Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Chris Matthews shreds ‘ideologues’ Bush and Cheney for sowing seeds of chaos in Iraq

Posted by on Jun. 14, 2014 at 11:49 PM
  • 20 Replies



By Arturo Garcia
Friday, June 13, 2014 21:01 EDT

Chris Matthews 061314 [MSNBC]
 

MSNBC host Chris Matthews tore into former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney on Friday, accusing them of putting Iraq on the road toward its current crisis by invading the country in 2003.

“We were united after 9/11. They were the ones who divided us,” Matthews said. “They were the ones who divided Iraq into the two warring factions we see today battling for control of Baghdad. They were the ones who went into Iraq and took apart the Iraqi army, the Iraqi government, the Iraqi establishment, and replaced it with a sectarian bunch primarily interested in getting even with their fellow Iraqis.”

The current Shia regime, Matthews said earlier on his show, was on the verge of being overrun completely by the Sunni insurgent group calling itself the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which has taken over several large cities and has announced its intentions to advance upon the capital, Baghdad. Matthews described this recent wave of violence as the latest episode in years of strife.

“Just look at the spectacle of Saddam Hussein being hanged [in 2006] to a jeering of a mob of Shiites engaged in something we should’ve had no part of,” Matthews said.

But it was American “neo-cons,” Matthews argued, who instigated that turmoil by rushing the U.S. into war there from a position of aggression that contradicted the country’s ideals.

“I will never understand how a president so limited in his ability or sense of history as George W. Bush, a vice-president as uncharismatic as Dick Cheney, or a band of unelected ideologues could so screw this country to the wall of history as the band that ran things in the early years of this century,” he said.


For video of this, please click on the source, since cm does not allow for any but a small number of players to be embedded: http://www.rawstory.com/

by on Jun. 14, 2014 at 11:49 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
Goodwoman614
by Satan on Jun. 14, 2014 at 11:53 PM

“We were united after 9/11. They were the ones who divided us,” Matthews said. “They were the ones who divided Iraq into the two warring factions we see today battling for control of Baghdad. They were the ones who went into Iraq and took apart the Iraqi army, the Iraqi government, the Iraqi establishment, and replaced it with a sectarian bunch primarily interested in getting even with their fellow Iraqis.”

Goodwoman614
by Satan on Jun. 14, 2014 at 11:55 PM

“I will never understand how a president so limited in his ability or sense of history as George W. Bush, a vice-president as uncharismatic as Dick Cheney, or a band of unelected ideologues could so screw this country to the wall of history as the band that ran things in the early years of this century,”

AdrianneHill
by Platinum Member on Jun. 15, 2014 at 2:05 AM
4 moms liked this
I always thought the invasion of Iraq was such a damn waste. Bush has not only the country but most of the world behind him after 9/11 and he squandered that good will on a useless invasion to avenge some perceived slight against his father.
There were so many other countries that we could have invaded that would have actually made the world a better place instead of making it more precarious for everyone. I thought that we should have invaded Syria to be honest. If we just had to invade a middle eastern country because of the potential threat to the United States, Iraq was one of the most stable and least threatening in the region. People who love jihad hated Saddam. He was a pretty crappy Muslim and therefore an excellent target for extremists buy we had to be all smart and take out the only thing holding the place together. It's almost like Yugoslavia after Tito died. The only thing that kept the Bosnians, Croats, and everyone else from killing each other was the absolute certainty that the government wouldn't just kill the fighters but go after their mothers and their kids as well. As soon as the iron fist was gone, the killing started again. The same fight that has been going on for over a thousand years and those fighters fired the shot that started world war one. This is another area like that. Where they love to fight each other but will unite long enough to repel an intruder and then get right back to fighting.
The only thing that can stop it now is another iron fist. Well done.
Goodwoman614
by Satan on Jun. 15, 2014 at 2:22 AM
1 mom liked this


Quoting AdrianneHill: I always thought the invasion of Iraq was such a damn waste. Bush has not only the country but most of the world behind him after 9/11 and he squandered that good will on a useless invasion to avenge some perceived slight against his father. There were so many other countries that we could have invaded that would have actually made the world a better place instead of making it more precarious for everyone. I thought that we should have invaded Syria to be honest. If we just had to invade a middle eastern country because of the potential threat to the United States, Iraq was one of the most stable and least threatening in the region. People who love jihad hated Saddam. He was a pretty crappy Muslim and therefore an excellent target for extremists buy we had to be all smart and take out the only thing holding the place together. It's almost like Yugoslavia after Tito died. The only thing that kept the Bosnians, Croats, and everyone else from killing each other was the absolute certainty that the government wouldn't just kill the fighters but go after their mothers and their kids as well. As soon as the iron fist was gone, the killing started again. The same fight that has been going on for over a thousand years and those fighters fired the shot that started world war one. This is another area like that. Where they love to fight each other but will unite long enough to repel an intruder and then get right back to fighting. The only thing that can stop it now is another iron fist. Well done.

