“On Today last week, NBC’s Richard Engel argued that, before the US invasion of Iraq, leader Saddam Hussein was on the road to “moderation,”

Wow, what a dumb ass. If “moderate” means only torturing and murdering your own citizens, then I guess he was becoming “moderate”.

If by mocking , you mean telling the truth . …So Engel is the Nostradamus of NBC , predicting Hussein’s turning into a nice guy . The Mister Rogers of Baghdad .

Saddam was not an Islamic extremist. He was secular. That was the point.

shootfromthehip said:
Saddam was not an Islamic extremist. He was secular. That was the point.

I know it’s a knee-jerk reaction, but don’t waste your time defending the indefensible. Leave that to fools like Royal.

Funny how the left automatically defends the indefensible. Somebody on FNC mocked an absurd statement by someone at NBC which triggers hair-brained defenses from the left.

Richard Engel has spent more time in Iraq and knows more about the country and its history than you. Not 100% sure about that, but I’d bet that Engel knows just a bit more about Iraq than you, Lonestar.

This is why FNC is number one of the cablers. It is the only network that laughs at the stupidity of the lamestream media. Engel attempts to rewrite history, gets laughed at and mocked, deservedly so.

Herre is more on Richard, who has lived in Iraq for years and actually reads Arabic (unlike “Lonestar” here who considers himself an expert on Saddam from watching Fox news or something).

From Engel’s official bio:

“Engel has lived in the Middle East for more than twelve years. He speaks and reads fluent Arabic, which he learned while living in the slums of Cairo after graduating from Stanford University in 1996 with a B.A. in international relations. Engel has also traveled extensively throughout the Middle East and can comfortably transition between several of the Arabic dialects spoken across the Arab world. He is also fluent in Italian and Spanish. Engel is the author of two books, “A Fist in the Hornet’s Nest” and “War Journal: My Five Years in Iraq,” which chronicle his experiences covering the Iraq war.”

Shooterboy, you are a loon. Engle just revealed he is a lefty lib that hates America First.
If he was around during WWII he would be telling us Hitler was just helping the Jews.

shootfromthehip said:
Richard Engel has spent more time in Iraq and knows more about the country and its history than you

Undoubtedly, but that doesn’t make him infallible. Nor does it prevent him from mouthing leftist talking points.
Furthermore, what he said is a hypothetical. You could just as easily argue that given the history of the regime, Saddam Hussein would have launched another war against one of his neighbors.

Yes, I am a “loon.” Because I want to hear the opinions of people who actually went to good schools, speak Arabic and know something about the history of Iraq.

Got ya.

I love America. What I hate is ignorance and those who don’t like to learn things.

Richard Engel is a moron and reflects the tragic inability of libs to understand that there are some people who are genuinely evil and murderous. There have been such people throughout history, and libs still believe if we had just given them more time or look at things from their perspective, we would have a different understanding.

B.S.- it’s that kind of thinking that allowed such people to continue their ruthless slaughter of mankind until the world finally took action against them.

There is nothing in this world that libs won’t excuse .

Engel is a joke. Not the funny kind, the duh kind. One of many of pitiful pretend journalists around today. You know, the ones that got into the news business “to make a difference.” Forget that news is suposed to simply be the truth, these dolts shape and twist the news “to make a difference.’ They are, for the most part tiresome and boring…like our Mr. Engel.

Shafting his own people? Doesn’t that sound an awful lot like our own Obimbo. Of course, his logic is, he’s doing it for our own good? That’s what most egomaniac-dweebs think as they’re putting it to you.

“Undoubtedly, but that doesn’t make him infallible. ”

That is true, Azar.

However, what seems obvious to me is that Saddam liked his wealth and power. I mran look at the guy’s palaces. He had it good and didn’t want to risk anything by invading other countries.

He was a secular power monger.

A low level paranoid megalomaniac.

He did not want war with Iran because he knew he would get his ass kicked. Same with America.

He was just a stubborn fuck who COULD have been won over via different means, given time.

Instead, Bush decided to nearly bankrupt America with a war that we are still paying for and will pay for the next 100 years.

Was it worth the BILLIONS of US dollars that could have gone towards balancing the budget? No.

5000+ American lives lost and over 200,000 Iraqui lives lost? Was it worth it?

I don’t think so.

shootfromthehip said:
nstead, Bush decided to nearly bankrupt America with a war that we are still paying for and will pay for the next 100 years.

The war lasted 7.5 years and cost less than Barry’s failed Stimulus package and his unwanted health care program.

Um, that is only 100% wrong, “NotsoFast.”

Even the most conservative estimates put the cost of the war at $750 BILLION dollars.

http://costofwar.com/

shootfromthehip said:
Even the most conservative estimates put the cost of the war at $750 BILLION dollars.

As I said the stimulus cost more:

From FactCheck.org:

Q: What will the stimulus bill cost per family?

A: The added federal debt comes to about $10,000 per family. A Republican senator who used a figure 10 times higher than that is wrong.

The stimulus package was $787 billion.

CBO: Health care bill to cost $829 billion
Budget experts say proposal would cover 94 percent of Americans

And as I said, those are simply the most conservative estimates. The REAL cost of the war is well over a trillion. Click on that link i posted above.

Here it is again.

Costs are in real time:

http://www.costofwar.com

shootfromthehip said:
Richard Engel

That was not the point.

shootfromthehip said:
And as I said, those are simply the most conservative estimates. The REAL cost of the war is well over a trillion. Click on that link i posted above.

