?
I am tired of you trying to get other people to do the re-evaluation that you refuse to do. So either start re-evaluating President Obama in the light of what he has DONE, or shut your fat yap about others. In fact, do both. It would be refreshing to hear something other than blather out of your airhead. And you liberals claim stupid blondes are all on Fox? Hahahahahahahahaha!
Dennis Prager
Oooooh, I LIKE that bit of
Submitted by BD on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 2:44pm.
Oooooh, I LIKE that bit of logic.
Historian earns a SHACK!
Questions for Condi*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 1:12pm.
I have posted the following link several times. To me, Larry Elder has presented an excellant example of media controlled information. Also to be considered, why has the Bush administration, including Ms Rice, not been willing to discuss the revealations included in Mr. Elders article from Wikileaks?
There appears to be much needed debate on these particular documents.
http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2010/12/09/the_wikileaks_vindication_of_george_w_bush
Kouric - Stuck On Stupid And Dangerous
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 9:36pm.
I don't understand why Bush continues to state there were no WMD's in Iraq when in fact there were. There were chemical weapons which I have yet to hear were all nonfunctional/useless. Is there some dividing line where old chemical weapons don't count regardless of functionality and lethality, like mustard gas is ok but VX is not, or, 100 artillery shells of mustard gas is ok but 101 is not?
In the grand scheme of things, WMD's was but one of a list of points on why Hussein was to be deposed. WMD's obviously were the one thing out of the many that the Media and Left hooked onto, probably because it was easier to spell and took less time to type out their repetitive propaganda pieces. Iraq painting our aircraft with radar and shooting off AA and SA missiles at us was a yawner and too hard to type out. (sarc/off)
Wow. "Documentaries have been made...."!!!!!
Submitted by krendler on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 1:14pm.
What more do you need?
By whom, Katie? Michael Moore? Why can't you bring yourself to say the name? Because it shoots your entire premise straight to hell? Yes, best to just leave it as "Documentaries have been made..."
Real News
Submitted by Valkarie63 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 1:19pm.
The real news here is that Condi sets the record straight and tackles, drags, and buries the typical MSM reporting line on the whole Iraq War.
Thankfully, NB is (still) in the business of doing *real news*!
Basically this all goes back
Submitted by Dave D on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 1:19pm.
Basically this all goes back to the Duelfer report. (The real one, not the imaginary one the left thinks exists.) In a nut shell the reason that there were so few WMD's in Iraq was because of Saddam. He did that so inspectors wouldn't be able to find anything but he made it a point to keep the knowledge to produce them. Since the inspectors wouldn't find anything he'd be able to argue that sanctions should be lifted. Once that was done he'd tool up and start producing again. (Which I think was expected to take about a year.) So the long and short is that sanctions were a massive failure and the end result is that we would have been back where we had started if the alternative history had happened. (IE we talked it out with Saddam, removed sanctions and then the WMD's come back.)
Created or Saved no push back
Submitted by exLib on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 1:29pm.
Katie and the rest of the liberal media seem to have no problem accepting the Obama meme of "Created or Saved" jobs and that the economy was "Saved" from depression or whatever based on someone "word", totally unprovable assertions.
On the other hand, the only experts Katie and company seem interested in discussing are the experts who said no WMD and we should have left SH in power.
Beware when Katie wears glasses.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 1:39pm.
Or Charlie Gibson or any of them, the interview is going to be adversarial. That'a how they try to convey their smartness/wisdom.
I suspect they do that on the
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 2:09pm.
I suspect they do that on the theory of "You wouldn't hit a guy(girl) wearing glasses, would you?"
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Nuff said Mr Cohen..........
Submitted by Tomorama on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 1:46pm.
Though I may not agree with Condi on every single issue (the only person I agree with totally is ME)........... I would vote for her for ANY office and the comparing of her to book smart ????? Obama is correct as she is BOTH book smart and world smart because she has DONE SOMETHING and his phony bullshit life is based on theories and not life experience facts.
As for her schooling Katty here, totally understated with that.
Katty and her ilk can't grasp that you are not allowed do-overs and the actions were taken because of the facts and chances of them being totally correct were not just Bush and companies meme, but MOST of the world with some dissenters.
Is she saying that she was willing to take the chance that we were WRONG as many others were wrong as well?
Bush did what he thought was right.
Everytime this bullshit comes up I post the same chiiling and I believe correct thought from someone who would know MORE THAN ANYONE:
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
Thank you
Submitted by tampamom25 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 1:49pm.
