Story Comments

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

How about how they "accidentally" have called Obama OSAMA multiple times? How about the "terrorist fist bump" crap? They are so incredibly biased, I can't believe how anyone with half a brain in their head would think any different.

I did GREATLY enjoy watching Bill Clinton SPANK Chris Wallace on Fox News, though.

"So you did Fox's bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me. ... And you've got that little smirk on your face and you think you're so clever."

7 Replies

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

I love that you are defending the "racist" rap of Fox News by trying to equate Obama to Bin Laden.

That's some beautiful hypocrisy.

8 Replies

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

Great way to stay on topic......
I'm not even sure HOW your reply is related to mine....
Is the neo-Con doctrine "not making sense"?

7 Replies

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

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:
"We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

1 Reply

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

The quotes to end all quotes:

I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we we're going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.
-**** Cheney, At the Washington Institute's Soref Symposium, April 29, 1991

And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.... Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq.
- **** Cheney, August 1992, at the Discovery Institute in Seattle

Because, if we'd gone to Baghdad, we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody with us. It would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq.... Once you got to Iraq, and took it over, and took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place?... If you take down the central government of Iraq, you can easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. It's a quagmire if you go that far. The question for the President, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad and took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein was, How many additional dead Americans was Saddam worth. And our judgment was, Not very many, and I think we got it right.
-**** Cheney, on not pushing on to Baghdad during the first Gulf War; C-SPAN 4-14-94

8 Replies

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

piling on.....

Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998): While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome

1 Reply