Condoleezza Rice: ‘I Am Proud Of The Decision’ To Invade Iraq
Condoleezza Rice: ‘I Am Proud Of The Decision’ To Invade Iraq
In an interview last March with Bloomberg’s Judy Woodruff, the late conservative scholar William F. Buckley said President Bush’s legacy would be judged purely on Iraq. He stressed, “It’s important that we acknowledge in the inner councils of state that it (the war) has failed, so that we should look for opportunities to cope with that failure.”
In an interview with Bloomberg TV yesterday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was unable to acknowledge the failure of Iraq. Woodruff presented Buckley’s argument to Rice that Bush’s legacy will be Iraq. “That’s just fine,” said Rice.
“We tend to forget very quickly what Saddam Hussein meant. … In the post 9/11 environment, you couldn’t let a threat to international peace and stability like that remain.” She added:
Yes, it’s been very, very tough. But I know that great historical events go through difficult phases and often emerge with the world left for the better. And I am proud of the decision of this administration to overthrow Saddam Hussein. I am proud of the liberation of 25 million Iraqis.
Watch it:
Rice tends to forget what she thought of Iraq prior to 9/11. In July 2001, Rice said on CNN: “In terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let’s remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.” (See the video.)
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
128 Responses to “Condoleezza Rice: ‘I Am Proud Of The Decision’ To Invade Iraq”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Go join Helms, retard.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:48 pmShoe shopping Girlfriday Rice: ‘I Am Proud Of The Decision’ To Invade Iraq
Pass the popcorn please....
July 4th, 2008 at 2:48 pmOne can only hope that McShrub will pick her as his running mate... Oh, the joy.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:48 pmI'm sure Hitler was proud of his decision to invade Poland, too.
Birds of a feather, donthcaknow?.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:49 pmCondoleeza rice sounds like a cajun side-dish
July 4th, 2008 at 2:50 pmToo bad no men are proud to go across any of her parallels.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:54 pmShe's never gonna be able to run for public office with that statement...
July 4th, 2008 at 2:57 pmProud to have undone every bit of international diplomacy from the last 30 years. Proud to have bludgeoned the ignorant with fearful propaganda. Proud to have her own incompetence and dishonesty rewarded with one of the highest appointed positions in the land. Proud to be a war criminal.
These sick phucks are sociopaths. Every least one of them.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:59 pmBTW, Happy Independence Day everyone. Let's hope that, by next year, our independence from another King George will have restored some semblance of reason and honor to our Nation.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:01 pmHow about all the Iraqis you helped liberate from life, Condi?
Proud of that?
Stupid cow...
July 4th, 2008 at 3:02 pm.
She's earned it...
CON-da-LIAR Rice
.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:02 pmI sure hope she has at least one pair of Hague tap shoes in her closet, 'cause that sounds like an unequivocal admission of guilt.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:04 pmIs this War Criminal proud of the Hell on Earth Unleashed in the Middle East because of Cheney's 9/11 False Flag attack on it's own citizens? Resulting in 2 Illegal Preemptive Wars and ruining our Moral Standing in the World (prisoner abuse, secret prisons)& Virtually destroying our economy.
Is this Lying Sack of Sh_t Proud of that we are living under a Military Economy (the only ones raking in the dough) where the average person is trying to hold on to their home, pay $4.10+ for gas and pay for skyrocketing food costs?
July 4th, 2008 at 3:08 pm.
Is she proud of the training ground that was never there before her proud decisions...?
Is she proud of making America less safe...?
.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:12 pmI wonder if she is also proud of having destroyed whatever physical infrastructure Iraq had prior to the invasion, and not having rebuilt it. Or having displaced millions of Iraqis. Or proud of having killed and maimed thousands more. Or torturing prisoners who were held in "secret" prisons...
There is so much to be proud of, indeed.
/sarc off
July 4th, 2008 at 3:12 pm"I am proud of the liberation of 25 million [26 million before all this started) Iraqis"
This is a common talking point of the right, but someone needs to explain to these clowns that chaos is not the type of 'liberation' that the Iraqis needed or had in mind.
¶ AIO
July 4th, 2008 at 3:13 pmMS. Rice believes that Saddam Hussein was a "threat to international peace and stability." Why did that intrepid reporter Judy Woodruff not then ask Ms. Rice why Saddam Hussein did not use all those WMD that were so much of a threat to international peace and security when the U.S. illegally invaded Iraq? One suspects that JFK did not have someone like Judy Woodruff in mind when he wrote Profiles in Courage.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:17 pmOnly a reich-winger could be proud of starting a war over bad intelligence, lies, and deception.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:18 pm"And I am proud of the decision of this administration to overthrow Saddam Hussein."
I call it one of the dumbest decisions ever made by a president. The decision to invade has cause so much death, destruction and sorrow in Iraq.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:18 pmreinvestigate 9/11
July 4th, 2008 at 3:18 pmimpeach
world court trial
throw away the key
“We tend to forget very quickly what Saddam Hussein meant. … In the post 9/11 environment, you couldn’t let a threat to international peace and stability like that remain.”
_____
She wants us to forget very quickly that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:19 pmIt always changes from the "he had WMD" to we needed to liberate the people. WTF? Why not the people under any of the other dictators around the world? Heck, Cuba is only 90 miles away. Why not them? Oh yeah, no OOOOOIIIIIILLLLLLL...
July 4th, 2008 at 3:20 pmoctamethyl Says:
"Condoleeza rice sounds like a cajun side-dish."