Thank you Ms. Rice for putting Ms. Curic soundly in her place. I get so sick and tired of watching her throw questions to people who stumble and bumble in their responses and look like idiots while she smugly sits there and passes judgment. It's nice to see a liberal talking head be put in their place and soundly contradicted with facts and rational statements! Why Curic still has a show is beyond me....
I'm still angry with Bush...
Submitted by okiehawk44 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 1:58pm.
George W Bush had 8 years in office to learn how to speak in public without sounding like a dolt. Did he? No! In fact he let the media drone on and on about how WMD etc were not found and that America had been had by a tinpot dictator etc etc etc. GWB never defended his position as Condi Rice just did and let all the rest of us defend him and his policies for 8 long years. Now he doesn't think it's seemly to enter the fray as a former president. George if not now when? Boy it sure would be nice to have you out there swinging against these leftists and their media friends. We could use you now George just like we could use your dad -- remember we have to listen to the BS from Obama all day long and then listen to Clinton and Carter the rest of the time. Your father is a very old man. What's your excuse junior?
STFU
Submitted by griv on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 10:24pm.
and move on dipstick.
I missed this one with the butt hurt troll and all.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:30am.
I agree with, wait, griv? Yes. griv. You is all forgiven griv. It ain't the job of the President of the United States to personally confront every little critic. He made his case before the war. He was busy actually running the war after that.
If you and the rest of the whiny babies here feel pissy whiny let down because he was not out there pushing his case day after day with the pissy whiny media and the pissy whiny leftists, then it looks like you all have a pissy whiny attitude in severe need of a diaper.
THE MAN MADE HIS CASE. So go get a big ol' glass of Shut the Hell Up and Sit the Hell Down.
It is not up to the President of the United States to confront every pissy whiny baby that has an itchy god damned diaper. How many frelling times to I have to frelling say it in one frelling day. Son of a frelling gun I am sick to death of these pissy whiny babies here.
The problem is not the President of the United States needing to confront every whiny leftist journalist or Democrat that can't get it through their thick frelling skull as to why we went into Iraq. The problem is a BIASED MEDIA, the whole reason NewsBusters exists. What part of that confuses you idiots.
Katie is still a full-fledged
Submitted by DoktorFranken on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 2:00pm.
Katie is still a full-fledged cheerleader - of a sort. Problem is, she's got no ''moves'', as it were.
Shock and Awe,Rapid Dominance was wildly successful.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 2:01pm.
So many targets so many bulls eyes.
Under this concept of operations, the air campaign element would be significantly more intense than prior air campaigns previously conducted thus far. Hundreds of systems ranging from bombers, cruise missiles and fighter aircraft would be involved in a massive display of firepower focused initially on antiaircraft systems and any potential chemical or biological weapons delivery systems.
One major concern associated with the air campaign centers around how to proceed with neutralizing Iraqi chemical and biological weapons. The possibility that Israel might retaliate to an Iraq Scud attack, raising the prospect of escalation to the whole of the Middle East region is one additional reason behind this focus.
You Didn't Build That.
Works for the stimulus spending too
Submitted by Model850 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 2:34pm.
Rice: And you always can know what happened as a result of what you did. What you can't know is what would have happened had you not done it.
That's also a good answer for the "things would have been worse" argument used by those who defend the bloated stimulus spending. Maybe things would have been worse; maybe not. One is free to speculate about it but don't state it as fact.
Would Couric question Bil Clinton, in this idiotic fashion?
Submitted by Gary Hall on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 2:39pm.
My question (silly as it is) - Would Katie Couric conduct the same interview in that fashion with Pres. Bill Clinton?
And, we know how much they all respect and cower before President Clinton. How did he feel about whether or not Saddam had the damn WMDs and what we should be up to. No.. not before the Iraq invasion by Bush; rather right smack in the summer of 2003, when it was getting pretty ugly over there:
July 22, 2003 Former President Bill Clinton on Larry King Live:
“Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had.”...........
”I think the main thing I want to say to you is, people can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks.... of biological and chemical weapons.”
Thank you Bill Clinton. Only had President Bush had the whim to invite Clinton down for a chat in the oval office in late July 2003, and then introduce Clinton to the WH press corps and invite them to ask Clinton questions about WMD's and Saddam. If only.
Yep.. right smack there on Larry King Live. And Larry didn't like it one bit. Neither did the rest of the national main stream media. You know, not a single one of them invited Bill Clinton on their shows after that so that we might all hear that again, and put this insanity aside - this conspiracy by the national media - to promote their hate speech.
