Last week, televangelist Pat Robertson went off on George W. Bush for selling us a “bill of goods” to justify the invasion of Iraq. When asked on his show if there was a solution to the current rise of violence in Iraq, he responded:
Right now, what we did — and it was a great mistake to go in there. … And so to sell the American people on weapons of mass destruction, he had WMD and was getting [concentrated uranium] yellowcake out of Africa and all of that, it was a lot of nonsense. We were sold a bill of goods, we should never have gone into that country!
As bad as Saddam Hussein was, he held those warring factions in check, and he contained those radical Islamists. Fix it, no? It’s too late to fix it. It’s unfixable. Those simmering animosities have been there for centuries. They will continue to play out until such times that the Lord brings out of Babylon some evil Antichrist or something.
19 Comments
I suspect this is just politics on Robertson’s part. I suspect he is strategically preparing his flock to support Rand Paul instead of Jeb or Christy.
That is what I call the World Trade Center:
The Tower of Babylon” A symbol of our hubris.
I like what many conservatives doing, criticizing GWB, Cheney, and admitting mistakes in supporting war. It would be fun watching liberals defending pro-war Hillary Clinton.
Difference between pro war Hillary and the Bushites is that Hillary has ‘evolved’ and admits she was wrong, the Bushites still go on TV or write in the WSJ how right they were back then and still today. Comparing the two is the classic false equivalency used on the right to try to make their lies no worse than something minor done on the other side. Its another way of lying.
Not talking about Hillary Clinton specifically, but let me ask this: If the government lies to me and says that they have strong evidence of something (like terrorist connections, or WMDs) and I believe them and agree that they should do something about it, does that morally put me in the same category as them? Am I complicit? Does that make me pro-war?
Are people who lied no worse than the people who were fooled by their lies?
Iron Knee, good point. I can make another category, people who were not interested in finding truth but rather just whatever was political convenient at the point. So:
1. Those who lied blatantly (GWB/Cheney) are worst.
2. One level down, should be considered complicit, those who were thinking more of political calculations rather than being more careful in taking country into war. All republicans in Senate at that time voted except Lincoln Chafee, and 29 out of 50 democrats voted for it (including Hillary Clinton).
3. Not complicit, minority of american population who were just confused, and not intelligent enough to understand the issue.
4. Heroes, The actual intelligent people who questioned GWB/Cheney claims, Lincoln Chafee (R) and 21 democrat senators. (Liberal icons like Kennedy, Wellstone and Feingold). Also house had lots of opposition from left and some from right.
So either Hillary is not intelligent or pro-war. I think she is just professional politician. She will be pro-war, anti-gay if needed, and she will be anti-war and pro-gay when needed.
> I think she is just professional politician.
Well, duh. That puts her in the same category as every other politician.
While I am far less enamored with the Clintons than many people, I don’t think they *only* think about what is politically convenient. Otherwise, I don’t think they (and especially Hillary) would have pushed single-payer health care, which ended up costing much political capital.
I also think Bill did some good things for the environment that cost him politically.
What is difference between her and the democrats that did not vote for war? Conscious I guess.
iL-08 – if by Bushites you mean Cheney, then you are 100% correct. But what I don’t like is that only Democrats can “evolve”. That’s not true and assessing a few delusional right wingers and labeling all conservatives equally is just plain bad science.
Lets all hope that our politicians can evolve and move beyond the past. Remember Obama was for gay marriage before he was against it before he was for it and both arguments for either political expediency or evolvement could be made. Lets give our conservative fellow Americans the chance to evolve along with everyone else. Of course I understand that leaves us no one to hate or complain about and could bring about the end of cable news as we know it. (we can only hope)
hope hope hope hope hope… 🙂
Note that I’ve been publishing examples of conservatives and Republicans questioning the wisdom of invading Iraq not because they are evolving. The irony I see is that the Republicans are finally violating Reagan’s eleventh commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican”. One of the strengths of the GOP was that they were able to avoid attacking each other, even when they disagreed. I think those days are over.
The word is “perfidy” regarding Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice.
Re: the Clintons. Does no one think that the Vince Fostor, inside trading, is going to come out? I’m sure that Karl Rove is salivating all down his front. He is waiting to pounce when the time is right.
Most people might forget, but Karl Rove is not going to.
Here’s why the hawks and crazies are divided: there’s no way to save Iraq without also helping Syria and to some extent Iran.
Patriotsgt, by bushites I mean cheney, rumsfeld, wolfie, bolton, all who have come out in the last couple of weeks saying that they were right and obama is wrong. I didn’t say only the left can evolve, but I will say that in this comparison, only the left HAS evolved, that was my point.
As for Hillary’s evolution, I believe it to be 100% politically motivated and that doesn’t make me very confident in her leadership qualities, but I rather have a pragmatist in charge than a zealot.
IL-08 – for Cheney et al to “evolve” by admitting the error of their ways would be to refute and repent their entire life’s work as neo-cons. That was never going to happen. They’re more like the party’s dinos, slowing heading into extinction (hopefully). Perhaps Patiotsgt was referring to Republicans evolving in the collective sense going forward. With the Tea Party nudging them ever rightward, however, I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Ralph, Cheney, in fact, DID evolve on this issue, in 1994 he is on record saying that it would have been wrong to go on to Baghdad in the first Gulf war and gave a list of logical reasons why that was true. Then he evolved.. Or should I say de-evolved.
How true. Cheney was basically a defense contractor from Halliburton, who engineered himself into power with a pliable President, profiting quite handsomely from the Iraq war, among others. Check out the documentary “Why We Fight”.
Yes, some of us evolve. Others mutate.
Since the topic changed to the Clintons, here’s an interesting article about them, especially Hillary and why she keeps making bizarre statements about wealth. http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/23/youre-rich-enough-hillary-clinton-or-are-you/
The Iraq Study Group Report was published almost eight years ago. Few people paid attention then, and few pay attention now, but it really is worth reading.
There are solutions, and practical ones. The problem is that all of the players seem more interested in pushing forward their political agendas than in actually solving problems.
Which is modern politics. If politicians actually solved the problems they promised to try to solve, there’d be fewer issues for them to bray about next time around.
Abortion, for instance, is a settled issue and has been for years, but still tremendously important in political campaigns. And the only thing standing in the way of serious immigration reform by the GOP is the GOP trying to have it both ways.
Hillary Clinton is no Liberal, and it might be interesting to see what happens if the GOP actually controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency, like it did during the 108th and 109th Congresses (2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006). Funny how little of the GOP platform was acted upon when they had the chance.
Because, again, there’d be nothing left for them to campaign on.
Who stopped the GOP from balancing their own budget then?