A side-dish best eaten whilst on the toilet.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:20 pmShe's proud of her loyal service to the oil industry, where she began her career. Record profits!
July 4th, 2008 at 3:22 pm“We tend to forget very quickly what Saddam Hussein meant. … In the post 9/11 environment, you couldn’t let a threat to international peace and stability like that remain.”
A guy who had no weapons or military was somehow a threat to international peace?
July 4th, 2008 at 3:23 pm“We tend to forget very quickly what Saddam Hussein meant. … In the post 9/11 environment, you couldn’t let a threat to international peace and stability like that remain.”
_____
She wants us to forget very quickly that Iraq under Saddam wasn't even a threat to its immediate neighbors:
Colin Powell in Cairo February 24, 2001:
"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."
Condoleeza Rice, July 2001:
July 4th, 2008 at 3:25 pm"We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
#23 BuckarooBanzai,
July 4th, 2008 at 3:27 pmExactly.
Why not N.Korea...?
Proud to lick the boots of trollish shitkickers who would gleefully lynch her for her race, gender, or rumored sexual preference.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:30 pm"It always changes from the 'he had WMD' to we needed to liberate the people."
-BuckarooBanzai
They're actually telling the truth. They invaded to liberate the Iraqis from that pesky oil problem.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:35 pmShe should be prouder to have had a super-tanker named after her than be proud about the launch of a war of naked aggression that destroyed the balance of power in the Mideast.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:42 pmShe’s proud of her loyal service to the oil industry, where she began her career. Record profits!
A named tanker seems like such a piffleing trifle, when considering her service to them. They should rename something else after her, something that respects her service to their cause. Perhaps a grade of gasoline. Condapremium.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:51 pmProud to "forget" what's inconvenient until her "husband" is deposed and the real trials start.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:52 pmbarfly Says:
A named tanker seems like such a piffleing trifle, when considering her service to them. They should rename something else after her, something that respects her service to their cause. Perhaps a grade of gasoline. Condapremium.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
I think that honor is more likely to go to Cheney. But I bet there's a "temporary" airbase in Iraq which she thinks will be called "Rice Field" for the next hundred years.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:57 pm“Condoleeza rice sounds like a cajun side-dish.”
with a side of Uncle Tom's Mustard Gas
July 4th, 2008 at 3:58 pmIt says a lot about Rice that she should be proud of one of the biggest military blunders in human history, and all the needless death and destruction that it has caused.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:03 pmProud of all those dead, innocent Iraqis, and the dead Americans & other dead soldiers. This type of pride definitely goes before a fall.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:07 pm9/11 happened BECAUSE of this retch!
She IGNORED the PDB about some people wanting to hit some buildings, right?
She did this because of an extreme hatred for Clinton and anything his people were attempting to help with in the transistion.
Remember that the first missive from the WH was that the Clintons trashed it as they moved out. WHICH WAS A COMPLETE PHUCKING LIE!!!
The DHS was formed to take the heat off of the complete failure this was and is C. Rice!!
A real moron!!
Promoted beyond the skill set for sure!!!
July 4th, 2008 at 4:14 pmThat's right Auntie Condi's very proud to be a war criminal, liberating a million plus iraqis of their lives, electricity, clean drinking water, stability and their natural resources.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:16 pmFaiz. Thank you for spending you holiday working. It's above and beyond (and appreciated), but I hope you'll at least take some time off to watch some fireworks.
July 4th, 2008 at 4:54 pmThis is the same stupid statement made by Europeans when they thought they "discovered" the American Continent.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:10 pmAnd funny that these Iraqi barbarians were unable to overthrow Saddam for fear, but they are very unafraid now to blow up foreign forces and rival religious tribes.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:12 pmGood afternoon and happy Independence Day, backup. For once we are in total agreement.
Thanx Faiz.
BTW backup, I left a reply to our earlier conversation here.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:15 pmhttp://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/02/larson-robot-marriage/#comment-5069070
Which brings up the main quality which all Republicans share: Thay're incapable of admitting they made a mistake. A very tragic character flaw.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:25 pmThis is the same stupid statement made by Europeans when they thought they “discovered” the American Continent.
~Juan C
I believe it's actually closer to the European mindset when they set out to "Christianise" and "civilise" those barbarians around the world, oft times in spite of what those "barbarians" wanted and at gun point, if needed.
The spreading of European civilisation came at great cost to the peoples who were invaded, raped, tortured, and killed.
The pretext in this 21st Century is no longer to Evangelise and civilise, but to liberate and democratise. Coincidentally, freedom and democracy are hailed as pillars of modern-day civilised life.
Different century, same colonial mentality. Same brutal methods, too.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:26 pmThe war was mismanaged. There are some serious issues with misrepresentation of intelligence to justify the war. The WMD that had people concerned never materialized. The war is horribly over budget. Many thousands of Iraqis and over 4,000 U.S. soldiers are dead.
But, the idea to promote regime change (replaced with a democracy) predated the Bush administration. Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act with overwhelming congressional support in 1998:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
And there were over a dozen U.N. resolutions for Iraq to submit to weapons inspections that went unheeded. If the threat that Saddam posed was insignificant, why the need for the resolutions? If the resolutions didn't work, what are you supposed to do, more resolutions?