Here it is again.

Costs are in real time:

http://www.costofwar.com

You are wrong and I was right!

Learn it and accept it.

The Washington Post puts the real cost of the war at THREE TRILLION DOLLARS.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html

Great, Engel speaks Arabic. So do many others. He has spent time in Iraq. Great, so have many others. Yet, no one else I’ve found has opined that Saddam was on the road to moderation. You don’t have to speak Arabic to realize that that’s an absurd statement. He’s a leftist and his statement was born out of ideology, not facts.

shootfromthehip said:
And as I said, those are simply the most conservative estimates. The REAL cost of the war is well over a trillion. Click on that link i posted above.

Here it is again.

Costs are in real time:

http://www.costofwar.com

Ahhhhhhhhh, your own counter at costofwar puts the cost at less than $750 billion.

Try again!

shootfromthehip said:
The Washington Post puts the real cost of the war at THREE TRILLION DOLLARS.

The Congressional Budget Office put it at around 750 billion, i.e., less then Obama’s “stimulus” bill. I’ll take the non-partisan CBO over the partisan Washington Post.

There’s really no hope for the reactionary people who figure so prominently on this blog. I tune into your comments because I’m trying to figure out how you can be so obtuse and ignorant in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. All you do is repeat the mantra that more people watch Fox and are aginast Obama who is a Muslim, Socialist, anti-Christ, worst person in the world, etc. Some of you even call yourselves Christians, yet you have no problem justifying Bush’s invasion of Iraq which has resulted in hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths and the needless slaughter and maiming of thousands of young Americans. Man, do you have problems. Hussein was a genuine bad guy who could have been dealt with over time. There were many other people asides from Richard Engel who warned us that this war would be a disaster in every respect, but most of you were gung-ho even when it was obvious that there were no WMD’S. Now you’re all gunning up for an invasion of Iran. God save us from you warmongers.

shootfromthehip said:
The Washington Post puts the real cost of the war at THREE TRILLION DOLLARS.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html

Yes, and were they not the ones who predicted over 50K USA casualties in the first Gulf war?

I too will go with CBO numbers.

shootfromthehip said:
He did not want war with Iran because he knew he would get his ass kicked. Same with America.

Since he went to war with both, I’m not quite understanding your argument.

Good advice for anyone: first step when you find yourself in a hole…stop digging.

ganymede said:
I tune into your comments because I’m trying to figure out how you can be so obtuse and ignorant

What a coincidence! We’re trying to figure out the same thing about you-why are you so obtuse and ignorant?

Comparative moderation you idiots. Engel didn’t say Saddam was a moderate and didn’t say he was on his way to be a great bastion of love by the people. He said he was on the road towards moderation. Why? At some point all despots and dictators realize that when their countries are suffering economically and the masses are tired of the corrupt police states, that there will be 1 of 2 things: anarchy or revolution. The dictators have to tone it down. What is toning it down for a murderous dictator? A little bit less murder, a little bit less dictating, only winning 95% of votes instead of 99.99%. Engel wasn’t saying that Iraq would have been a great place to live for the Iraqi people, but he was factually correct and was correct in his assertion. Moderation isn’t the same thing as moderate. For example, a murdering, violent racial supremacist stopping their violence but staying a racial supremacist is that person moving in a direction of moderation. It’s not the same thing as them becoming a racial moderate.

“Since he went to war with both, I’m not quite understanding your argument. ”

He hardly “went to war” with America.

His army gave up the first week. Saddam didn’t even rally his troops. He just hid away in his bunker.

And Saddam learned that going to war with Iran was costly and he didn’t want to do it again.

Saddam was just a egomaniac and prideful loser.

He was not the next Hitler. He had no imperial ambitions. No desire to take over the middle east.

Given the right diplomacy and a bit of time, Europeans could have turned him into a better partner more in line with the west.

Instead, America launched a costly (in blood and treasure) war that has so far given us nothing but headaches and a failed economy.

Yes, the war propped up Bush’s buddies in the defense industry in the short term, but now the bill for the war has come due and we are all paying for it–big time.

So much for Wolfowitz and others contending the war will pay for itsef” via oil profits.

Also, to take on the cost of war estimates. The 750 billion number is correct if you talk direct appropriation money only. That figure does not include DoD money shifted to the war, the insurance policies of dead soldiers, the money we spend rehabbing injured soldiers, the money spent on those soldiers hospital bills, the figure doesn’t include money for when POTUS/VPOTUS/Congressmen visit Iraq, the figure doesn’t include money replacing military equipment lost in Iraq (I’m talking equipment transferred there from other parts of the world that would be have used operationally in those posts).

By the way, CBO said 1.9 TRILLION for Iraq.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2450753720071024

Is it just me or does it seem that when Mediaite writers write how Fox on-airs “MOCK” the progressives….

Yet “MOCK” is not used when they write about their lefty friends…

I am going to watch for this in the future.

I’d say mock is pretty much the right word to describe what Laura and Greg do in the clip above.

And I have seen Mediaite writers use the same language when Keith makes fun of figures from the right as well.

Laura Ingraham and Greg Gutfeld aren’t the brightest of bulbs, so this reaction shouldn’t be surprising.

