Rice: there were too many questions about Saddam's WMD program

[sabra]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610130001

<snip>

From the October 10 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

BLITZER: You know a lot of analysts believe the U.S. has been weakened in dealing with North Korea and Iran by its involvement in Iraq.

RICE: I just don't understand this argument. The United States is quite capable of taking care of several problems simultaneously. Iraq is -- was a desire to finally deal with a threat that had been there for too long. Too many Security Council resolutions violated. Too many unanswered questions about his weapons of mass destruction program. Too much ambition to dominate the region. Too many wars launched by this dictator. Too much harshness against his own people, including mass graves. It was time to deal with Saddam Hussein.

BLITZER: I'll leave -- we're out of time, but I'll leave you with one email we got from Scott Vanderbosch in Minnesota. He lost a son in Iraq. He said -- he wrote to us this. He said, "My son Jake died in Iraq on October 3rd, 2005. When will you finally admit that you were wrong going to Iraq and pull out? Why not try to save some American lives?"

RICE: Wolf, nobody can ever make up for the personal sacrifice of a father of his son. And all you can do is to mourn that sacrifice. We also know that nothing of value is ever won without sacrifice. And the United States has had to, throughout its history and especially through its postwar history, to sacrifice when peace and security, and indeed freedom, were on the line.

Iraq was a threat. In the post-September 11th environment, it was a threat that needed to be dealt with. Yes, it's extremely difficult helping a country come to a democratic future that has never had that experience. But an Iraq that is secure, an Iraq that is democratic, an Iraq that is able to solve its problems through politics will be a centerpiece of a different kind of Middle East.

[C_U_L8R]

1. there are a lot of questions about Condi too.

hmmmm.. shall we jump to conclusions as well???

[aquart]

2. Hang her.

We are way too lenient with monsters.

[MadMaddie]

3. It's really easy for this * cabal to

<snip>
We also know that nothing of value is ever won without sacrifice.
<snip>

When they have no real skin in the war....

[leftofthedial]

4. this stink-eyed rat needs to be removed from any position

of authority

why would any respectable journalist still want to interview her?

[acmavm]

5. Has Condi ever had to 'sacrifice' in her worthless life?

I doubt it. No more than blivet** or Cheney or the rest of that bunch of monied trash.

[Garbo 2004]

6. Notice how she fails to mention the UN inspectors were in Iraq, finding

nothing. Notice how they never mention that or that Bush told them to leave since the bombing was going to commence.

[Zenlitened]

7. Plenty of answers forthcoming, too. Plenty of ways to get the answers....

... without throwing the huge weight of America's military at the issue, destroying our status and leadership in the world in the process.

But you and your PNAC neo-con delusionally ignorant pals didn't want to hear any of that, did you, Condi?

Arrogance, ignorance and a willingness to bet others' live on the chance to score some $$$. What poison.

Really, clap the whole damned bunch of them in irons and throw 'em down a hole. We'll get to their trial once some of the damage they've done has been repaired.

So it may be a while. :grr:

[Johonny]

8. United States is quite capable

Republicans on the other hand haven't shown this ability at all. Unless she means they can talk about flag burning in the same speech about banning gay marriage.

I love how dealing with Iraq means having to go to war. If anything has been proven in the last 3+ years is we did have to deal with Iraq, but clearly we did not have to invade Iraq. If she is too ignorant to conclude what is obvious to anyone with half a wit then she should resign now. They paid waaaay too much attention to imaginary problems I Iraq and too little time to the real threats of North Korea and now it’s out there for everyone to see.

[David Zephyr]

9. Condi "Musrhroom Cloud Over American Cities" Rice.

What a vile woman she is.

[madokie]

10. and therein is enough evidence to have her commited, she's nuts

as nutty as her hus'
talk about two peas in a pod

[truebrit71]

11. She is completely out of her tiny, fucking mind...

Batshit crazy....

[silko]

12. Bullshit. Saddam was no threat to anyone other than to

its own population and even then you didn't have to wonder whether you'd be blown up at the next corner when you go shopping. With 650,000 Iraqis dead since the war even that argument is a joke.

And what does that mean "in the post 9/11 environment"? After 9/11 you have to invade Iraq otherwise there would be another 9/11? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or al Qaeda and there were other perceived threats out there for quite some times, from North Korea and Iran Lybia, Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon. So why invade Iraq of all places? How does that follow from 9/11? In no way.

[blm]

13. And the ANSWERS were given to you by the WEAPON INSPECTORS, you liar.

.

[Tom Joad]

14. Bush Boys supported arming Saddam for some of his wars.

http://tomjoad.org/pipes.htm

Daniel Pipes was appointed by President Bush during the Summer Congressional recess in August 2003 (to avoid a problem with Congress, why should Bush's appointments be questioned by anyone?) to the the board of United States Institute of Peace, a Congressionally sponsored think tank dedicated to "the peaceful resolution of international conflicts." He served there until the end of 2004. There is more than a little irony in this. He sees no problem that cannot be solved by militarism. For example, in looking at the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, he has stated that "What war had achieved for Israel," Pipes explained at a Zionist conference in Washington DC, "diplomacy has undone." Nothing short of total military victory will do.

"Conditions of peace have, by and large, been created through military victory"-- Daniel Pipes

So it should really come as no surprise that Pipes, whose hatred of Arab and Muslim people is legendary, would give his backing for military aid to the Iraq regime of Saddam Hussein, back when the Iraqi President was "gassing his own people" (killing Iranians and Kurds). After all, it was a military option. And for Pipes, any military option must be attempted before any alternative is even considered. This is keeping with the Pipes motto of "Give War a Chance!".

So it is in the interest of our understanding of this man, and the thinking of President Bush Jr. and those, like American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the currently misnamed Anti-Defamation League, that support this extremist, that Pipes' article, which appeared in The New Republic on April 27, 1987 is presented.

There is a copy of the new republic article at above link.

[sinkingfeeling]

15. And, Iraq might get there in another 50 years or so. But keep in mind,

Condi, it probably would have gotten there a hell of a lot sooner without the US invasion and occupation. Name one country that has become a 'democracy' at the point of a gun.

[sandnsea]

16. That's why we voted to put inspectors back in

To find out whether Iraq was still a threat or not. It wasn't. Too bad we didn't just expose his weakness so the people could claim their country themselves. But then, that was never the plan anyway.