Ned Lamont, the far-left kook running against Joe Lieberman in this year’s Connecticut Senate race appeared on Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report. Lamont is backed by crazy liberals like the anti-Semitic Daily Kos, Fire Dog Lake, and many other blogs.
Lamont went on one of his blame Bush, blame America rants on today’s show. This time he is blaming the invasion of Iraq on the current Middle East crisis and Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
NED LAMONT: No great difference, no sir.Okay. Now I will say though when it comes to Israel, the invasion of Iraq has done nothing for Israel security, it has emboldened Iran and an emboldened Iran makes Israel more vulnerable. We took our eye off the ball when U.S. Should have played its role as a peacekeeper that is one of the reasons we have the trouble in Israel today.
PREVIOUS:
Markos “Screw Them” Zuinga Promotes Lamont
Michelle Malkin linked with Netroots vs. Rightroots...
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register to comment here.
3:12 pm [ Quote ]
I don’t much about this guy, but based on this statement, you should surely know that he is far from being the only one who believes the US invasion of Iraq has lead to LESS stability in the middle east. This is not “blaming America first”, this is pointing out something that to many analysts of the region is simple fact.
3:27 pm [ Quote ]
There is no way that Iran would have had a more positive attitude towards Israel’s existence if we hadn’t destroyed Saddam. Iran hates Israel and wants it annihilated. Iraq doesn’t change that one way or the other.
3:37 pm [ Quote ]
As if this all started a couple years ago. The problem is actually the opposite, we weren’t forceful enough. What the left doesn’t understand is that this is not something you can “blame” on anyone. The Left LOVES to assign blame.
The reason we are dealing with the types of terror states and terrorists organizations is because they are extremists who only want to kill and conquer.
Iran wanted Israel dead 5 years ago, 15 years ago and 50 years ago. It makes no difference if the U.S. invades Iraq, North Korea, Cuba and Mexico.
Hezbollah and Iran want Israel to cease to exists. So if you want to assign blame, blame the extremists nuts who have taken a religion and a region hostage with their will to destroy Israel.
3:43 pm [ Quote ]
There is no way that Iran would have had a more positive attitude towards Israel’s existence if we hadn’t destroyed Saddam. Iran hates Israel and wants it annihilated. Iraq doesn’t change that one way or the other.
Iran’s belief that Saddam had WMDs was the best deterrent to keep Iran in place.
What Lamont is saying here is only stating the obvious. The Bush administration has been so busy with the Iraq mess they haven’t been able to focus on anything else—they want our European allies to deal with Iran and our Asian allies to deal with North Korea. The fact we no longer have any foreign policy doesn’t help.
Since the Camp David Peace Accords—I can’t remember going a month without some major development in US involvement in the Mideast peace process. When was the last time you even heard the “Roadmap to Peace”—Bush’s long defunct policy—even mentioned?
3:48 pm [ Quote ]
I know nothing about Lamont…But any sane thinking person would say…The invasion of Iraq was an insane/unneeded war that has caused nothing but hostility throughout the Middle East.
3:49 pm [ Quote ]
Why shouldn’t the European allies and Asia do something. Why is it always up to us. These people leach off of our power instead of dealing with problems themselves. I’m tired of Europe and their asinine attitude towards us. I have no respect for these countries. Let them put in their fair share for once.
3:54 pm [ Quote ]
Does Ned Lamont realize he’s not running against George W. Bush?
3:56 pm [ Quote ]
The roadmap has only to do with the Pallies and Israel. Not Iran, not Iraq, not Lebanon. And when Hamas was elected it said itself, there is no road map as far as they were concerned. The roadmap failed simply because you can not reason with a death cult. I mean if they believe they are going to heaven and get anything they want by killing others, and have no compasson at all, what is going to change their minds?
And the diplomacy that worked on Gaddafi Stick was called Thunder over Baghdad.
And Bush is not wanting our Asian allies to take over on the DPRK, they are not all our allies
but seriously, he wants more countries to be at the talks, because he is not going to do what has been done before and let it trun into a one on one blackmail session.
3:56 pm [ Quote ]
I know nothing about Lamont…But any sane thinking person would say…The invasion of Iraq was an insane/unneeded war that has caused nothing but hostility throughout the Middle East.
Right. Cuz we all know that there was no hostility in the Middle East prior to the Iraq war. I mean, it’s not like Iran held a bunch of people hostage or has threatened to push Isreal into the sea or anything.
It’s all the U.S’s fault.