You've been paying attention! Well done to you!

Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Jun. 15, 2014 at 2:52 AM
1 mom liked this

Remember the pivot point?

Monday, 10 March, 2003, 22:19 GMT

France will use Iraq veto

France has joined Russia in declaring itself ready to veto a new UN resolution which gives Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein until 17 March to disarm.

French President Jacques Chirac said his country would vote against any resolution that contains an ultimatum leading to war.

Mr Chirac's comments echoed an earlier statement by the Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, who said his country would vote against the draft resolution proposed by the US and the UK.

The stance by France and Russia - both veto-wielding members of the Security Council - is a severe blow to US aims of securing UN backing for quick military action against Iraq.

In a day of frantic diplomatic activity, President George W Bush has been telephoning foreign leaders in an attempt to garner support for the resolution.

The Security Council resumed consultations on Monday, but the new resolution is not expected to be put to the vote until Wednesday at the earliest.

In other developments:

  • Iraq denies reports that is placing explosives around the oil fields in the Kirkuk region in northern Iraq

  • Iraq is determined to fight "until the end" and will not surrender, Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz tells reporters in Baghdad

  • US and British warplanes patrolling southern Iraq on Monday attacked air defence targets in the "no-fly" zone for the fourth consecutive day, the US military says

Speaking on French television, Mr Chirac said France would not support any measure at the UN that would lead to military action against Iraq until the weapons inspectors said they could do no more on the ground

He said that he did not believe the resolution had sufficient support to be passed by the Security Council.

Terrorism

But if it did gain the necessary nine votes, France would vote against it.

"France will not accept this resolution. France will vote no," Mr Chirac said.

He also warned that if the US embarked on military action without UN backing it would set a dangerous precedent and lead to an increase in terrorism.

"The war will break up the international coalition against terrorism," he said.

Hours earlier, Mr Ivanov said the draft resolution was impossible to fulfil and ran counter to the policy currently being implemented under resolution 1441.

Among the Council members reported to be undecided, Pakistan has now said it would find it very hard to support military action.

And Angolan Foreign Minister Joao Bernardo de Miranda said his country is not prepared to commit itself until it came to a Council vote.

He was speaking after talks with French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, who has been touring Angola and the other African members of the Security Council, Cameroon and Guinea, to try to persuade them to reject the resolution.

Despite intensive lobbying over the weekend, it is far from certain that Britain, the US, and Spain, which is also promoting the resolution, have the support on the Security Council to see it passed.

In another blow to the US and UK, the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has spoken out against any military action against Iraq that lacks the support of the Security Council.

The members of the Security Council faced a grim task, Mr Annan said.

"If they fail to agree on a common position and action is taken without the authority of the Security Council, the legitimacy and support for any such action would be seriously impaired," he said.

Moral failure

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said if the Security Council did not support a new resolution, it would be failing the people of Iraq just as it had let down other peoples before.

"From a moral point of view, as the world witnessed in Rwanda and ...Kosovo, the United Nations Security Council will have failed once again," he said.

But the BBC's Rob Watson in Washington said Mr Fleischer also indicated that Washington could be flexible over its precise wording, including the proposed deadline of 17 March - a sign perhaps of how much the US still wants a second resolution.

Britain has also said it will continue to work to get a draft resolution through the Security Council to disarm Iraq by force.

"My instructions at the moment are to continue working for the draft resolution, and we will to continue to do that," UK ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, told reporters.

Earlier on Monday, UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw insisted that Iraq was not being asked to disarm within a week.

"But what we are expecting is that the Iraqi regime should demonstrate the full, unconditional, immediate cooperation demanded by successive resolutions since 1991," he told MPs.

To that end, Mr Straw said the UK Government wanted to draw up a list of tasks for Iraq to show it was serious about disarming.