A lot of people that oppose the war in Iraq today, believed that Saddam was a serious threat that needed to be dealt with:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
In hindsight, we had more time to deal with Saddam without war. But, the more peaceful efforts up to that point went unheeded. And Saddam admitted that he planned to reconstitute his WMDs.
http://asecondhandconjecture.com/index.php/2008/01/29/saddam-wanted-to-pursue-all-of-wmd-to-reconstitute-his-entire-wmd-program/
Saddam was a tyrant. He did abuse his people. Many viewed him a serious threat in a post 9/11 world that viewed a reactive response less acceptable than it had been in the past. The war has provide an opportunity for Iraqis to choose there own leaders. Write their own constitution. It's still a mess. But, it is an alternative to Islamic fundamentalist theocracy that seem opposed to the liberties, freedoms and human rights that most in the west consider inalienable.
There have been a lot of problems with the Bush policy on Iraq. (With Gitmo, Abu Grahib, FISA, etc, has created it's own questions with human rights). In hindsight, we would have done a lot of things different. But, if we had the luxury of hindsight to help us make our decisions, I'm sure leadership would be much easier. And the decision making much better.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:29 pmCondi Rice? Is she still alive?
July 4th, 2008 at 5:32 pmGregor, as usual, you are correct. And the sad thing is that, again and again, common folks think their leaders are correct, their gods are the best, and their races are the ones that should lead the world.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:34 pmbackup,
Many of us opposed the invasion before it happened. Many of us were just as opposed to the occupation, before it was clear that it was Bush's plan to stay in Iraq indefinitely, perhaps permanently.
Spare us any further long-winded babbles on "hindsight".
You fell for the claptrap, you feel (rightfully) duped, and now you are trying to justify your own naivete by saying "everyone believed it".
Well, sorry. That is just not true. Now deal with it. Preferably away from a keyboard and this blog.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:34 pmYes, Juan, that is true.
It's human nature, I suppose, to be so arrogant as to think one's way of doing things is the best, whether food, clothes, skin tone, type of government, as well as religion.
Political and military leaders throughout history have used that mentality to their advantage, and lead their countrymen to war over natural resources (the actual, bottom-line reason for military conflict), From Darius, to Cesar, to Napoleon, to Hitler. It's ultimately about power, personal prestige, and -above all- access to natural resources.
The ruling class always benefits handsomely, while the peasants do the dying. Too bad Bush supporters (and the trolls in this site) are usually oblivious to reality.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:43 pmGregor, backup is the perfect example of what I mentioned.
They think everybody were as gullible as them. Well, only those living inside the bubble of "we rule...we are number one"
It is amazing how the people fron the most powerful country in the world is the most misled people in the world.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:43 pmpete. I agreed with most of what you said over at 'Lars'. I left a response.
Was the book 'Collapse' by Jared Diamond?
July 4th, 2008 at 5:48 pmJuan C. Says:
It is amazing how the people fron the most powerful country in the world is the most misled people in the world.
_____
Thanks to the Military Industrial Media, the most powerful country in the world is the most misinformed country in the world.
The entirety of the rest of the Western democracies stand in awe of American chumpocracy. How did such a bunch of independent cusses come to be suckered by such a blatant plutocratic con game?
July 4th, 2008 at 5:52 pmYou can't let a threat to peace and stability exist.
The World Community counts Bush as a bigger threat than Saddam was.
As the world community has spoken in a democratic fashion, the will of the people must be obeyed.
Will the secret service withdraw from the WH so that the invasion can take place ?
July 4th, 2008 at 5:53 pmHeckuva Job, Condi.
What about you people at Stanford? Are you just going to let Condi back into your fine school?
July 4th, 2008 at 5:55 pm#5 octamethyl Says:
Is she served with a side of sauteed 'mushroom clouds'?
.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:57 pmJuan C. and Gregor:
For me it's more a matter of human rights and liberty. Not about God. I think the promotion of liberty and freedoms is a better (not perfect) state of human affairs.
There are atheists that have concerns about Islamic fundamentalist intolerance. No one here will admit it, but it is much more troubling than today's christian (or other religious) intolerance.
Check it out:
http://atheisthaven.blogspot.com/2007/06/salmon-rushdie-target-for-islamic.html
July 4th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Juan,
During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, I was taken aback at the news in the US. At least the news coming from outfits such as CNN, FoxNews (of course), as well as the printed media.
There was never a question if Iraq should be invaded. It was mostly a debate on when, and how.
That is how the public was duped, or conned into supporting the invasion: By presenting it as inevitable, and hyping the "threat" that never was.
You have to keep in mind that this is the same public who ended up believing Nicaragua (of all countries!) was a threat to the regional stability and to the US as well...
July 4th, 2008 at 6:00 pmbackup,
Iraqis are no more "freer", let alone enjoy more Human Rights now that under Saddam Hussein.
Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Haditha, Fallujah, and the many more crimes we have yet to find out about make my point for me.
Not to mention the impunity which
July 4th, 2008 at 6:04 pmmercenariesprivate contractors enjoy in Iraq.How does this woman sleep at night?
Pathetic!
July 4th, 2008 at 6:04 pmpete says:
I think that honor is more likely to go to Cheney. But I bet there’s a “temporary” airbase in Iraq which she thinks will be called “Rice Field” for the next hundred years.
What about "Condi-weight gear-lube?" Or how about one of the by-products? Condi-ester? Rice-oline petroleum jelly?
July 4th, 2008 at 6:12 pmsouthrnbelle,
July 4th, 2008 at 6:14 pmUpside down in a cave above an ocean of guano.