3:58 pm [ Quote ]
Tom, Lieberman told Lamebot that he needs to realize that George Bush isn’t running again and he needs to get the guts to run against him(Lieberman)
4:11 pm [ Quote ]
Well this does fit well into Kooky Kos’ world.
Lieberman is a Jew…
Kos hates Jews..
Kos supports anti-Lieberman.
Kos-Land, Kos-Land uber alles…
Uber alles..
I can’t wait until we start having those huge stadium rallies like we used to in the 30’s!
4:21 pm [ Quote ]
From the Programmer’s Mouth: How the 2000 Election Was Fixed
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5173816754727816515&hl=en
Everyone should watch this. It could be a democrat stealing the elections this time. Rupert murdoch (owner of fox news) is supporting hillary.
4:22 pm [ Quote ]
LAMONT: We took our eye off the ball when U.S. Should have played its role as a peacekeeper that is one of the reasons we have the trouble in Israel today.
Uh, like Jimmah was a peacekeeper with Sadat and Begin? Like Clinton was a peacekeeper with his best pal Arafat? Like Albright (and Jimmah too) bartered a peaceful coexistence with Kim Jong Ill?
Ah yes, peacekeeping has paid great dividends over the years. The violence and hatred had just about dissipated until that war-mongerer Bush came along. That darn Bush!
Arabs in the Middle East hate Jews, always have, and always will. The hatred has been going on for two millennium. The Arabs want to drive all the Jews into the sea and wipe Israel off the face of this earth. The Israelis want to live in peace and be left alone. Now there my friends is a quagmire!
Libs think you can change 2000 years of hatred in the blink of an eye, if we could only get them to play nicey-nice.
Such foolishness.
The Dems in Connecticut should wise up and stick with that guy who was their party’s choice for VP a few short years ago. He’ll win anyway, and then the Dems will have that deer in the headlights look again, saying “Wha happened?”
4:34 pm [ Quote ]
LAMONT: We took our eye off the ball when U.S. Should have played its role as a peacekeeper that is one of the reasons we have the trouble in Israel today.
Uh, like Jimmah was a peacekeeper with Sadat and Begin? Like Clinton was a peacekeeper with his best pal Arafat? Like Albright (and Jimmah too) bartered a peaceful coexistence with Kim Jong Ill?
Ah yes, peacekeeping has paid great dividends over the years. The violence and hatred had just about dissipated until that war-mongerer Bush came along. That darn Bush!
Arabs in the Middle East hate Jews, always have, and always will. The hatred has been going on for two millennium. The Arabs want to drive all the Jews into the sea and wipe Israel off the face of this earth. The Israelis want to live in peace and be left alone. Now there my friends is a quagmire!
Libs think you can change 2000 years of hatred in the blink of an eye, if we could only get them to play nicey-nice.
Such foolishness.
The Dems in Connecticut should wise up and stick with that guy who was their party’s choice for VP a few short years ago. He’ll win anyway, and then the Dems will have that deer in the headlights look again, saying “Wha happened?”
Great points. Couldn’t agree with you more.
Ned Lamont is the newcomer who has that same message that Kerry brought to the table. “I don’t have a plan laid out, but we need a change”. That could be the DNCs mantra “no plans but hey, how about a change”.
Connecticut; wise up and stick with Joe cuz Ned is clueless in Greenwich.
5:26 pm [ Quote ]
From the Programmer’s Mouth: How the 2000 Election Was Fixed
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5173816754727816515&hl=en
Everyone should watch this. It could be a democrat stealing the elections this time. Rupert murdoch (owner of fox news) is supporting hillary.
Not unlike everything else you say on these threads, you are dead wrong once again.
Rupert Murdoch is NOT supporting Hillary Clinton. He supports John McCain, according to numerous sources of every political landscape:
http://www.nysun.com/article/36565
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/07/24/murdoch-says-hes-more-li_n_25671.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13976251/
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/7/22/171015.shtml?s=po
Secondly, what a wonderful and completely UN-biased source for information! The submitter of that video was a guy who created a website by the name of “Buck Fush.com”.
That’s proof enough for me!
Get over it.
The Democrats LOST.
Perhaps you should focus on winning the election in 2008 instead of crying and making up a bunch of unsubstantiated BS.
The George W. Bush would have never become President if Al Gore had just won his own home state of Tennessee.
Gore can’t blame that on Bush, but I’m sure he’ll try.