Ol Saddam just needed a little more time to mellow, eh? Like what, another 25 years? Yep, he was turning into a real all around solid citizen kinda like Charlie Manson has mellowed too…

thelowedown said:
Also, to take on the cost of war estimates. The 750 billion number is correct if you talk direct appropriation money only. That figure does not include DoD money shifted to the war, the insurance policies of dead soldiers, the money we spend rehabbing injured soldiers, the money spent on those soldiers hospital bills, the figure doesn’t include money for when POTUS/VPOTUS/Congressmen visit Iraq, the figure doesn’t include money replacing military equipment lost in Iraq (I’m talking equipment transferred there from other parts of the world that would be have used operationally in those posts). By the way, CBO said 1.9 TRILLION for Iraq.http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2450753720071024

lowdown, right wingers like “notsofast” and Gordon don’t give a damn about facts. If you present information that puts either their position, ideology or GOP heroes in a negative light, you are the “enemy.” Short and sweet. Their ignorance is STAGGERING.

shootfromthehip said:
“Since he went to war with both, I’m not quite understanding your argument. ” He hardly “went to war” with America. His army gave up the first week. Saddam didn’t even rally his troops. He just hid away in his bunker. And Saddam learned that going to war with Iran was costly and he didn’t want to do it again. Saddam was just a egomaniac and prideful loser. He was not the next Hitler. He had no imperial ambitions. No desire to take over the middle east. Given the right diplomacy and a bit of time, Europeans could have turned him into a better partner more in line with the west. Instead, America launched a costly (in blood and treasure) war that has so far given us nothing but headaches and a failed economy. Yes, the war propped up Bush’s buddies in the defense industry in the short term, but now the bill for the war has come due and we are all paying for it–big time. So much for Wolfowitz and others contending the war will pay for itsef” via oil profits.

Spot on. The worst part about the “sheeple” in here who blindly follow whatever tough talking conservative in the media says, is that Saddam Hussein was for the most part, “our” dictator.

“In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt on Qasim. The failed assassin was none other than a young Saddam Hussein. In 1963, a CIA-organized coup did successfully assassinate Qasim and Saddam’s Ba’ath Party came to power for the first time. Saddam returned from exile in Egypt and took up the key post as head of Iraq’s secret service. The CIA then provided the new pliant, Iraqi regime with the names of thousands of communists, and other leftist activists and organizers. Thousands of these supporters of Qasim and his policies were soon dead in a rampage of mass murder carried out by the CIA’s close friends in Iraq. “
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html

“The Ba’ath strengthen links with the U.S. During the coup, demonstrators are mown down by tanks, initiating a period of ruthless persecution. Up to 10,000 people are imprisoned, many are tortured. The CIA supply intelligence to the Ba’athists on communists and radicals to be rounded up. In addition to the 149 officially executed, about 5,000 are killed in the terror, many buried alive in mass graves. The new government continues the war on the Kurds, bombarding them with tanks, artillery and from the air, and bulldozing villages”
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html

REAGAN was Saddam Hussein’s Best Friend during the Iran/Iraq War:

“Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. Activism by Iraq’s main Shiite Islamicist opposition group, al-Dawa, was a major factor precipitating the war — stirred by Iran’s Islamic revolution, its endeavors included the attempted assassination of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.)

Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.

The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country’s official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.

One of these directives from Reagan, National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 99, signed on July 12, 1983, is available only in a highly redacted version [Document 21]. It reviews U.S. regional interests in the Middle East and South Asia, and U.S. objectives, including peace between Israel and the Arabs, resolution of other regional conflicts, and economic and military improvements, “to strengthen regional stability.” It deals with threats to the U.S., strategic planning, cooperation with other countries, including the Arab states, and plans for action. An interdepartmental review of the implications of shifting policy in favor of Iraq was conducted following promulgation of the directive.”

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Did any of you right wingers actually KNOW that this “evil, murderous dictator” was Ronald Reagan’s boy, and Reagan not only helped FUND his war efforts that “murdered civilians”, but turned a blind eye on his use of chemical weapons?

Or is this just gonna be another….”Reagan was a Republican, so anything he did back then is alright with me” scenes that get repeated in here all the time?

–Cobra

He was just a real fuckin’ prince, I tell ya!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq

Why would anyone object to his behavior? He was chillin’ out.

Morons

timzank said:
He was just a real fuckin’ prince, I tell ya! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq Why would anyone object to his behavior? He was chillin’ out. Morons

Oh, so you should REALLY be pissed at Reagan, right?

–Cobra

Maybe liberals and apologists here would better understand if we put this in more simple minded terms. Think of the world as a neighborhood, your next door neighbor has brutally killed 5 of your other immediate neighbors. Do you give him a pass? Do you want to live next door to him?

Do you have no common sense? (rhetorical question)

Cobra said:
Oh, so you should REALLY be pissed at Reagan, right? –Cobra

no comparison shithead. spew your pro islamic terrorist america is the devil shit to someone else.

timzank said:
no comparison shithead. spew your pro islamic terrorist america is the devil shit to someone else.

Reagan FUNDED Hussein, timzank. That is IRREFUTABLE documented HISTORY. In your “world as a neighborhood” analogy, Reagan handed a meat cleaver your “mass murderer” next door neighbor, and told him when was the best time to catch your other neighbors at home.

Admit it. Reagan supported the VERY SAME SADDAM HUSSEIN you accuse liberals of being “apologists” for.

Checkmate.

–Cobra

shootfromthehip said:
Richard Engel has spent more time in Iraq and knows more about the country and its history than you. Not 100% sure about that, but I’d bet that Engel knows just a bit more about Iraq than you, Lonestar.