How about with Democratic Senator Carl Levin, of the Senate Intelligence Committee (note the date)?
'Hardball with Chris Matthews' Nov. 7, 2005:
Senator Carl Levin (D) of Michigan, a member of the Intelligence Committee
- look there was plenty of evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons, by the way. That is not in dispute. There is plenty of evidence of that.
Really - what'cha think about that, Katie?
(;~> gary
Iraq War
Submitted by PrimalElements on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 2:45pm.
Not that I was for the war. I am against Soviet news making.
It has been known for sometime that Iraq had WMDs and they still
refuse to report.
Like......there are no tax cuts and they keep repeating tax cuts.
Anyway, THERE WERE WMDs.........Period.
To mention just a few references:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_did_find_iraq_wmd_AYiLgNbw...
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/10/wikileaks_proves_wmd_found_i...
http://www.mrc.org/press/2006/press20060623.asp
No Upside
Submitted by rammingspeed on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 2:55pm.
Knock out. Problem: Couric and her ilk will never listen to Condi or anyone else who says something they don't agree with. Couric and her cohorts have been indoctrinated, propagandized, dogmatized to an ultimate degree. There is no reasoning with people like that. CBS will go to work to cover up this slaughter, and pretend that Couric's question of Sarah Palin in '08 about what things she reads is what's really important.
These people are cretins. Miscreants. Plainly speaking, they are vomit.
Don't hold back -speed, let
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 3:01pm.
Don't hold back -speed, let it all out! ;-)
Nice takedown.
Felt Good, Too
Submitted by rammingspeed on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 3:39pm.
Thanks. It's easy with these people.
The only problem Katie has
Submitted by donabernathy on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 3:47pm.
is that Bush sent the troops.... just another example of.... it ain't da thuggery.... as long as it's your guy doing da thug'n
roflmao
And
Submitted by ProudAmerican58 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 5:54pm.
"given the preponderance of the intelligence analysis" simply putting on a pair of glasses does not give one intelligence or credibility when one is clearly brain dead.
The Key
Submitted by American Infidel on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 3:08pm.
to confusing any liberal interviewer is to reject the premise of their argument. Liberals can't think on their feet and will usually stutter and bumble along for the rest of the interview.
yo Katie
Submitted by donabernathy on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 3:44pm.
if there are no WMD why are there gonna be 50,000 Troops in Iraq Tomorrow... just like there are today.....hummmmmm
roflmao
THe MSM is really quite pompous!!!
Submitted by pbthinker on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 4:01pm.
Katie Couric has the gall to ask a question like, what if you knew then what you knew now, and I'm thankful Ms. Rice had the proper answer. Ironically, the press was quick to bring up the lack of weapons of mass destruction, once it became apparent there weren't any to be found, thus attempting to destroy the credibility of our country, our president, our intelligence agencies, and our soldiers. If only the media too their responsibilities as seriously as Ms. Rice and company did, we wouldn't have the polarized country we have today.
I fault the press for not being more careful about how they throw around things they can't prove. Couric's questions, presented with such authority, are obviously wrong, yet the mantra of the whole press corps was the same as hers. You'd think they'd act more carefully when they're reporting on stories such as these. For her to say that the intelligence was being ginned up to make the case, when that wasn't the case, is irresponsible, IMHO.
Katie's Logic
Submitted by ronny117 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 4:18pm.
Using the same logic that Katie is using.....
A question: Should the decision makers at CBS have signed Katie to a multi-million dollar contact to anchor their evening news......?????? Let's look at the results... ratings dead last......... and no upside in sight... a complete failure........
I have never understood....
Submitted by Prester John on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 4:20pm.
....why there has been such a lack of discussion regarding all those 18-wheel tractor trailers that were seen hustling out of Iraq into Syria before the war started. What was in the trucks? WMD components, bio/chem lab equipment, Hussein's treasures? And where are all those trucks now?Ya might want to check Syria, just my opinion.............
Submitted by Tomorama on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 6:47pm.
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003Tomorama...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 6:36am.
I have seen that remark repeated scores of times on dozens of blogs but not a single link ever posted to its source. That's not to say I doubt its authenticity, but I had hoped to read the full content and context of Cohen's statements. Can you help me out?
In any event, the critical issue was not whether many in positions of authority believed Saddam possessed WMDs--they clearly did believe so--but rather what was the most effective and rational strategy in determining the type and extent of such weaponry and addressing and eliminating the threat which they posed.
Jer
Jer, this is the second time
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 9:11am.