5:37 pm [ Quote ]
From the Programmer’s Mouth: How the 2000 Election Was Fixed
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5173816754727816515&hl=en
Everyone should watch this. It could be a democrat stealing the elections this time. Rupert murdoch (owner of fox news) is supporting hillary.
What exactly does your conspiracy theories propaganda have anything to do with the topic at hand?
Also, not unlike everything else you say, you are dead wrong once again.
Rupert Murdoch is NOT supporting Hillary Clinton. He supports John McCain, according to numerous sources of every political landscape:
http://www.nysun.com/article/36565
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/07/24/murdoch-says-hes-more-li_n_25671.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13976251/
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/7/22/171015.shtml?s=po
Thirdly, what a wonderful and completely UN-biased source for information! The submitter of that video was a guy who created a website by the name of “Buck Fush.com”.
That’s proof enough for me!
Get over it.
The Democrats LOST.
Perhaps you should focus on winning the election in 2008 instead of crying and making up a bunch of unsubstantiated BS.
The George W. Bush would have never become President if Al Gore had just won his own home state of Tennessee.
Gore can’t blame that on Bush, but I’m sure he’ll try.
5:41 pm [ Quote ]
Wait…let me try to get this straight, just so I can understand the liberal thinking process:
Unilateral action against Iraq = bad
Unilateral action against Iran = good
Conversely:
Multilateral action against Iraq = good
Multilateral action against Iran = bad
Mix them all up for North Korea since the liberal position changes day to day.
Ok…everyone understand now?
5:43 pm [ Quote ]
Iran’s belief that Saddam had WMDs was the best deterrent to keep Iran in place.
Saddam actually having WMD and using them would definitely have been a deterrant, not only to Iran but also everyone else.
Joy, what a nice, stable middle-east we would have had.
6:11 pm [ Quote ]
test
6:12 pm [ Quote ]
From the Programmer’s Mouth: How the 2000 Election Was Fixed
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5173816754727816515&hl=en
Everyone should watch this. It could be a democrat stealing the elections this time. Rupert murdoch (owner of fox news) is supporting hillary.
What exactly does your conspiracy propaganda have anything to do with the topic at hand?
Haven’t you also claimed that Bush orchestrated 9/11?
Also, not unlike everything else you say, you are dead wrong once again on Rupert Murdoch.
Rupert Murdoch is NOT supporting Hillary Clinton. He supports John McCain, according to numerous sources of every political landscape:
http://www.nysun.com/article/36565
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/07/24/murdoch-says-hes-more-li_n_25671.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13976251/
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/7/22/171015.shtml?s=po
Thirdly, what a wonderful and completely UN-biased source for information! The submitter of that video was a guy who created a website by the name of “Buck Fush.com”.
That’s proof enough for me!
Get over it.
The Democrats LOST.
Perhaps you should focus on winning the election in 2008 instead of crying and making up a bunch of unsubstantiated BS.
The George W. Bush would have never become President if Al Gore had just won his own home state of Tennessee.
Gore can’t blame that on Bush, but I’m sure he’ll try.
6:13 pm [ Quote ]
Rob:
What exactly does your conspiracy propaganda have anything to do with the topic at hand?
Haven’t you also claimed that Bush orchestrated 9/11?
Also, not unlike everything else you say, you are dead wrong once again on Rupert Murdoch.
Rupert Murdoch is NOT supporting Hillary Clinton. He supports John McCain, according to numerous sources of every political landscape:
http://www.nysun.com/article/36565
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/07/24/murdoch-says-hes-more-li_n_25671.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13976251/
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/7/22/171015.shtml?s=po
Thirdly, what a wonderful and completely UN-biased source for information! The submitter of that video was a guy who created a website by the name of “Buck Fush.com”.
That’s proof enough for me!
Get over it.
The Democrats LOST.
Perhaps you should focus on winning the election in 2008 instead of crying and making up a bunch of unsubstantiated BS.
The George W. Bush would have never become President if Al Gore had just won his own home state of Tennessee.
Gore can’t blame that on Bush, but I’m sure he’ll try.
6:17 pm [ Quote ]
Rob:
What exactly does your conspiracy propaganda have anything to do with the topic at hand?
Haven’t you also claimed that Bush orchestrated 9/11?
Also, not unlike everything else you say, you are dead wrong once again on Rupert Murdoch.