I found this from a gay/lesbian paper in S.F.:
Doesn't that seem to be a problem at least as great as a Hagee comment?
http://www.sfbaytimes.com/index.php?sec=article&article_id=7701
TP does a great job of highlighting racial prejudice, christian religious bigotry and homosexual intolerance. But, let me ask you this:
The world is becoming a smaller, more interconnected, integrated place. We are becoming one people. It seems obvious that there are at least as many examples of Islamic intolerance, bigotry, homophobia, etc (I suggest much more serious examples) why the deaf ear? Why won't anyone address it? Is Islamic intolerance somehow less important than Christian intolerance?
I've got to go, but I'll check in later.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:21 pmbackup: A lot of people that oppose the war in Iraq today, believed that Saddam was a serious threat that needed to be dealt with:
And we have exhibit "a:" A troll who wants to be taken seriously, but only posts the parts that seem to prove his point, while leaving the rest out.
Anyone who clicks on his Snopes link, will find a disclaimer, which completely invalidates his point. This is just the sort of intellectual-corruption we must identify, and authoritatively debunk.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:22 pmBusted, backup. You're a fraud, and you just proved it.
Thanks.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:23 pmThe war was mismanaged. There are some serious issues with misrepresentation of intelligence to justify the war. The WMD that had people concerned never materialized. The war is horribly over budget. Many thousands of Iraqis and over 4,000 U.S. soldiers are dead.
backup
I don't care about the mismanagement of an illegal war. We should be talking about placing the whole lot of them in The Hague.
But, the idea to promote regime change (replaced with a democracy) predated the Bush administration. Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act with overwhelming congressional support in 1998:
So.
And there were over a dozen U.N. resolutions for Iraq to submit to weapons inspections that went unheeded. If the threat that Saddam posed was insignificant, why the need for the resolutions? If the resolutions didn’t work, what are you supposed to do, more resolutions?
It doesn't matter. He agreed to let the inspectors back in prior to the invasion and they found nothing.
A lot of people that oppose the war in Iraq today, believed that Saddam was a serious threat that needed to be dealt with:
And a lot of them started to have doubts when these weapons weren't turning up during the inspection process.
In hindsight, we had more time to deal with Saddam without war. But, the more peaceful efforts up to that point went unheeded. And Saddam admitted that he planned to reconstitute his WMDs.
This is second hand information.
Many viewed him a serious threat in a post 9/11 world that viewed a reactive response less acceptable than it had been in the past.
But he wasn't a serious threat. And the post 9/11 crap is a canard. The Bush administration had the tools they needed to prevent 9/11 but terrorism was not a priority for them.
There have been a lot of problems with the Bush policy on Iraq. (With Gitmo, Abu Grahib, FISA, etc, has created it’s own questions with human rights).
You forgot the illegal invasion.
The war has provide an opportunity for Iraqis to choose there own leaders. Write their own constitution.
They didn't write their own constitution. It's more of a product of what the Neocons wanted. The first Constitution that was drafted was more socialistic.
It’s still a mess. But, it is an alternative to Islamic fundamentalist theocracy that seem opposed to the liberties, freedoms and human rights that most in the west consider inalienable.
Iraq was never a "Islamic fundamentalist theocracy" but it could turn out that way if some of the more fundamentalist Shiite Iraqis gain more seats in the government.
But, if we had the luxury of hindsight to help us make our decisions, I’m sure leadership would be much easier. And the decision making much better.
Your problem is that you think all of this was done in the best interest of Americans or the Iraqis. Don't kid yourself. The Neocons are only in it for themselves and this reality is not lost upon the Iraqis and many Americans now.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:30 pmThere are atheists that have concerns about Islamic fundamentalist intolerance. No one here will admit it, but it is much more troubling than today’s christian (or other religious) intolerance.
-Backup
I would say Christian fundamentalism is more troubling because they actually have a shot at taking over this country.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:34 pmNat. we disagree on the issue but I appreciate the time you took to refute my post. you make some good points.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:38 pmNat,
July 4th, 2008 at 6:43 pmI have said it before, unless backup proves me wrong, he supports criminals.
With leaders like her, who needs leaders? Pass the barf-bag.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:54 pmAnd I am proud of the decision of this administration to overthrow Saddam Hussein. I am proud of the liberation of 25 million Iraqis.
Is she also proud of the deaths of one million Iraqi's so that they could be "liberated". Besides, if you ask the people of Iraq if they are glad they were "liberated", I'm betting most would say hell no.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:55 pmDoc Rock Says:
She should be prouder to have had a super-tanker named after her than be proud about the launch of a war of naked aggression that destroyed the balance of power in the Mideast.
Can't be proud of that super-tanker name because they took her name off of it.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:58 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins,
July 4th, 2008 at 7:15 pmThey took her name of because with it on, they could never go into the Persian Gulf!
of s/b off
July 4th, 2008 at 7:16 pmThe Iraqi infrastructure has been destroyed. Most of the country is in shambles. Imagine the New York city depicted in John Carpenter's "Escape From New York". While there are estimates that run even higher, more than 500,000 Iraqi civilians who have been killed as a result of Bush's Iraq invasion and occupation decisions, and approximately 2,000,000 Iraqis have been displaced and or have fled the country rather than be killed and add further to the death toll. American taxpayers have had approximately $600,000,000,000 of their future tax dollars wasted on an invasion and occupation that will be of absolutely no meaningful benefit to them. How could that money have been used to help Americans deal with the finanacial difficulties they are struggling with now thanks to Bush's Iraq invasion and occupation? But Ms. Rice is proud that Bush ordered American troops to invade and occupy Iraq. How proud are the 4113 dead American soldiers who sacrificed their lives? Will pride bring them back to life? Will pride console their children, parents and spouses? Will being proud undo all the damage that the horrors of war have brought into the lives of American soldiers, American families and the innocent men, women and children of Iraq who managed to survive Bush's version of enforced democracy? Well, at least Ms. Rice's consciencous is clear enough that she can still feel proud. Knowing that somehow makes all the needless death, destruction, waste and immorality worth it, doesn't it? Onward Christian solidiers! Condi is proud you had the opportunity to die for George W. Bush. So proud.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html
July 4th, 2008 at 7:20 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
And I am proud of the decision of this administration to overthrow Saddam Hussein. I am proud of the liberation of 25 million Iraqis.