Well said!

a know, you people are something else. You jump all over Richard Engel and refuse to hear any truth or logic. You beleive everything you were all told abour Iraq by the Bush Admin, but when someone else who actually lived and worked there and knows these people inside and out, and I might add knew Saddam and interviewed him. You dont beleive him at all. But you beleive some politician who tells you Saddam has Nukes. Well, guess what there were none. There were never any. I for one do not trust any politician telling me who is bad or good. Repub or Dem. Don’t tell me who our enemies are. You all lie. I want facts on top of facts. No POL will ever tell the truth about war. So advice to all, a good reporter like Richard Engel who’s word is much better then any Politician.

i thought it was pretty funny, was it not? The Daily “Conservative” Show isn’t allowed?

i’m sure he’ll go back to hitchhike on the back of a deuce and a half again real soon after his anti-war tour is over again

Given the state of today’s broadcast/mainstream media, I would suggest to you that polling indicates that “journolists” rate even lower than politicians….a hard accomplishment to achieve.

I don’t believe many politicians either, but I don’t believe ANY mainstream media anymore, none, nada, zero, zilch….they are not to be trusted.

Cobra said:
lowdown, right wingers like “notsofast” and Gordon don’t give a damn about facts. I

Hey racist, list one thing I stated that was not a fact.

shootfromthehip said:
He hardly “went to war” with America.

If the Iraqi Army had pulled out of Kuwait, there would never have been a first Gulf War. The Arab members of the coalition would not have invaded Iraq, and Bush senior would not have attacked without Arab support.

shootfromthehip said:
And Saddam learned that going to war with Iran was costly and he didn’t want to do it again.

Then again, the Iranians did sue for peace. Since Saddam didn’t lose the war, I’m not sure what he learned.