Rupert Murdoch is NOT supporting Hillary Clinton. He supports John McCain, according to numerous sources of every political landscape:
http://www.nysun.com/article/36565
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/07/24/murdoch-says-hes-more-li_n_25671.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13976251/
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/7/22/171015.shtml?s=po
6:21 pm [ Quote ]
If they elect this fool over tried and true Joe it will be a sad day. Just 6 years ago they loved Joe, now he goes home and pulls knives out of his back put there by his own party for no good reason.
6:31 pm [ Quote ]
Lamont only shows himself and those Democrats who agree with him unable to deal with the world as it is and to be unfit for governing responsibility.
The removal of Saddam from power did not lead to a more unstable MIddle East. The present situation reflects how we are far better off with Saddam out of power. Before Saddam was removed, he had violated 17 UN arms control resolutions; what does it mean to be a “peacemaker” in the face of Saddam thiumbing his nose at the international community? And where do you think Saddam would be today if he had not been removed from power? Among other thngs, he would have been in a position to shoot at Israel right now Scud missles armed with chemicals. Instead, Iraq is no military threat to Israel and has a democratic government operating uner a democratically adopted written Constitution—which provides an alternative modeal for the Middle East as opposed to the radical Islamists. Furthermore, Saddam government documents show that he had established a line of cooperation with al Qaeda; what makes anyone think that he woud not have reached an accord with Iran for the sake of Islamic unity?
It is ridiculous to say, as Lamont does, that the removal of Saddam emboldened Iran and Hezbollah. They have needed nothing to embolden them: in 1979, Iranian group with Iranian government support held our diplomats in captivity for 444 days, and in 1983, a suicide bomber killed over 22 of our Marines in Lebanon. That aggressiveness continues to the present day: the Iranians just rejected the latest UN resolution seeking the stopping of its nuclear program, and the Iranian president has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel.
6:52 pm [ Quote ]
It is ridiculous in the extreme to come to any judgments about the impact of the war in Iraq upon Iran and the Middle East crisis, that is, until we have the perspective of history. None of these things are clear and they involve subjective analysis and almost without exception partisan bias.
8:46 pm [ Quote ]
Lamont is just feeding the base he needs to win, nothing more.
All the tired, old talking points that the left lost with last election are being resurrected for the Moonbats© which now constitute the dem base.
Lamont is an election entreprenuer, unfortunately he sounds like a typical lib cardboard cutout. Nothing new here, boring old tripe.
9:10 pm [ Quote ]
It is ridiculous in the extreme to come to any judgments about the impact of the war in Iraq upon Iran and the Middle East crisis, that is, until we have the perspective of history. None of these things are clear and they involve subjective analysis and almost without exception partisan bias.
What about its impact on all the Iraqis who are dead and maimed? Is it ridiculous in the extreme to make any judgement about its effect on their lives?
10:18 pm [ Quote ]
Let’s see, we win the war, then there’s peace. Sounds good.
10:54 pm [ Quote ]
Lets not forget the old saying…
“youll catch more flies with honey than vinegar”
That holds true for the Iraq situation as well. How do you think family members of people being killed (some innocent) are going to feel about us? Are they going to say “hey this is for a good cause” or are they going to be mad and want vengeance?
We are creating more terrorists every day.
Maybe if we tried showing these people some kindness and tried to help them instead of pointing fingers and telling them how to live and them bombings them things would be different.
Maybe if we showed them “christian kindness” maybe things would be different.
What happened to “love your enemies”, and “do good to those that hate you?”
10:58 pm [ Quote ]
Terrorists have existed for too long to blame Iraq for them. And 9/11 happened before Iraq. So hatred for the United States can not be blamed on Iraq. And no I do not think that Iraq planned 9/11, but there has been no shortage of terrorists in the last few decades. They didn’t need Iraq to exist.
12:59 am [ Quote ]
Terrorists have existed for too long to blame Iraq for them. And 9/11 happened before Iraq. So hatred for the United States can not be blamed on Iraq. And no I do not think that Iraq planned 9/11, but there has been no shortage of terrorists in the last few decades. They didn’t need Iraq to exist.
Yes, you are absolutely correct in the idea that the invasion has Iraq has neither increased nor decrease the number of terrorists in the Middle East.
1:09 am [ Quote ]
Reminds me of the West Wing (When I still watched it). Some one was getting on Toby about the Arab world not liking the US and this or that wouldn’t get them to like us; what would it take for them to like us. He responded with –
“They’ll like us when we win.” Only thing I think I ever agreed with him on.
1:45 am [ Quote ]
Ned Lamont: The Freshmaker.
LOL. That still sticks in my head every time.