Is she also proud of the deaths of one million Iraqi’s so that they could be “liberated”. Besides, if you ask the people of Iraq if they are glad they were “liberated”, I’m betting most would say hell no.
Bilbo, let's not forget the millions that have left Iraq over the last 5 years. Many of them went to places where they are not wanted but, of course, they didn't have pamphlets extolling the virtues of the places they where running too.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:20 pmOh yes Bilbo, yesterday I heard a song that I believe you would like (well your name indicates you might get a kick out of it). The song is "Ballad of Bilbo Baggins" by Leonard Nimoy from the album "Best of Leonard Nimoy & William Shatner".
They may have to change the title to "Ballad of Bilbo Hussein Baggins"!!!!
I heard it the radio but I'm sure you could find it on the internets.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:26 pmLOL - Bilbo - with video
July 4th, 2008 at 7:27 pmWell, that's just great Condi.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:15 pmI hope those are your last words as you drop down the trap door after your war crimes conviction.
This is the SIXTH year of 2-hour-per-day electricity in Iraq.
In 120 degree temperatures.
If I was an Iraqi, I would do EVERYTHING I could to kill the occupiers who have done this, promised REBUILDING, and LIED.
I hope they do, because the BLOOD is on the HANDS of MURDERER Bush the COXUCKER punk TRAITOR to the USA.
Happy 4th of July!!
July 4th, 2008 at 8:26 pmCondi says,
We liberated them from their homes, their families, their lives, their security, their jobs, their land, their oil, their health, their peace of mind ... way to go, Condi. I'm not very proud of that. Amazing that you are.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:32 pmYou miss a vital point, backup, with the Salmon Rushdie example. The fatwa was the proclamation of one overzealous Ayatollah.
It was never fulfilled. Salmon Rushdie, his friends, and family are still very much alive. And no innocents were slaughtered in invasions because he said things Islamic Fundamentalists didn't like.
Until we learn that, left to their own devices, the Ayatollahs and Imams have no more real control than American Televangelists; we will have no hope of extricating ourselves from Bushco's ill advised adventure.
We let our lust for revenge justify the toppling of one nation. Our fear justified the second. There's plenty of shame to go around. But the blame is on those who made the decisions.
From the first bomb on Baghdad we were guilty. As guilty as Germany and Japan in WW2. That little fact will likely be historically significant so long as there are historians. And most arguments will be only about matters of degree.
Our nation has done many horrible things from the first settlers, but, this one might top them all in greed, ignorance, and audacity. Even if one gives them the benefit of the doubt and assumes they didn't knowingly fabricate the entire "immediate threat" meme their greed blinded them to reality.
And invading a country, in a panic, by "mistake" is as heinous as invading to loot and pillage. And even if their intentions were honorable? Their refusal to accept responsibility for the disaster, thereby prolonging it and multiplying our crimes, makes it worse.
This issue is no longer about Right and Left, if it ever was. It's about Right and Wrong and the vanity of a weak little man, with a horribly violent fantasy, and his sociopath playmates.
There's only one word for them. Evil! And if we, as a nation don't disown them we deserve the worst the rest of the human race can dish out.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:38 pmsouthrnbelle Says:
How does this woman sleep at night?
Pathetic!
I assume in a coffin during the day with an extreme fear of crosses and wooden stakes.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:56 pm"We tend to forget very quickly that the real reason we invaded Iraq is for their Oil. $$$ Everything else was a Lie. So not only am I proud, but exceedingly rich!" $$$, says Condi smiling.
"Did I forget to mention my ties to Big Oil and my Boat?",adds Mrs. Rice.
"Chevron named oil tanker the
"Condoleezza Rice"
http://www.aztlan.net/oiltanker.htm
.
"Condoleezza Rice was a Chevron Director from 1991 until January 15, 2001 when she was transferred by President George Bush Jr. to National Security Adviser. Previously she was Senior Director, Soviet Affairs, National Security Council, and Special Assistant to President George Bush Sr. from 1989 to 1991.
Another Chevron Corporation giant in the Bush administration is Vice President Dick Cheney. Vice President Cheney was Chairman and Chief Executive of Dallas based Halliburton Corporation, the world’s largest oil field services company with multi-billion dollar contracts with oil corporations including Chevron. Lawrence Eagleburger, a seasoned Bush counselor who held top State Department posts under George Bush Sr., is a director of Halliburton Corporation. "
July 4th, 2008 at 9:13 pm"It’s important that we acknowledge in the inner councils of state that it (the war) has failed"
If the aim of the war was to disarm Saddam, it can hardly have met with anything but success, since that objective had been met before the war ever commenced.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:58 pmbackup Says:
Nat. we disagree on the issue but I appreciate the time you took to refute my post. you make some good points.
Where's the apology for trying to pull a fast one, with the Snopes link, fraud?
July 4th, 2008 at 10:00 pmDon't worry, backup, I'll be on hand to point out your little error, on every thread I see you commenting on. Your days as a concern troll are over, fraudster.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:06 pmWhen a country is liberated by another country, tens of thousands of people will celebrate in the streets and welcome their liberator, as Kosovo did Bill Clinton.
