www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-klein/condoleezza-rice-takes-on-obama/
saw this earlier today,what are your thoughts on this?
Well, does she still believe the WMDs were stolen by werewolves?
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Well, does she still believe the WMDs were stolen by werewolves? [/quote]
They were moved to Syria and Lebanon while Bush was frigging around with the UN. Google ‘Iraq WMD moved’ and read the Washington Times article.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Well, does she still believe the WMDs were stolen by werewolves? [/quote]
They were moved to Syria and Lebanon while Bush was frigging around with the UN. Google ‘Iraq WMD moved’ and read the Washington Times article.[/quote]
The Washington Times is not a reliable source.
After listening to her bullshit “testimony” at the 9/11 hearings, I don’t want to hear another word out of that idiot’s mouth.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Well, does she still believe the WMDs were stolen by werewolves? [/quote]
They were moved to Syria and Lebanon while Bush was frigging around with the UN. Google ‘Iraq WMD moved’ and read the Washington Times article.[/quote]
The Washington Times is not a reliable source. [/quote]
What about satellite photos of the sites at Nasyaf and al Baida near the border of Syria and Lebanon? I guess Haaretz is not reliable either? Nor the second in command of the Iraqi airforce nor award winning Syrian journalist Nizar Nayouf? You’re a goofball.
There’s a lot in that article I disagree with but this part I agree with thoroughly:
“Dr. Rice is particularly concerned with the ?vacuum? in world leadership resulting from the Obama administration?s leading from behind policies. The vacuum is being filled by the likes of Russian President Vladimir Putin.”
That is exactly what Putin wants, more room to expand his influence.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
There’s a lot in that article I disagree with but this part I agree with thoroughly:
“Dr. Rice is particularly concerned with the ?vacuum? in world leadership resulting from the Obama administration?s leading from behind policies. The vacuum is being filled by the likes of Russian President Vladimir Putin.”
That is exactly what Putin wants, more room to expand his influence. [/quote]
Of course. The highest echelons of the Russian civil service and military are former KGB backed by oligarchs who made billions over the last 24 years. It’s an odd and disturbing regime with obvious hostile intentions against former Soviet block states and traditional Russian adversaries like Turkey. This in addition to a largely supportive, nationalist public and hostility to the west on a par with ‘tensions’ at the height of the Cold War. Instead of nuclear missiles in Cuba we get Assad’s regime and Islamic fundamentalists in Iran.
Russia wants to ‘regain’ Finland advisor says.
I’ll read the article and respond in full later.
For now, I’ll say that Rice was key to an administration whose record on foreign policy, in contradistinction to that of the current one (and despite the mushy narrative that is coalescing, evidence-free, in many otherwise intelligent minds), was an utter fucking disaster.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I’ll read the article and respond in full later.
For now, I’ll say that Rice was key to an administration whose record on foreign policy, in contradistinction to that of the current one (and despite the mushy narrative that is coalescing, evidence-free, in many otherwise intelligent minds), was an utter fucking disaster.
[/quote]
And ironically the current President largely came to power BECAUSE of that administration.
A ‘mushy narrative?’ I wonder whose admin has been better for regional stability? Bush overthrew Saddam Hussein: a lunatic who had used chemical weapons against his own populace and invaded Kuwait. Obama presided over the overthrow of Mubarak, Gaddafi, Ben Ali(Tunisia) and Ali Abdullah Saleh(Yemen). Now the entire region is engulfed in sectarian conflict which will soon spread to Lebanon.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
The Bam Admin is almost universally recognized as having the stupidest (I could probably come up with a more sophisticated adjective, I admit) foreign policy in American history.[/quote]
This is blatant nonsense. Please evidence this, keeping in mind that the word “universally” entails an extension beyond publications owned by Rupert Murdoch and Tucker Carlson.