With so many fish in the sea, finding Mr. or Mrs. Right can be tricky. However, I happen to find this great place for all white and black people meet and go online at

~~~~ B-l-a-c-k-W-h-i-t-e-C-u-p-i-d . c-0-m ~~~

Lots of my friends found their lovers through the service.

shootfromthehip said:
Saddam was not an Islamic extremist. He was secular. That was the point.

You are trying to have a reasonable conversation with idiots. These tea-baggers do not understand nuance, nor do they appreciate facts. They are basically brain stems – limbic system types. In other words, imbeciles. A pencil eraser has a higher IQ than these rubes.

shootfromthehip said:
Saddam was not an Islamic extremist. He was secular. That was the point.

Well than by your view, Hitler was secular and thus moderate.

Cobra said:
Reagan FUNDED Hussein, timzank. That is IRREFUTABLE documented HISTORY. In your “world as a neighborhood” analogy, Reagan handed a meat cleaver your “mass murderer” next door neighbor, and told him when was the best time to catch your other neighbors at home.

Admit it. Reagan supported the VERY SAME SADDAM HUSSEIN you accuse liberals of being “apologists” for.

Well, than by your view, the USA is also responsible for the millions of people Stalin killed during the purges. We gave plenty of money to the USSR prior to and during WWII. This was the same time that the Soviets murdered millions of their own people, as well as occupied areas.

Are you truely that ignorant to not know that the USA picked the lesser of two evils during the Iran/Iraq war. Iran had just captured and was holding Americans hostage.

Now, Obama and the DOS have made statements that they would negotiate with the Taliban, the DOS has even taken the Taliban off the list of Terrorist organizations. These fanatics, the Taliban, murder, kill, and oppress religious minorites and women. But like Obama, I’m sure you are willing to look the other way.

Ted- said:
You are trying to have a reasonable conversation with idiots. These tea-baggers do not understand nuance, nor do they appreciate facts. They are basically brain stems – limbic system types. In other words, imbeciles. A pencil eraser has a higher IQ than these rubes.

Are you saying that a man that murdered and gased his own people should be viewed as an equal in the world community?

shootfromthehip said:
Yes, I am a “loon.” Because I want to hear the opinions of people who actually went to good schools, speak Arabic and know something about the history of Iraq. Got ya. I love America. What I hate is ignorance and those who don’t like to learn things.

What does “moderate” mean?

Does it mean lowering people into industrial shredders as their families are made to look on?

Does it mean operating “rape rooms” while the parents of young girls AND boys are raped by tens of the Republican Guard? Oh, and by the way, the parents were made to watch and those who tried to close their eyes had them held open with fish hooks through their eyelids!

Does it mean hanging women by their feet while various objects are inserted into their vaginas INCLUDING drills with wire brushes attached in their chucks?

Does it mean torturing men with cattle prods inserted into their anuses?

Does it mean lighting fires to hundreds of oil wells and destroying pipelines?

I dont care if you speak Sumerian and have been in Iraq for 2000 years, THIS IS NOT WHAT ANY RATIONAL PERSON DEFINES AS “MODERATE!”

Saddam Hussein, his sons, and a good many of his followers were beasts of the most vile ilk and to make a claim that Hussein was “becoming more moderate” is akin to saying Josef Stalin or Mao Tse Tung were becoming more moderate.

Gotta love the pretzels on this site that love the losers and hate the winners. Pretty words. cherry picked facts, all to paint the greatest nation on earth as a villain…full or part time villain. You bore me. No one wants to be you. And Cobra, I taught your wife that thing you like.

notsofast said:
Hey racist, list one thing I stated that was not a fact.

Here’s several:

notsofast said:
Richard Engel is a moron and reflects the tragic inability of libs to understand that there are some people who are genuinely evil and murderous. There have been such people throughout history, and libs still believe if we had just given them more time or look at things from their perspective, we would have a different understanding.
B.S.- it’s that kind of thinking that allowed such people to continue their ruthless slaughter of mankind until the world finally took action against them.
There is nothing in this world that libs won’t excuse .

Those are “opinions.” Poorly formed ones…but opinions none the less. Nothing factual whatsoever.

More Liberty said:
Well, than by your view, the USA is also responsible for the millions of people Stalin killed during the purges. We gave plenty of money to the USSR prior to and during WWII. This was the same time that the Soviets murdered millions of their own people, as well as occupied areas. Are you truely that ignorant to not know that the USA picked the lesser of two evils during the Iran/Iraq war. Iran had just captured and was holding Americans hostage. Now, Obama and the DOS have made statements that they would negotiate with the Taliban, the DOS has even taken the Taliban off the list of Terrorist organizations. These fanatics, the Taliban, murder, kill, and oppress religious minorites and women. But like Obama, I’m sure you are willing to look the other way.

The government of the United States did NOT put Stalin in charge of the Soviet Union, as it basically did with Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Second, the United States didn’t declare war on Hitler’s Germany FIRST…it responded to Germany declaring war on the United States. Third, Iranians were dealt ARMS for hostages, if you recall. The reason for Iranian hostility against Americans? We did the same thing to Iran as we did to Iraq. When Mossedeq was elected in the late 50′s, he had the audacity to nationalize Iranian Oil companies. The CIA and British MI-5 staged a coup, got rid of Mossedeq and installed the Shah of Iran. The Shah was a brutal dictator, who like Saddam Hussein, crushed opposition through imprisonment, torture and death by the thousands. When the people rebelled and ran the Shah out, the blowback was felt by Americans.

You claim that Iraq was the “lesser of two evils”…when the US created BOTH “evils” at the behest of corporate profiteers.

The Taliban? You’re worried about Obama simply “negotiating” with the Taliban? You mean the same groups of folks the United States FUNDED AND TRAINED during the Soviet Unions occupation of Afghanistan, right? Google up “Operation Cyclone”…or if you don’t feel like reading…Tivo “Charlie Wilson’s War”…

“Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency program to arm, train, and finance the Afghan mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979 to 1989. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups that were favored by neighboring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan regime since before the Soviet intervention. [1] Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken;[2] funding began with $20–30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987.[3]..”

Blowback?

“The U.S. government has been criticized for allowing Pakistan to channel a disproportionate amount of its funding to controversial Afghan resistance leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar,[19] who Pakistani officials believed was “their man”.[20] Hekmatyar has been criticized for killing other mujahideen and attacking civilian populations, including shelling Kabul with American-supplied weapons, causing 2,000 casualties. Hekmatyar was said to be friendly with Osama bin Laden, founder of al-Qaeda, who was running an operation for assisting “Afghan Arab” volunteers fighting in Afghanistan, called Maktab al-Khadamat. Alarmed by his behavior, Pakistan leader General Zia warned Hekmatyar, “It was Pakistan that made him an Afghan leader and it is Pakistan who can equally destroy him if he continues to misbehave.”[21]