When Cheney, Bush, and Rice can drive down main street in Baghdad in a convertible with tens of thousands of people cheering then, the liberation will have officially taken place.
Until that or something similar happens, there is and has never been a liberation of Iraq.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:30 pmbarfly. my friend. I've used the snopes link before. I used it in total. If I was a better fraud, wouldn't I have omitted the disclaimer?
This link has all the quotes I'm referring to in one source. It also has the disclaimer. Take a look at the information and decide for yourself. You'll get the idea.
Here's how I introduced the source:
Read the link. What part of it (even when you consider the disclaimer) do you disagree with?
If you're attempting to split hairs, I'll give you a C+. If you're really objectively evaluating the post; I'd say you failed.
There's a lot more to my post than the snopes link, is that all you can come up with?
July 4th, 2008 at 10:35 pmUsing rice's logic hitler looks better and better each pasting year.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:48 pmchimpy administration is run like a bunch of crackheads and mainliners.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:50 pmbarfly. my friend. I’ve used the snopes link before. I used it in total. If I was a better fraud, wouldn’t I have omitted the disclaimer?
That's where your intellectually-corrupt argument falls apart. You can't paste and copy from Snopes, as we both know. Your assertion, that you linked to the Snopes article, was devoid of any mention of the disclaimer, which is farther down, and not a part of the section you claim supports your argument. As we both know, the disclaimer farther down negates the assertion you were attempting to conflate with it.
This is a really feeble offering, and easily debunked (which I've done, every time every other wingnut has attempted to use it on TP), but it highlights your corrupt nature. Why no mention of the disclaimer, in your initial assertion:
And there were over a dozen U.N. resolutions for Iraq to submit to weapons inspections that went unheeded. If the threat that Saddam posed was insignificant, why the need for the resolutions? If the resolutions didn’t work, what are you supposed to do, more resolutions?
A lot of people that oppose the war in Iraq today, believed that Saddam was a serious threat that needed to be dealt with
Except the disclaimer specifically states that none of the quotes advocates military action do overthrow Hussein.
Why no mention of the disclaimer, fraud?
July 5th, 2008 at 2:07 amYour assertion, that you linked to the Snopes article, was devoid of any mention of the disclaimer,
Perhaps "Your mention of the linked Snopes article was devoid of any mention of the disclaimer" is more articulate. But in any event, the casual reader wouldn't automatically have seen the disclaimer, which is much farther down the page. Your decision to omit mention of the disclaimer shows how corrupt you are, intellectually, and ethically. My question to you, is why bother, when its so patently obvious you won't debate honestly? We aren't fooled.
July 5th, 2008 at 2:15 amIf I was a better fraud, wouldn’t I have omitted the disclaimer?
And you still won't admit to it, after being caught red-handed at it. You can't "omit the disclaimer," as we both know, because Snopes doesn't allow cut-and-paste of their articles.
Fraud.
July 5th, 2008 at 2:20 amSee you tomorrow, fraud. What flavor of crow do you prefer?
Show up early, and we'll make crow omelets, just for you.
July 5th, 2008 at 2:22 ambackup,
Give up with those quotes already. Even the Snopes page you linked to says that:
[S]ome of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them; several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S.
That is in answer to your contention that a lot of people "believed that Saddam was a serious threat that needed to be dealt with".
Obviously it was not so serious a threat as to warrant immediate, unilateral intervention by the US. Not to mention the dishonest quote-mining that the Snopes page clearly identifies.
But that is not all. The fundamental reason why bringing up these quotes is a dishonest exercise is that
several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998
You are putting forth things that were said about a completely different war, roughly 4 years prior to the conflict you claim they support.
You hardly can be more intellectually dishonest than that.
July 5th, 2008 at 3:32 amSo, yes, backup. I'd say you need to accept barfly's invitation to crow omelette breakfast.
I'd even say you need to eat two omelettes for thinking that we a) hadn't seen these bloody quotes before already, and b) wouldn't click on the link and read the article.
July 5th, 2008 at 3:36 am“Condoleezza Rice: ‘I Am Proud Of The Decision’ To Invade Iraq”
Adolph Hitler, circa 1940: ‘I Am Proud Of The Decision’ To Invade Poland
July 5th, 2008 at 9:05 amFormer Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) announces:
I am proud of those letters I wrote to underage House pages.
July 5th, 2008 at 9:15 amSenator Larry Craig (R-ID) says:
I'm proud of my decision to cruise that restroom at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport.
July 5th, 2008 at 9:18 amWTF!
July 5th, 2008 at 9:45 amTo what gullible idiots are you speaking, Ms. Failure-of-State?
You should be ashamed of yourself. You and the rest of Bush&Co who have destroyed more of America in 8 years than was thought possible.
Perhaps that is of which you are proud -- your ability to dupe the public, to have accomplished so much damage, and still have avoided criminal prosecution.
backup:
Read the link. What part of it (even when you consider the disclaimer) do you disagree with?
If you’re attempting to split hairs, I’ll give you a C+. If you’re really objectively evaluating the post; I’d say you failed.