I am going to provide a great deal of evidence to refute this–unequivocally refute it–later tonight or tomorrow. But, in the meantime, what exactly is the method by which you have measured universal opinion and concluded that Obama is bested by Bush? I’m talking about hard evidence here. Or is this a “feeling”?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
A ‘mushy narrative?’ I wonder whose admin has been better for regional stability?[/quote]
When regional stability entails starting a war against a regime that had committed war crimes more than a decade prior, based in large part upon lies about the said regime’s nuclear capabilities/aspirations and some pictures of some shiny metal tubes in the desert that turned out not to be what they had been purported to be; promising that we’d be “greeted as liberators” and planning about three weeks ahead only to find that the invasion set in motion a decade-long, bloody sectarian clusterfuck which claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and left thousands of wives, mothers, and children (“with the army you have,” remember that one?) back home to greet the coffins of Americans kids who died for who the fuck knows what; and trillions of dollars gone, burnt up, wasted on a fight that won us appallingly little and cost us appallingly much–and all this while there were actual, direct threats to our national security from a stateless terrorist organization which had just a year and a half prior kicked us in our gut and which was more closely affiliated with a half-dozen Middle East countries not called Iraq…
…When this is what’s entailed by regional stability, I’ll take the guy who avoided “regional stability” and instead did what he could to keep American kids’ viscera inside of their fucking bodies.
And the guy who used robots to decimate AQ, and the guy who did what [i]Bush’s[/i] DS called “one of the most courageous decisions I had ever witnessed at the White House” (a decision fraught with enough risk that Gates himself advised against it).
But, most importantly, a guy who didn’t start any unnecessary wars with money that wasn’t his and sons who weren’t his.
We fought a fire during the Bush years, and Bush and his band of jackasses fucked it up by starting their own, complementary fire nearby. Because it’s fun to burn shit, you know.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
When regional stability entails starting a war against a regime that had committed war crimes more than a decade prior, based in large part upon lies about the said regime’s nuclear capabilities/aspirations and some pictures of some shiny metal tubes in the desert that turned out not to be what they had been purported to be; promising that we’d be “greeted as liberators” and planning about three weeks ahead only to find that the invasion set in motion a decade-long, bloody sectarian clusterfuck…
[\quote]
Coalition forces set that in motion? I thought it was Abu Musab al Zarqawi? What the fuck was al Qaeda doing in Iraq in 2002 when Saddam was still in power? Do you think what’s happening in Syria might be due to coalition forces abandoning the region? Do you think Iran’s undeniable nuclear ambitions will be assuaged by Obama’s hipster diplomacy or something?
[quote]
which claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and left thousands of wives, mothers, and children (“with the army you have,” remember that one?) back home to greet the coffins of Americans kids who died for who the fuck knows what; and trillions of dollars gone, burnt up, wasted on a fight that won us appallingly little and cost us appallingly much–and all this while there were actual, direct threats to our national security from a stateless terrorist organization which had just a year and a half prior kicked us in our gut and which was more closely affiliated with a half-dozen Middle East countries not called Iraq…
[\quote]
No AQ set up shop in Iraq. And thanks to the Arab Spring Obama presided over and encouraged they’ve set up shop in those half dozen other countries. Not to mention the Muslim Brotherhood taking over Egypt.
[quote]
…When this is what’s entailed by regional stability, I’ll take the guy who avoided “regional stability” and instead did what he could to keep American kids’ viscera inside of their fucking bodies.[/quote]
AQ created the conflict. We merely chose the first theatre of operations against them. If Bush hadn’t announced his intentions to invade and sought international support AQ would have chosen the first theatre. Obama just can’t play chess without eating his own pieces and fellating his opponent.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
No AQ set up shop in Iraq. And thanks to the Arab Spring Obama presided over and encouraged they’ve set up shop in those half dozen other countries. Not to mention the Muslim Brotherhood taking over Egypt.
[/quote]
What evidence supports this statement? Do you mean after the U.S. invaded, or before? IIRC, the 9/11 Commission report flat-out refuted a pre-invasion link between Iraq, Al Queda, and 9/11, and CIA director Tenet admitted on 60 Minutes the U.S. intelligence community could not ever verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, or complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America.