Critics of U.S. foreign policy consider Operation Cyclone to be substantially responsible for setting in motion the events that led to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. It is also probable that some Taliban presently fighting the U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan were in fact trained, equipped, or funded by the U.S. or its allies during the 1980s, at which time they were more commonly referred to as “freedom fighters”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

More Liberty, you don’t have to believe a damned thing I personally believe in. If you close your eyes to historical events, you only make YOURSELF look foolish when explaining the RESULTS and REPERCUSSIONS of the historical events you’re either ignorant of or don’t feel comfortable in admitting.

pyrope said:
What does “moderate” mean? Does it mean lowering people into industrial shredders as their families are made to look on? Does it mean operating “rape rooms” while the parents of young girls AND boys are raped by tens of the Republican Guard? Oh, and by the way, the parents were made to watch and those who tried to close their eyes had them held open with fish hooks through their eyelids! Does it mean hanging women by their feet while various objects are inserted into their vaginas INCLUDING drills with wire brushes attached in their chucks? Does it mean torturing men with cattle prods inserted into their anuses? Does it mean lighting fires to hundreds of oil wells and destroying pipelines? I dont care if you speak Sumerian and have been in Iraq for 2000 years, THIS IS NOT WHAT ANY RATIONAL PERSON DEFINES AS “MODERATE!” Saddam Hussein, his sons, and a good many of his followers were beasts of the most vile ilk and to make a claim that Hussein was “becoming more moderate” is akin to saying Josef Stalin or Mao Tse Tung were becoming more moderate.

The CIA put those people in power, and the Reagan Administration funded them. Doesn’t that make you want to wave the flag just that much higher, pryope?

–Cobra

spot on cobra, you nailed it.

The right wing goons don’t know the difference between the words “Moderate” and “Moderation” typical for Fox News.

pyrope said:
What does “moderate” mean?
Does it mean operating “rape rooms” while the parents of young girls AND boys are raped by tens of the Republican Guard?

No that was replaced by OUR National Guard Lindy England was bang up for it but who told them to do it?

pyrope said:
Does it mean torturing men with cattle prods inserted into their anuses?

No the US is much more civilized we use glow sticks like some Homo-redneck rave.

pyrope said:Saddam Hussein, his sons, and a good many of his followers were beasts of the most vile ilk and to make a claim that Hussein was “becoming more moderate” is akin to saying Josef Stalin or Mao Tse Tung were becoming more moderate.

Like Nixon going to China and meeting with that terrible communist dictator. But if a Republican does it it is OK.
And America supporting The Khmer Rouge to keep their seat in the UN after the Vietnamese Invaded and removed one of the most horrible regimes the world has even know. bet everything is relative i guess.

and yes I know it was Jimmy Carter that started that with the urging of our new friend China.

our website: http://www.fashionshoppong.us

BEST QUALITY GUARANTEE!!
SAFTY & HONESTY GUARANTEE!!
FAST & PROMPT DELIVERY GUARANTEE!!

In July of 1991, Margaret Tutwiler and April Glaspie told Saddam Hussein in no uncertain terms that any conflict between Iraq and Kuwait would be considered an “arab-on-arab” affair that the U.S. would eagerly stay away from. Three weeks later, Bush Sr. double-crossed Hussein and mobilized for war (no different than Noriega). Both Hussein and Noriega collected paychecks from the CIA in the weeks prior to those conflicts. This was a GOP-manufactured catastrophe from day one and no amount of revisionism or righteous indignation will change that. The Bush family is either totally criminal, totally incompetent, or a caustic combination of both.

I notice Tokyo Rose didn’t touch the point Engel made about the massive boost to Iran’s regional influence that has resulted from this naked oil grab. Tokyo Rose knows better than to engage on losing issues. It’s easy to turn Engel into a punching bag over a deliberate misinterpretation about a “moderating” Saddam. Much harder to explain that Iran is now less of a threat as a result. Oh, but that’ll be Obama’s fault, too, right? If he were to just “talk tougher,” Iran would melt away, right? Maybe we should nuke ‘em, show ‘em who’s boss right now! Nothing like pushing the 90lb. weakling around, eh? Funny how nobody ever says anything about attacking communist China, which is systematically dismantling our working class, but hey, your hero captains of industry will get you back in the form of charity. Right? No biggie that they are literally licking the jack boots of an authoritarian communist regime, it’s the workers that are the real commies. Nevermind the constant capitulation to Chinese autocracy and apologies to China that our evil FDA insists upon safe toys for our kids. It’s Iran that’s the problem here. Our economy is being annihilated by corporate greed and all cons care about is appearances.

Pretty smoke and mirrors – look at the pretty show. Pay no attention to the corporation behind the curtain.

I’m late, but azarkhan and others made points better than I could. Demonizing others is doubleplus ungood. Many bad results have come about from the best of intentions, using the best information available to the deciders. Some bad results have come about through a failure to appreciate the impact of consequences down the line or to account for seemingly unimportant things, like the nature and complexity of Iraqi society. That tripped up Bush-Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld’s apparent intransigence re: the surge cost him his job. Bush’s courageous decision (in the face of ignorant dissent from Obama and Biden) for the surge has allowed us to leave Iraq with some grace. (Conditions are likely to worsen there, with Obama’s ignorance and diffidence, a bad diplomatic appointment, and Obama foolish valuation of talk over reality major contributing factors.)

Domestically, Democrats failed to appreciate that forcing banks to lend to people with minimal, even no, equity stake in housing properties and so little income or savings that they could not weather higher rates or income curtailments would lead to disaster down the line. That was further exacerbated by other people buying far more house than they needed or could afford, thinking that they were buying ever-appreciating tangibles that would fund their own living beyond their means. (Many have since learned and are more prudent with their spending, one of factor hampering government plans hoping for increased consumer spending.

The Democrats’, especially Obama, believed that trickle-down spending from high-paid government workers they spent millions to keep on the job would somehow spark the added consumption to recharge the economy. Does anyone remember Nancy Pelosi arguing that the best fed spending was to the jobless, since they would spend all of their money and not save or invest it? Meanwhile, the President loses no opportunity to blast the “big banks,” as he has ripped at physicians and surgeons and health insurance companies, though not tort lawyers, major funders of Democratic Party politics. And the Democrats have pursued an array of policies sure to discourage manufacturing and small business investment and job hiring. Nobody’s perfect, and some people, like Obama, are more imperfect than others.

