Posted on 06/20/2014 9:27:12 PM PDT by boycott
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) wants to turn the tables on those who are questioning President Barack Obama’s handling of the draw down of troops in Iraq.
In an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” that will air Sunday, when host David Gregory asked Paul if he found former Vice President Dick Cheney to be a credible critic of the president, Paul responded “I think the same questions could be asked of those who supported the Iraq War. You know, were they right in their predictions? Were there weapons of mass destruction there? Was the war won in 2005, when many of those people said it was won?”
Paul’s response comes after Cheney and his daughter Liz published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal criticizing the president for the ongoing conflict in Iraq where militants have begun to take over some of the country’s largest cities.
“Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many,” the article said. “Too many times to count, Mr. Obama has told us he is ‘ending’ the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — as though wishing [makes] it so.”
Instead of placing blame on the president, Paul suggested that blame for the unrest in the Middle East can be placed elsewhere.
“I don’t blame President Obama,” Paul said. “Has he really got the solution? Maybe there is no solution. But I do blame those who are for the Iraq War for emboldening Iran. These are the same people now who are petrified of what Iran may become, and I understand some of their worry”
Yep — see Post #100 for Cheney’s infamous “pieces of Iraq” interview.
Harsh? Yup. Also true.
This.
In the meantime we pretend to fight a "war on terror", like we fight a "war on poverty" and a "war on drugs".
This even after ISIS finds Saddam’s missing WMD’s that will probably be used to make Baghdad surrender? How very ironic.
Paul is an ass. This is Obama’s fault, through and through.
Just as I had an instant revulsion for The One when he had his hands folded during the playing of our national anthem, I’ve always felt it weird the way Rand Paul walks down Senate corridors with his hands behind his back like he was a little Napoleon.
Body mannerisms often tell you all you need to know.
you say Rand is “nuts”
I’d say it was “nuts” to invade Iraq. Somebody has to be willfully blind, at this point, to say the invasion was jjustified, made sense, and did more good than harm.
True conservatism is about honesty and accountability, Dick Cheney got us into Iraq - it’s dishonest to say otherwise, and he should be held accountable for his policy decisions.
“Iraq was a lot safer when W left”
Safer than when? Not safer than before we invaded. Our invasion triggered a Shia=Sunni civil war. And it led to a Shia government that allied with Iran.
That’s the legacy of Bush-Cheney on Iraq. Unfortunately, a lot of freepers can’t handle the truth
It’s the fault of Bush, Cheney, and Obama, through and through.
Our invasion triggered a civil war between Shias and Sunnis, and ultimately brought the Shia’s to power. They allied with Iran (and that happened well before Bush left offfice). They excluded the Sunnis from government, and the Sunnis have now responded by re-igniting the civil war.
The “nut bags” are the folks who still think it was smart to invade Iraq - against the evidence.
1. We deposed a dictator who had kept the Islamists in prison or brutally oppressed.
2. With the dictator removed, a civil war between Islamist shias and sunnis broke out.
3. A shia government was ultimately established, and it became the closest ally to IRAN. (While Bush was still president, remember).
4. That shia government - that we put in place - utterly excluded sunnis from power, and now they’ve responded by re-starting the civil war.
5. The government - that we put in power, through the loss of 4500 Americans - is still IRan’s closest ally, and they’ve called on Iran to help their side in the civil war.
To sum up: It’s “nuts” to still argue that Bush-Cheney invasion of Iraq was smart, and the $1 trillion was well spent (borrowed from China, by the way), and the thousands of dead or crippled American military was “worth” it.
Instead of holding Bush and Cheney to account for this disaster, - their disaster - so many freepers are reverting to Bushbot mode. It’s sad. You’ll also be loyal cheerleaders for Jeb when he runs. The Bushes can always count on the sheeple suckers in the conservative rank and file, even though they govern like liberals, at home and abroad.
Iran to Bush-Cheney: “Thanks for invading Iraq, toppling our enemy Saddam, and installing a Shiite government that’s our biggest ally! We agree with you that Rand Paul is a bad man for criticizing this noble achievement!”
We need a strong man in Iraq, a foe of Islamists and of Iran, who will put these Islamists in their place so there won’t be any more civil war between Shias and Sunnis, and so that Iraq won’t be allied with Iran any more,
Hey, I know just that guy. His name is Saddam, let’s get him on the phone, see if he’s available.
Oh, wait, Bush-Cheney spent $1 trillion (borrowed from China, growing our debt massively), and 4500 American lives, to oust him and put him six feet under. Sorry, forgot about that.
For another 50-60 years do not bother trying to install democracy in the middle-east. May be by then all the adults in charge will be dead and the new generation exposed to Facebook & twitter will think different. Just may be.
The reason is it has everything to do with religion of Islam which as you correctly say is antithesis of democracy. India was never a democracy before 1947, it was ruled by kingdoms since 4000 years ago. But now it is the worlds largest democracy for continuous 67 years without military coup’s or other “benevolent” dictators. Why? Because 85% of Indians are not Muslims.