The detailed disarmament moves are likely to be drawn from a document compiled by UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix which says Iraq has not fully disposed of its chemical and biological weapons arsenal.

AdrianneHill
by Platinum Member on Jun. 15, 2014 at 4:17 AM
It just makes you want cry
Healthystart30
by Silver Member on Jun. 15, 2014 at 5:46 AM
4 moms liked this
He is right and everyone in the world know this except the poor republicans in denial
Carpy
by Ruby Member on Jun. 15, 2014 at 6:30 AM

Strangely, the two countries most adamantly against the war are the two most mired in the oil for food scandal.

Quoting Clairwil:

Remember the pivot point?

Monday, 10 March, 2003, 22:19 GMT

France will use Iraq veto

France has joined Russia in declaring itself ready to veto a new UN resolution which gives Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein until 17 March to disarm.

French President Jacques Chirac said his country would vote against any resolution that contains an ultimatum leading to war.

Mr Chirac's comments echoed an earlier statement by the Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, who said his country would vote against the draft resolution proposed by the US and the UK.

The stance by France and Russia - both veto-wielding members of the Security Council - is a severe blow to US aims of securing UN backing for quick military action against Iraq.

In a day of frantic diplomatic activity, President George W Bush has been telephoning foreign leaders in an attempt to garner support for the resolution.

The Security Council resumed consultations on Monday, but the new resolution is not expected to be put to the vote until Wednesday at the earliest.

In other developments:

  • Iraq denies reports that is placing explosives around the oil fields in the Kirkuk region in northern Iraq



  • Iraq is determined to fight "until the end" and will not surrender, Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz tells reporters in Baghdad



  • US and British warplanes patrolling southern Iraq on Monday attacked air defence targets in the "no-fly" zone for the fourth consecutive day, the US military says


Speaking on French television, Mr Chirac said France would not support any measure at the UN that would lead to military action against Iraq until the weapons inspectors said they could do no more on the ground

He said that he did not believe the resolution had sufficient support to be passed by the Security Council.

Terrorism

But if it did gain the necessary nine votes, France would vote against it.

"France will not accept this resolution. France will vote no," Mr Chirac said.

He also warned that if the US embarked on military action without UN backing it would set a dangerous precedent and lead to an increase in terrorism.

"The war will break up the international coalition against terrorism," he said.

Hours earlier, Mr Ivanov said the draft resolution was impossible to fulfil and ran counter to the policy currently being implemented under resolution 1441.

Among the Council members reported to be undecided, Pakistan has now said it would find it very hard to support military action.

And Angolan Foreign Minister Joao Bernardo de Miranda said his country is not prepared to commit itself until it came to a Council vote.

He was speaking after talks with French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, who has been touring Angola and the other African members of the Security Council, Cameroon and Guinea, to try to persuade them to reject the resolution.

Despite intensive lobbying over the weekend, it is far from certain that Britain, the US, and Spain, which is also promoting the resolution, have the support on the Security Council to see it passed.

In another blow to the US and UK, the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has spoken out against any military action against Iraq that lacks the support of the Security Council.

The members of the Security Council faced a grim task, Mr Annan said.

"If they fail to agree on a common position and action is taken without the authority of the Security Council, the legitimacy and support for any such action would be seriously impaired," he said.

Moral failure

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said if the Security Council did not support a new resolution, it would be failing the people of Iraq just as it had let down other peoples before.

"From a moral point of view, as the world witnessed in Rwanda and ...Kosovo, the United Nations Security Council will have failed once again," he said.

But the BBC's Rob Watson in Washington said Mr Fleischer also indicated that Washington could be flexible over its precise wording, including the proposed deadline of 17 March - a sign perhaps of how much the US still wants a second resolution.

Britain has also said it will continue to work to get a draft resolution through the Security Council to disarm Iraq by force.

"My instructions at the moment are to continue working for the draft resolution, and we will to continue to do that," UK ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, told reporters.

Earlier on Monday, UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw insisted that Iraq was not being asked to disarm within a week.

"But what we are expecting is that the Iraqi regime should demonstrate the full, unconditional, immediate cooperation demanded by successive resolutions since 1991," he told MPs.

To that end, Mr Straw said the UK Government wanted to draw up a list of tasks for Iraq to show it was serious about disarming.