Another example of your ethical corruption. We both know the disclaimer negates your assertion, yet you claim I failed to objectively evalutate the post. An honest intellect would acknowledge the error of omission (for you never said anything about a disclaimer, in your post), but you don't have an honest intellect, since by your own admission, you've used the link before, when buttressing an assertion in debate, again with no mention of the disqualifying disclaimer. So, to review: you tried to float a link, I debunked it, and you continued on as if your assertion was still valid. That's ethical corruption, and it calls into question your whole reason for being here. Do you really desire honest debate? Not judging by your glaring omission. This is the proverbial dead chicken that I'll be hanging around your neck, you bad doggie, until you learn to behave.
July 5th, 2008 at 9:48 amFrom one idiot liberal to another this is a must see from Rep. Obey!!!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mS4wHMCc57k
No wonder were never leaving Iraq with these Bush collaborators in charge.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:47 amGregor and barfly ...
backup tries, he really does!
I appreciate both of your thorough deconstructions of his efforts.
Backup reminds me of Doug Feith. Feith has significant reasons to rewrite history in his favor (like not wanting to be tried for War Crimes). Perhaps backup's investment in defending the indefensible is from a sense of guilt by association to which he'd(?) rather not admit. Or else backup believes there is nothing to admit.
It often seems a futile exercise and it is certainly tedious as it is so often a repetitive process precisely because the likes of backup always begin with a set of simple prejudiced assumptions and then as time pasess and facts and consequences accumulate to refute their assumptions they rewrite their own histories to adapt their original justifications and arguments to new information through careful selection.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:57 amRice (out loud): I am proud of the liberation of 25 million Iraqis.
Rice (in her head): I am proud of the liberation of millions of barrels of Iraqi oil.
July 5th, 2008 at 11:01 am5th Estate Says:
It often seems a futile exercise and it is certainly tedious as it is so often a repetitive process precisely because the likes of backup always begin with a set of simple prejudiced assumptions and then as time pasess and facts and consequences accumulate to refute their assumptions they rewrite their own histories to adapt their original justifications and arguments to new information through careful selection.
A willful blindness and self-deception, if that's the case.
But in backup's case, he took a link, and used it to massage a confirmation of his assertion, thinking no one here had ever encountered the Snopes article before. He did it, knowing that there was a low probability anyone would scroll down, and see the disclaimer -- and if they did, they would have to copy it manually, word-for-word, and then post it.
Given the way these threads run, most wouldn't spend the time to manually type the disclaimer and repost it, and he was betting on the laziness of most progressive posters to take a pass when they saw the amount of work involved. But Gregor proved him wrong. He is quite Exley, in that regard. His links don't always say what he claims they do.
I wouldn't be surprised if he now pulls the old Ex method of simple dismissal - until someone reposts the debunk - and then to assume the poor, wounded moderate, assailed by "the unhinged left."
July 5th, 2008 at 11:27 amBut Gregor proved him wrong. He is quite Exley, in that regard.
Sorry for the unintended linkage. I meant the fraudster, backup.
July 5th, 2008 at 11:29 amThat which is evil is always pleased with itself.
July 5th, 2008 at 11:31 ampete Says:
This issue is no longer about Right and Left, if it ever was. It’s about Right and Wrong and the vanity of a weak little man, with a horribly violent fantasy, and his sociopath playmates.
A fabulous post, and I couldn't agree more. Thanks Pete.
July 5th, 2008 at 11:34 amHere's the snopes link again:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Don't be a causual reader. Read it to the end and make up your own mind.
After you've read it to the end, explain to me how it doesn't support my initial charge that:
July 5th, 2008 at 11:35 am
In addition to Rice's assertion that Iraq was not a threat, here's Powell, early 2001:
We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction...And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction.
Yes, Powell does indicate that he believes that the Iraqis are pursuing WMD programs, but they have not been successful.
So in early 2001 Iraq was not a serious threat to the U.S., not to mention its neighbors.
Yet less than a year later, we had to destroy them.
I've made reference to this before, but just now I realized that Powell talked about the President being in on the conversations about the sanctions, and apparently agreeing with everything that Powell said (I'll post the link below to a complete transcript).
So we have two possibilities: the intelligence gathered that led the President and Powell to agree that Iraq was not a threat was either seriously flawed, or the intelligence that led us to invade a sovereign country that was no threat to us was flawed (or manipulated).
However, as it turns out, Powell was right when he made those statements in 2001. I also remind our friend Backup that Bush ordered the weapons inspectors out of Iraq only hours prior to our invasion, (and that it was not Saddam that kicked them out, as war supporters would have us believe), and they had not had the time to finish their tasks. Had they finished, we very likely wouldn't be in the damned mess we are in today.
This may not be a complete link; I'll try to leave out the http://www because TP likes to flag my posts as "awaiting moderation" when they contain links:
thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
July 5th, 2008 at 12:07 pmAfter you’ve read it to the end, explain to me how it doesn’t support my initial charge that:
A lot of people that oppose the war in Iraq today, believed that Saddam was a serious threat that needed to be dealt with:
But not with military force - a point you left out, and still refuse to acknowledge. That's intellectual dishonestly, and if you don't know it, you should.
See what I mean folks? He tries to massage old, out of context quotes, and when the evidence is presented to him that he substantively lied (a lie of omission), he refuses to apologize or even acknowledge any wrong doing. Isn't he the archetypical republican/conservative stooge?
July 5th, 2008 at 12:18 pmI also wonder if Mr. Backup would like to enlighten us as to which freedoms we will lose if terrorists strike our land again. Many war supporters keep scaring us with this crap.
Can you also tell us which freedoms you have already lost as a result of the two attacks on the WTC buildings? Not saying that you agree with this, Backup...I'm only asking for your opinion.