Bush/Cheney never lived in any Muslim countries, they relied on expatriates from Iraq who told them Iraqi’s will welcome them with flowers as liberators. Next time ask more people who are actually living in Muslim countries. Heck even I knew Iraq would not turn democratic for 50 years minimum.
As for 911, none of the terrorists had origins in Iraq. Bush was worried about chemical WMD’s Saddam had already used and the yellow cake transactions. But still there was zero evidence Saddam had plans to attack USA. His main goal was to counter-balance his arch enemy, Iran.
OK, so Bush/Cheney did decide to invade Iraq. Saddam was ousted. If they stopped there and left, that would have been not so bad. But then we spent Billions in nation building and attempt to democratize Iraq. That was utter waste of blood and treasure.
Please, future presidents, do not waste any more blood and treasure trying to democratize any Muslim country for 50 more years.
I am impressed with your analysis of Iraq war history and causes and results. Please also read my post #112.
Thank you for digging up that video of Cheney circa 1994.
He was correct in 1994 as history has now proved, and horribly wrong as the moving force behind Iraq invasion circa 2003.
I agree we can’t ‘leave them alone’ per se. And for the reasons you listed. On the other hand (she wore a glove...) we have to make a decision as a somewhat civilized planet.
Now of course the planet wants to pretend as it has been that the ROP really is peaceful but we all know they arent. The leaders know they arent. The leadership of the liberals certainly know it which is why they use them as a tool to keep their own hands ‘clean’. The leadership knows the people know and vice versa.
EVERYBODY KNOWS that everybody knows. Almost Rumsfeldian.
And this speaks directly to your post Ansel, about the ‘unspeakables’. Everyone knows but refuse to speak up lest they be excommed for their blasphemy. This will continue until several American/Russian/Chinese/Euro cities are blasted and smoking hulks. Because each country will scream about Iraq wars and Bush and kick the can as a power play against the attacked country of the hour. The liberals will of course foment more war by their psuedo pacifist BS while letting the Muzzies do their dirty work and people will die.
So what to do? Well as you said, we cannot simply leave them to their devices as their devices are highly explosive. But we can’t eradicate them because you’ll never get the planet to go along with it. And honestly, any quarantine agreed to by a collection of states would be quickly undermined by several of the ‘guard’ states as all such small scale Middle East blockades have been thusfar.
So we are going to die. For a long time. We are going to constantly make excuses and fight amongst our selves/with liberals and the muzzies, cavemen with guns they are, will continue to to prove our mental and ‘spiritual’ weakness simply by conducting business as usual.
Ultimately I forsee a scenario very much like Dan Simmons Time Traveler story which every freeper should read. I have recommended it for a long time now.
http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_04.htm
I really don’t think we turn this around until we as a people, meaning all the non Muslims do one simple thing. And until we do that one simple thing there will be terror and death and hand wringing and civil wars over it and all the doom and gloom bad things one would imagine. What is it?
We need to believe what they say when they say we either surrender and convert or die.
Thats all it will take. When people ...believe... the Muslims more than the liberals, we will turn it around and fast. On every street in every city. When we have felt enough pain and death, and start kicking ourselves in the ass for our stupidity, When we do to the liberals what they do to us, muslims will be eradicated from non Muslim lands and terminated with extreme prejudice when they stick their nose NEAR their borders.
Within those borders it WILL look like the 7th century they are fond of because it will have been blasted back to the 7th century during the years or decades of actual WW1 style trench war that will occur prior.
TLDR version: Dealing with Muslims in the civilized sense is ultimately a losing proposition as is trying to teach pigs ballet. One is not capable of the other. It has always been so and always will be so. Popes knew this. Kings knew this. Churchill knew this. Centuries of inbreeding have not left us with a sane debate partner and the cult/war plan of Islam seals the deal.
>> that are bizarre.
He has a weak core.
>> Now of course the planet wants to pretend as it has been that the ROP really is peaceful but we all know they arent.
Islam is a war plan.
Our mistake was pulling out, a mistake that you support Obama on.
We need to support and introduce civilizing and modernizing forces and trends and elements into the closed and isolated Middle East.
To make their walls start to crumble from within.
never said any of THAT did I William? The election of Malaki allowed theShit to hit the fan. I t is a religi0ous conflict but we were making progress.
BTW do you like leaders who drop people off of 3rd floor stories and put them in wood chippers for clean up while they brutally kill and and name 3000 Americans?
Saddam didn’t have anything to do with 9-11. If you have evidence otherwise, you better let George Bush and Dick Cheney know, because they’ve both said Saddam wasn’t involved; same thing the 9-11 commission said.
our invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and stupid. we dislodged a dictator who kept the terrrorists in check, and who was a foe of Iran. We installed a government that is pro-Iran, and so weak that the terrorists are running wild throughout the country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.