The detailed disarmament moves are likely to be drawn from a document compiled by UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix which says Iraq has not fully disposed of its chemical and biological weapons arsenal.



Goodwoman614
by Satan on Jun. 15, 2014 at 1:01 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting AdrianneHill: It just makes you want cry

Nope, not me. I'm more just-shy-of-murderously angry.

Goodwoman614
by Satan on Jun. 15, 2014 at 1:04 PM


Quoting Clairwil:

Remember the pivot point?

Monday, 10 March, 2003, 22:19 GMT

France will use Iraq veto

France has joined Russia in declaring itself ready to veto a new UN resolution which gives Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein until 17 March to disarm.

French President Jacques Chirac said his country would vote against any resolution that contains an ultimatum leading to war.

Mr Chirac's comments echoed an earlier statement by the Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, who said his country would vote against the draft resolution proposed by the US and the UK.

The stance by France and Russia - both veto-wielding members of the Security Council - is a severe blow to US aims of securing UN backing for quick military action against Iraq.

In a day of frantic diplomatic activity, President George W Bush has been telephoning foreign leaders in an attempt to garner support for the resolution.

The Security Council resumed consultations on Monday, but the new resolution is not expected to be put to the vote until Wednesday at the earliest.

In other developments:

  • Iraq denies reports that is placing explosives around the oil fields in the Kirkuk region in northern Iraq



  • Iraq is determined to fight "until the end" and will not surrender, Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz tells reporters in Baghdad



  • US and British warplanes patrolling southern Iraq on Monday attacked air defence targets in the "no-fly" zone for the fourth consecutive day, the US military says


Speaking on French television, Mr Chirac said France would not support any measure at the UN that would lead to military action against Iraq until the weapons inspectors said they could do no more on the ground

He said that he did not believe the resolution had sufficient support to be passed by the Security Council.

Terrorism

But if it did gain the necessary nine votes, France would vote against it.

"France will not accept this resolution. France will vote no," Mr Chirac said.

He also warned that if the US embarked on military action without UN backing it would set a dangerous precedent and lead to an increase in terrorism.

"The war will break up the international coalition against terrorism," he said.

Hours earlier, Mr Ivanov said the draft resolution was impossible to fulfil and ran counter to the policy currently being implemented under resolution 1441.

Among the Council members reported to be undecided, Pakistan has now said it would find it very hard to support military action.

And Angolan Foreign Minister Joao Bernardo de Miranda said his country is not prepared to commit itself until it came to a Council vote.

He was speaking after talks with French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, who has been touring Angola and the other African members of the Security Council, Cameroon and Guinea, to try to persuade them to reject the resolution.

Despite intensive lobbying over the weekend, it is far from certain that Britain, the US, and Spain, which is also promoting the resolution, have the support on the Security Council to see it passed.

In another blow to the US and UK, the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has spoken out against any military action against Iraq that lacks the support of the Security Council.

The members of the Security Council faced a grim task, Mr Annan said.

"If they fail to agree on a common position and action is taken without the authority of the Security Council, the legitimacy and support for any such action would be seriously impaired," he said.

Moral failure

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said if the Security Council did not support a new resolution, it would be failing the people of Iraq just as it had let down other peoples before.

"From a moral point of view, as the world witnessed in Rwanda and ...Kosovo, the United Nations Security Council will have failed once again," he said.

But the BBC's Rob Watson in Washington said Mr Fleischer also indicated that Washington could be flexible over its precise wording, including the proposed deadline of 17 March - a sign perhaps of how much the US still wants a second resolution.

Britain has also said it will continue to work to get a draft resolution through the Security Council to disarm Iraq by force.

"My instructions at the moment are to continue working for the draft resolution, and we will to continue to do that," UK ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, told reporters.

Earlier on Monday, UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw insisted that Iraq was not being asked to disarm within a week.

"But what we are expecting is that the Iraqi regime should demonstrate the full, unconditional, immediate cooperation demanded by successive resolutions since 1991," he told MPs.

To that end, Mr Straw said the UK Government wanted to draw up a list of tasks for Iraq to show it was serious about disarming.

The detailed disarmament moves are likely to be drawn from a document compiled by UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix which says Iraq has not fully disposed of its chemical and biological weapons arsenal.

There were many pivot points, where the war could have been stopped. This is where the slide of the fourth estate really solidified itself as bankrupt in it's duty to the people.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)