5:48 am [ Quote ]
McG (re your post 22): To what are are referring when noting “dead and maimed Iraqis” such that you criticize the removal of Saddam from power? There are “dead and maimed Iraqis” because of the jihad fascist insurgents who detonate IUDs to kill innocent civilians. The Iraqis have a democratically elected government operating undera democratically adopted written Constiution, and that presnt Iraqi government is the lawful governing authority in Iraq that our troops are supporting. So your comment really makes no sense unless you are pining after the days of Saddam’s brutal dictatoship when there were “dead and maimed Iraqis” as a result of Saddam’s repressive rule.
7:54 am [ Quote ]
Terrorists have existed for too long to blame Iraq for them. And 9/11 happened before Iraq. So hatred for the United States can not be blamed on Iraq. And no I do not think that Iraq planned 9/11, but there has been no shortage of terrorists in the last few decades. They didn’t need Iraq to exist.
Yes, you are absolutely correct in the idea that the invasion has Iraq has neither increased nor decrease the number of terrorists in the Middle East.
Although its hard to prove what the cause are (but we can surely speculate) i will have to challenge you on your anectdotal statement. LEts look at the facts from ‘The National Counterterrorism Center’. Terrorism is a real threat! So we should accept the facts as they are.. We need to act smarter not simply harder.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-04-22-terror-attacks_x.htm?csp=34
http://nitwitplanet.blogspot.com/2006/04/terrorist-attacks-at-all-time-high.html[Comment
“Terror attacks and kidnappings worldwide exceeded 10,000 for the first time last year, propelled in part by a surge in Iraq, according to government figures to be released soon.” In all fairness there is no exact science in calculating terrorist accounts, but surely it puts to bed the claim we are reducing or keeping steady all the terrorist activity (now and for the midrange future)
8:03 am [ Quote ]
Terrorists have existed for too long to blame Iraq for them. And 9/11 happened before Iraq. So hatred for the United States can not be blamed on Iraq. And no I do not think that Iraq planned 9/11, but there has been no shortage of terrorists in the last few decades. They didn’t need Iraq to exist.
Yes, you are absolutely correct in the idea that the invasion has Iraq has neither increased nor decrease the number of terrorists in the Middle East.
Whilst its difficult to determine all the forces that lead to terrorism i will have to correct you on your assertion that there is as much terrorist activity as ever.
According to The ‘National Counterterrorism center” has seen most terrorism attacks since it first started keeping track in the 80’s.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-04-22-terror-attacks_x.htm?csp=34
In all fairness it isn’t the most scientific of measurements but surely it puts to rest the claim that we are experiencing the average amount, or less terrorism than usual.
8:58 am [ Quote ]
Lets not forget the old saying…
“youll catch more flies with honey than vinegar”
That holds true for the Iraq situation as well. How do you think family members of people being killed (some innocent) are going to feel about us? Are they going to say “hey this is for a good cause” or are they going to be mad and want vengeance?
We are creating more terrorists every day.
Maybe if we tried showing these people some kindness and tried to help them instead of pointing fingers and telling them how to live and them bombings them things would be different.
Maybe if we showed them “christian kindness” maybe things would be different.
What happened to “love your enemies”, and “do good to those that hate you?”
It’s just unfortunate Rob that 500 thousand people in mass graves in Iraq, put there by Saddam, will never get to see your brilliant prose. They were loved to death by Saddam I suppose.
9:45 am [ Quote ]
#29. Make that IED….
An IUD is an intrauterine device. You were probably thinking of the emotional tampon so useful for liberals. Common mistake.
11:06 am [ Quote ]
Never mind that Haditha is turning out to be just what is was first reported to be, a massacre. No, never mind that, Saddam was a bad man. You say libs reasoning changes? We went to war for because Saddam was about to get nukes, then it was WMDs (this administration really likes to make up words and phrases previously not found in Websters), then we were going to liberate Iraq and give them democracy, then it was “we’ll stand down when they can stand up”, now, nevermind look at Israel! The point raised that Saddam was a deterrant for Iran was that he fought a ten-year war with Iran the with our support and had Iran believing he had “WMDs” until we proved he didn’t. Iran may have thought that the US was a hugely powerfull enemy that would crush them if they stepped too far out of line. Iraq proved to them that we will undercommit at every turn and just how easily an insurgency with light arms and explosives can cripple the US war machine that works so well in conventional war. Yes, Iraq emboldened Iran and our enemies elsewhere.