Gov. Jan Brewer had a :”brain lock.” I have seen a practiced public speaker at a sales convention, repeating a speech he had made numerous times, pause during his speech for a long while, and totally lose his speech. Richard Engel had to have suffered something quite like that, since the notion of Saddam Hussein moderating anything is untenable nonsense. It’s irrelevant what Mr. Engel may know of Iraq and Arabic.

And as one brain stem communicating with another brain stem, Ted, my brain stem is worn out from decades of heavy use. Your brain stem provides evidence that it has never been used.

Alfred J. Lemire said:
Bush’s courageous decision (in the face of ignorant dissent from Obama and Biden) for the surge has allowed us to leave Iraq with some grace. (Conditions are likely to worsen there, with Obama’s ignorance and diffidence, a bad diplomatic appointment, and Obama foolish valuation of talk over reality major contributing factors.)

What are you talking about? The “surge” was not a courageous decision, and it didn’t accomplish the goals Bush himself defined.

“[The surge] it was supposed to facilitate political reconciliation, and by Bush’s own standards a plan that did not include political reconciliation on major points of contention would not be a successful one. It was not the critics of the plan who put these measures of success in place–it was the authors of the plan.”

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/04/06/by-its-own-standards-the-surge-failed/

“Domestically, Democrats failed to appreciate that forcing banks to lend to people with minimal, even no, equity stake in housing properties and so little income or savings that they could not weather higher rates or income curtailments would lead to disaster down the line. That was further exacerbated by other people buying far more house than they needed or could afford, thinking that they were buying ever-appreciating tangibles that would fund their own living beyond their means. “

What are you talking about? Nobody FORCED banks to lend people anything. It was REPUBLICANS who pushed bank deregulation through in 1999, remember?

“The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999-2001) signed into law by President Bill Clinton which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, opening up the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allowed commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies to consolidate. For example, Citicorp (a commercial bank holding company) merged with Travelers Group (an insurance company) in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica, and Travelers. This combination, announced in 1998, would have violated the Glass-Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 by combining securities, insurance, and banking, if not for a temporary waiver process.[1] The law was passed to legalize these mergers on a permanent basis. Historically, the combined industry has been known as the “financial services industry”.[citation needed]“

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act

Should Clinton have vetoed it? Absolutely. He did not, and what happened? We had the creation of abominable products and practices that led to the sub-prime disaster. Lending institutions weren’t “forced” to loan…they BEGGED people to buy these easy credit packages, while selling off the risks overseas, and betting on failure through credit default swaps. While there were certainly Democrats out there encouraging people to buy homes, who was actually SPEARHEADING this movement?

George W. Bush.

“Remember the ownership society? President George W. Bush championed the concept when he was running for re-election in 2004, envisioning a world in which every American family owned a house and a stock portfolio, and government stayed out of the way of the American Dream.

Such a country would be more stable, Bush argued, and more prosperous. “America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own,” he said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the “zero-down-payment initiative,” which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages—derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.”

http://www.newsweek.com/2008/10/10/end-of-the-ownership-society.html

I know there’s a team-sports mentality out there….Root for “my team”, “my party”…no matter what. Don’t fall victim to it. The information is right there at your disposal. Educate yourself.

–Cobra

Alfred J. Lemire said:
my brain stem is worn out from decades of heavy use. Your brain stem provides evidence that it has never been used.

Well, since the brain stem is the conduit through which all information from the central nervous system passes into the cerebral cortex, and is primarily used for lower-order functions like reflexes and sleep cycles, it makes sense that you’ve exercised that part of your brain more than other parts. But you might want to flex that cerebellum from time to time, or it may atrophy on you. ;-)

A new left-wing crack pot, Paul Westlake, has joined us to feed us more loony babble.

gordonbloyershow said:
A new left-wing crack pot, Paul Westlake, has joined us to feed us more loony babble.

Ah, smell the ozone! ;-)

shootfromthehip said:
“Undoubtedly, but that doesn’t make him infallible. ” That is true, Azar. However, what seems obvious to me is that Saddam liked his wealth and power. I mran look at the guy’s palaces. He had it good and didn’t want to risk anything by invading other countries

So what was that little thing in Kuwait and why was he massing his army on the Saudi border and threatening to invade?

Kuwait was slant-drilling into Iraqi oil fields. Saddam always considered Kuwait a breakaway province of Iraq and used the pretense of Kuwait’s slant-drilling operation to invade. The Bush administration could have stopped the Kuwaiti slant-drilling, could have stopped Saddam from invading, but chose to double-cross him to reduce his capacity to develop his domestic oil reserves without private corporate help. It was a privatized oil grab that has, as usual for neo-con policy, not gone exactly according to plan.

OK so… has anyone (but me) noticed how soft and sweet Faux “news” has become of late? Could it be that they actually read what we say about them (OH Rupert… you smelly way past dead vampire). But if they are … I mean actually… . listening….. do they know that we….. know about “stacking the deck?” “Stacking the deck” is when a huckster tells you …. Truth-truth-truth-big ole fat lie then-truth-truth-truth. It’s an ole carney trick and always works. But it stops being effective when folks know about it. Sorry Rupert (and Glen). We are not as dumb as you hope we are (close but not actually AS dumb as you hope) and every day we get a little smarter.

Insulting the intelligence of people with whom you disagree is no evidence of higher-order thinking. I plead guilty to doing that with my insult to Ted, but one can take insults from the left for only so long.

Cobra sees the surge in Iraq only in political terms. It was my understanding that the surge had multiple facets. They included a strategy, with supporting tactics, developed by Gen. David Petraeus and others, to win and hold territory, while working with native tribes and sheiks who had no love for foreigners and other insurgents who did not care whose lives they took or who they tortured. Nothing of the military and sociological understanding practices behind the surge appears in Cobra’s account.