I have posted this for you after your doubt that the Cohan the quote exists. How about you clarify it with the WoPo?
Thanks, Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 9:27am.
I apologize for failing to notice your earlier post. Now, what part of my explicitly saying I don't doubt the quote's authenticity do you fail to understand?
And, unfortunately, this is the same edited unsourced remark by Cohen which I have read dozens of times. Was it spoken during an interview? Was it an essay or op-ed penned by Cohen? Was it Congressional testimony? I'm afraid we're still at square one.
But, I do appreciate your effort. Thanks.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 9:27pm.
If the Wapo quoted him out of context, don't you think there would be an uproar from the left?
I know these are clips but http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8
transcripts from the 1998 town hall
Cohen interviewed by Cokie Roberts in 1997
We Are The 53%
Iraqi Yellow Cake
Submitted by Norto on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 4:20pm.
to Canada. 500 metric tons were sent by Bush and I still do not know why the admin kept it quiet ipso facto.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=aaplw&p=yellow+cake+to+canada
NBers tend to let trolls get off the subject. See how the thread diverges from top to bottom-stay on message!!
He used wmds.
He would have used them on Israel.
He was a wmd, as were his kids. I just wish they had come to know the Truth before dying.
So why did Condi have to take so long to never get to the answer? She is a liberal and really is not interested in divulging the truth. Smart? Well, sly like a fox is closer.
Oil is a National Security Issue
Submitted by Norto on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 4:28pm.
I wish Bush had never deleted oil as a reason to attack, it should have been left on the table. Israel and oil were reason enough for me, the Bible tells me so. Might be a catchy tune there.
Some who?
Submitted by misterbee241 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 6:28pm.
I'd like to know who this "Some" guy is. The liberal media quote him quite often as a source.
Talk about coming to a knife fight unarmed. I'd say Katie got sliced and and diced pretty well.
Smart Glasses
Submitted by Gothampc on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 7:41pm.
Poor Katie. I think it's time for her to change her smart glasses.
Katie Curic
Submitted by garyd99 on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 9:49pm.
The real question is
If CBS had known what sh**ty rating you would get from the viewing public ---- Would you have hired this dumb broad at this salary? NOT
I've always felt the Iraq War
Submitted by Smartypants on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:09am.
I've always felt the Iraq War was one of THE most misrepresented events in U.S. history; and the Bush Administration did very little to counter the misinformation. The press has repeatedly reported that Bush directly linked Iraq to 9/11 (he didn't, in fact he said quite the opposite). The media conveniently forgot the multiple UN Resolutions against Hussein and Iraq, and the Resolution 41 clearly stated there would be consequences for not coming clean on what happened to Saddam's WMD stock. (Hussein never did divulge what became of the weapons he was known to have possessed.) The press, as usual, accepted all of the Democrat talking points on this issue. They accepted that Democrats were somehow fooled into voting for the war, and then allowed them to blame this on Bush after that war became a struggle. They accepted the notion that Bush lied, despite the findings of the 9/11 Commission which determined there was "no attempt to deceive" on the part of the Bush team. It was this misrepresentation which ultimately was the undoing of Bush's popularity and political power.
Reality Challenged
Submitted by RealVet on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 9:05am.
It's disgusting when idiots like Couric spew crap like "a lot of books have been written". They assume that a book full of lies can lend credence to their warped theories and validate their agenda. History revision is essential to their political existence.
They live in a fantasy world, created by people like Oliver Stone, Michael Moore, Ward Churchill, Sean Penn, and every other liberal moron who can come up with enough money to make a bad movie or write a book full of garbage that has nothing to do with actual history or reality.
God I despise these people.
Condi Is Too Nice
Submitted by JustAl on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:25pm.
". . . well Katie, it's like this. Your network hired you because they thought at the time it would raise ratings, but, everyone knows the ratings are lower today than they were when you got that chair your'e sitting in. So, don't you think it was a mistake to hire you, and don't you think it is a mistake to keep paying you? In fact, don't you think you should pay them back for being misled?"
If only.
I lost my enthusiasm for Condoleezza Rice after watching
Submitted by Rush Fan on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 3:46am.
her fawn over Barack Obama's election victory. I'll wager that she was one of those whom Obama snookered into voting for him.
That said, I enjoyed watching the video, and I especially enjoyed watching Condoleezza Rice educate Couric on foreign affairs. Perhaps if Katie had read newspapers and magazines other than The New York Times or Newsweek, she would have been better informed on Saddam Hussein and the intelligence leading up to the Iraq war.