11:26 am [ Quote ]
There is no way that Iran would have had a more positive attitude towards Israel’s existence if we hadn’t destroyed Saddam. Iran hates Israel and wants it annihilated. Iraq doesn’t change that one way or the other.
Iran’s belief that Saddam had WMDs was the best deterrent to keep Iran in place.
What Lamont is saying here is only stating the obvious. The Bush administration has been so busy with the Iraq mess they haven’t been able to focus on anything else—they want our European allies to deal with Iran and our Asian allies to deal with North Korea. The fact we no longer have any foreign policy doesn’t help.
Since the Camp David Peace Accords—I can’t remember going a month without some major development in US involvement in the Mideast peace process. When was the last time you even heard the “Roadmap to Peace”—Bush’s long defunct policy—even mentioned?
So, Iran believed that Saddam had WMD’s? I guess they were duped by that evil genius GW Bush…or is he an incompetent idiot? I get so confused. I mean, he orchestrated and masterminded 9/11, but he’s too stupid to tie his shoes…Idiot Savant, maybe.
For you liberals who can’t decide from day to day whether he is idiot or genius, I’m using sarcasm. It’s a popular literary tool.
11:35 am [ Quote ]
Netroots vs. Rightroots…
With so much breaking news in the Middle East, I’ve been neglecting politics on the homefront. So, here are a few links and notes on a few noteworthy campaign developments on both sides of the aisle: The netroots/nutroots are putting…...
12:33 pm [ Quote ]
Why would I want to catch flies?
1:57 pm [ Quote ]
Not so fast, Myshinymetalhiney (repost 33), it is still too early to judge Haditha. Two cautionary points: First, Marine Lieuenant Ilario Pantano had to go through an individual hearing before the charges were shown to be false and dismissed. The Haditha Marines may be put to the same task so that the Pentagon can look “clean.” Second, Marine Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich has filed a defamation lawsuit against Congressman John Murtha over Murtha’s public accusation that Haditha was cold blooded murder, an accusation reportedly based on Pentagon sources said to have provided false information. There is a bureaucratic political game going on.
2:09 pm [ Quote ]
Again not so fast, Myshinymetalhiney (re post 33), it has not been proven that Saddam did not have WMDs. To the conbtrary: (1) Saddam did have WMDs and used tham against his own people; ask the Kurds. (2) Saddam government documents recently translated show that just before the invasion, Saddam had WMDs shipped to Syria, which is what Iraqi Air Force General Sada has been saying. (3) Saddam’s object in the Oil-For-Food corruption at the UN was to get UN arms supervision lifted so that he could pursue getting more WMDs. (4) Saddam government documents recently translated also show that Saddam was seeking uranium yellow cake in Niger and that he had established lines of cooperation with al-Qaeda; Baghdad was always al Zarqari’s base of operations.
So do you want connect the dots, or do you want to want to continue to rant mindlessly?
And now that we are where we are in Iraq, what is your solution? Cut and run? If so, do you want the democratic government of Iraq to fail and do you want the bloodshed that would follow from a radical Islamist victory in Iraq? Don’t say you don’t if you want to cut and run.
2:17 pm [ Quote ]
Phil Byler – Though everything you posted is true and factual, the libs who troll this site don’t deal well with facts, so … more mindless rants are on the way …Reality is, these confrontations between the Jews, the Arabs,the islamofascists, and Chritians were inevitable. To obtain peace, one must actually WANT peace.Iran et al want nothing of the sort and never will until all are converted or dead .. to deny this is complete intellectual dishonesty.Look at what appeasment has gotten the Jewish people. At least with Bush, we got a jump on the problem instead of letting it build and fester for years more under a democrat / socialist administration. Even if these conflicts last for years it will be worth it, because no less than freedom and humanity are at stake.
2:59 pm [ Quote ]
The Iranians are emboldened by our presence in Iraq ?? If you see the greates military in the world kick the crap out of your next door neighbor, knowing that what you will get will probably be much worse, how does that embolden ? I don’t believe that psycho babble for a second. Their rhetoric and actions are those of desperation not boldness. They should be concerned that we learned from whatever mistakes were made in Iraq and that we would practice correcting those mistakes on them. And puhleese … the American military isn’t stopped one iota by “an insugency with light arms and explosives” .. the problem is that even in war, we try and play by the rules .. unlike the gutless cowards who won’t wear a uniform and hide behind women and children. If it were just us against them , away from civilian populated areas, the fascists wouldn’t last a day.We are always hampered by that darn need to protect innocent life, unlike the savages who blow up their own women and children .