As to the economic mess, the housing boom and bust reflect the numerous pressures on lending institutions in the Community Reinvestment Act passed during President Bill Clinton’s time. Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer of Fannie Mae, has charged that, since 1993, Fannie and Freddie Mac routinely misrepresented their subprime loans to banks and other financial institutions as prime or Alt-A. Rep. Barney Frank loudly protested Republican attempts to increase regulation of Fannie and Freddie and both were notably absent from Sen. Chris Dodd’s schwanengesang, a recently enacted financial regulation law.

Banks did have to make loans to underqualified loan applicants. Perhaps Cobra thinks banks make bad loans willingly. I do not.

Alfred J. Lemire said:
Insulting the intelligence of people with whom you disagree is no evidence of higher-order thinking.

That depends on how good the insult is. ;-)

Alfred J. Lemire said:
I plead guilty to doing that with my insult to Ted, but one can take insults from the left for only so long.

Here is where I wish to accuse you of enforcing a double-standard but I’ll hold my fire until I see if you respond.

Alfred J. Lemire said:
Nothing of the military and sociological understanding practices behind the surge appears in Cobra’s account.

“It was not the critics of the plan who put these measures of success in place–it was the authors of the plan.” Seems like you have a bone to pick with the Bushies more than Cobra.

Alfred J. Lemire said:
As to the economic mess, the housing boom and bust reflect the numerous pressures on lending institutions in the Community Reinvestment Act passed during President Bill Clinton’s time. Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer of Fannie Mae, has charged that, since 1993, Fannie and Freddie Mac routinely misrepresented their subprime loans to banks and other financial institutions as prime or Alt-A. Rep. Barney Frank loudly protested Republican attempts to increase regulation of Fannie and Freddie and both were notably absent from Sen. Chris Dodd’s schwanengesang, a recently enacted financial regulation law.

There is some economic underpinning to your point, but it’s far from the whole story, or even the real story. The removal of the firewall between depository and investment banks (championed by pols from both sides of the aisle) led to the creation of derivatives, CDOs, synthetic CDOs, and a host of opaque shell-company games that obscured the fullness of liabilities and risks from investors. Like any ponzi scheme, the moment a few investors get spooked and want out, the whole ball of over-leveraged string unravels – Enron, WorldCom, Lehman, and further back to BCCI and the hedge fund bailouts.

The boom/bust cycle is manufactured by the Fed. Back before Greenspan (and after FDR), it was manufactured within a narrow band that kept the booms or the busts from getting out of control. Then Greenspan came along. I was day-trading during the dot-com bubble and every time that man opened his mouth I wanted to smash him with an anvil for the harm I knew he was doing to the long-term health of the economy. And THAT from a day-trader!

I make no claim that the financial mess is 100% owned by either party. Bush Jr. spent like a drunken sailor and almost totally on all destructive debt. But Carter started the deregulation snowball with the phones, trucking, and airlines (all of which are pretty much crap industries now – cell phones were pioneered in Scandinavia and Japan much more than in the US). So there are no clean hands in the current mess… except maybe Obama, in all seriousness. His spending has only shown up on the plus side of the ledger so far. Debt servicing won’t begin until next year, well past election stupid season, after the Christmas rush, and after another (potential) round of stimulus. If it’s well-targeted, the American consumer will come back in spades this December and all that hot air about deficits will start to lose its sizzle as tax receipts get a boost.

Alfred J. Lemire said:
Perhaps Cobra thinks banks make bad loans willingly. I do not.

Here’s where I’m going to flat disagree with you. Banks that were shells of larger investment firms that knew they could socialize losses, DID make bad loans intentionally, especially those owned by Goldman Sachs. Then they sliced the paper, repackaged it in CDOs, then sliced those and sold them again (not resold, sold twice!) as synthetic CDOs, then they shorted the REITs and took out massive insurance policies on the bad paper through AIG, who they knew would be forced into bankruptcy on such a massive default. But because Goldman was double and triple insulated from the risk, and because they knew the Fed couldn’t let AIG fail without a shock to the entire system, they could make the money on the front end selling bad loans, then make even more money on the back end collecting on the shorts and insurance when those bad loans went bust. It actually, really was the whole plan all along. And it worked like a charm. Future generations, if there are any at this rate, will hold Lloyd Blankfein in the kind of contempt we hold Bernie Madoff and Benedict Arnold today. Won’t go quite all the way to Hitler – only Hitler is Hitler… OK, maybe Mussolini… but that’s it! ;-)

Paul,

Outstanding recap of the economic disaster. Can’t add a thing, nor would I even attempt to try. Alfred seems like an intelligent guy who likes to converse, so he would appreciate it, but I doubt the majority of our right winged friends got through your first paragraph. You didn’t sloganeer. You didn’t cheerlead for the “home team.” You presented a thorough, fact filled, name-dropping answer that you’d NEVER hear on conservative media outlets, from Fox News to Talk Radio–so they’ll dismiss you entirely.

Alfred J. Lemire said:
Cobra sees the surge in Iraq only in political terms. It was my understanding that the surge had multiple facets. They included a strategy, with supporting tactics, developed by Gen. David Petraeus and others, to win and hold territory, while working with native tribes and sheiks who had no love for foreigners and other insurgents who did not care whose lives they took or who they tortured. Nothing of the military and sociological understanding practices behind the surge appears in Cobra’s account.

“Working with native tribes and sheiks” meant paying insurgents NOT to fight us. That’s exactly what was done.
““Petraeus seems to have concluded that it was essential to cut deals with the Sunni insurgents if he was going to succeed in reducing U.S. casualties,” Macgregor says.

Some 70,000 former insurgents are now being paid $10 a day by the U.S. military. It costs about a quarter billion dollars a year.”

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20080108_us_military_paying_former_insurgents_to_keep_the_peace/

Cobra said:
Outstanding recap of the economic disaster. Can’t add a thing, nor would I even attempt to try. Alfred seems like an intelligent guy who likes to converse, so he would appreciate it, but I doubt the majority of our right winged friends got through your first paragraph. You didn’t sloganeer. You didn’t cheerlead for the “home team.” You presented a thorough, fact filled, name-dropping answer that you’d NEVER hear on conservative media outlets, from Fox News to Talk Radio–so they’ll dismiss you entirely.

Thank you for the kind words. Love the dry wit! You’re probably not wrong about too large a number of our fine feathered friends (Joke! it’s a joke, people! a play on words – wings, feathers, get it? We cool? I said you were “fine!”), but my convos with both felixw and FearMonger today have given me a new hope for better relations with at least a few of the vocal conservatives here. If we can take the tone down a notch or two, we may be able to get a few facts in edgewise. ;-)