Oh, and which group do you think we are at most risk from: terrorists flooding our land and attacking us, or our own fellow Americans shooting up our schools, our malls, and our workplaces? I think the evidence is highly in favor of the latter group. Wouldn't you agree? From just a quick query of my memory, I'd say I can easily and quickly point out at least 3 events where our fellow Americans have been killed in public places in the past year alone. Now...how many successful terrorist attacks have we seen in the same timeframe?
July 5th, 2008 at 12:19 pmBad Eye Says:
I also wonder if Mr. Backup would like to enlighten us as to which freedoms we will lose if terrorists strike our land again.
Prepare, for a blizzard of out-of-context quotes. And his links don't always say, what he claims he does, so caveat emptor, squared.
July 5th, 2008 at 12:22 pmThe Evil Neo-con Rice, Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc. all knew Iraq had NO WMD and NO ties to al Qaida.
They went in for the oil. $$$
EVERY OFFICIAL REPORT AND Tyler Drumheller , THE HEAD OF THE CIA IN EUROPE WHO WAS PAID TO KNOW CONFIRM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WAR CRIMINAL AND LIARS!
ANY DOUBTS, WATCH THE VIDEO LIVE ON 60 MINUTES at link below...
"(CBS) When no weapons of mass destruction surfaced in Iraq, President Bush insisted that all those WMD claims before the war were the result of faulty intelligence. But a former top CIA official, Tyler Drumheller — a 26-year veteran of the agency — has decided to do something CIA officials at his level almost never do: Speak out.
He tells correspondent Ed Bradley the real failure was not in the intelligence community but in the White House. He says he saw how the Bush administration, time and again, welcomed intelligence that fit the president's determination to go to war and turned a blind eye to intelligence that did not. "
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml
"Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida"
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Owner/Desktop/iraq%20wmd/29959.html
"Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq"
July 5th, 2008 at 12:31 pmfile:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Owner/Desktop/iraq%20wmd/CNN.com%20-%20Report%20%20No%20WMD%20stockpiles%20in%20Iraq%20-%20Oct%207,%202004.htm
Gregor. I've looked at your post in #96 again. Although I still believe that technically the quotes back up my statement:
I also see from your post (#96) that the quotes from 1998 and the quotes used in the context of opposing war run counter to the thrust of my post (#46).
I concede the point.
July 5th, 2008 at 12:32 pmBarfly:
Heh! I can hardly wait!
July 5th, 2008 at 12:32 pm"he full report is available as two large .pdf files here and here. Rockefeller summarized its findings as follows:
The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:
• Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
• Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
• Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
• Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
• The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
• The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed."
July 5th, 2008 at 12:37 pmfile:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Owner/Desktop/iraq%20wmd/Intelligence_community_didnt_vet_Cheney_Bush_0605.html
barfly. Please explain to me how you can have a lie of omission without an omission?
Do me a favor and post the portion of the link that I omitted.
July 5th, 2008 at 1:19 pmDo me a favor and post the portion of the link that I omitted.
Strawman. I said you omitted mention of the disclaimer, that was down further on the page. That is the lie by omission, because the disclaimer specifically says there is no context given for the quotes. Why is it so difficult for you to admit it? You're only digging the hole deeper, and showing how little you care for honest debate. You're a fraud, and if you won't admit it, expect me to continue to point it out.
How's that dead chicken smelling today? Ripe enough yet?
July 5th, 2008 at 2:43 pmRice is one of very few to have lasted seven-plus years in the Bush Administration, which shows her to have a complete lack of morality and consciousness. She is an empty person, soulless. Why people give her any respect is beyond me. Rice is a very weak Secretary of State, laughably bad, having contributed nothing, nada, zilch except the promotion of destructive and divisiveness. She is a big ZERO and she has about as much impact in the world scene as a cockroach.
July 5th, 2008 at 3:25 pmRice is a War Criminal and a Pathological Liar.
July 5th, 2008 at 3:40 pmDear Condi!
July 5th, 2008 at 8:58 pmYou cannot be selectively proud. This betrayal belongs to you and your colleagues in its entirety. If the deaths of millions of innocents makes you proud then the news that you are a monster is not really new.
Still conflating 9-11 and Saddam Hussein! Shameless monsters. And that common working class Americans line up proudly to give their sons bodies to these butchers is truely remarkable, and disgusting.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:19 pmWell folks, this is Condoleeza Rice. This former oil executive and the worse Secretary of State we ever had is a match for the worse President. When she was head of the NSA for awhile, she left it in shambles and morale almost totally gone. But with all that illegal spying, they soon felt better.
Of course she's proud of it. What else would anyone else expect? Like most of the neocons she is without conscience and totally without any historical perspective. Her morally muffled conscience accounts for her pride. She like the others has no sense of shame. She is able to get those words out through the space in her teeth and the hole in her head.
July 6th, 2008 at 1:11 amGod what trash she is.
The girl is clearly in denial. If she acknowledged right now that the policies that she has "executed" thus far are wrong, what does that say about her and this administration? Clearly her legacy is to go down blindly with these nitwits that she has followed into the dumpster of history!!
July 6th, 2008 at 11:11 amHere is another decision Rice is proud of as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101202485.html?hpid=topnews
Rice has been at the heart of so much that has gone wrong in not only America, but the world. She has been a complete disaster; one of Bush's primary enablers -- along with Dick Cheney.
July 6th, 2008 at 1:14 pmShe is the textbook definition of "stupid whore".
July 7th, 2008 at 8:32 amAnother 911 War Criminal for the Hague if you ask me.
911=inside job
July 7th, 2008 at 9:30 am