Jump to content

Quotes on Iraq

Guest $iLk

Recommended Posts

"Tommy Franks and the coalition forces have demonstrated the old axiom

that boldness on the battlefield produces swift and relatively

bloodless victory. The three-week swing through Iraq has utterly

shattered skeptics' complaints." (Fox News Channel's Tony Snow,


"The only people who think this wasn't a victory are Upper Westside

liberals, and a few people here in Washington." (Charles Krauthammer,

Inside Washington, WUSA-TV, 4/19/03)

"We're all neo-cons now." (MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 4/9/03)

"I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego

that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to

take that wager?" (Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 1/29/03)

"The majority of the American media who were in a position to comment

upon the progress of the war in the early going, and even after that,

got it wrong," Hume complained in the April 2003 speech (Richmond Times

Dispatch, 4/25/04). "They didn't get it just a little wrong. They got

it completely wrong."

"The war was the hard part. The hard part was putting together a

coalition, getting 300,000 troops over there and all their equipment

and winning. And it gets easier. I mean, setting up a democracy is

hard, but it is not as hard as winning a war."

(Fox News Channel's Fred Barnes, 4/10/03)

"He looked like an alternatively commander in chief, rock star, movie

star, and one of the guys."

(CNN's Lou Dobbs, on Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' speech, 5/1/03)

"What's he going to talk about a year from now, the fact that the war

went too well and it's over? I mean, don't these things sort of lose

their--Isn't there a fresh date on some of these debate points?"

(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, speaking about Howard Dean--4/9/03)

"It is amazing how thorough the victory in Iraq really was in the

broadest context..... And the silence, I think, is that it's clear that

nobody can do anything about it. There isn't anybody who can stop him.

The Democrats can't oppose--cannot oppose him politically."

(Washington Post reporter Jeff Birnbaum-- Fox News Channel, 5/2/03)

"Now that the war in Iraq is all but over, should the people in

Hollywood who opposed the president admit they were wrong?"

(Fox News Channel's Alan Colmes, 4/25/03)

"I doubt that the journalists at the New York Times and NPR or at ABC

or at CNN are going to ever admit just how wrong their negative

pronouncements were over the past four weeks."

(MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 4/9/03)

"I'm waiting to hear the words 'I was wrong' from some of the world's

most elite journalists, politicians and Hollywood types.... I just

wonder, who's going to be the first elitist to show the character to

say: 'Hey, America, guess what? I was wrong'? Maybe the White House

will get an apology, first, from the New York Times' Maureen Dowd. Now,

Ms. Dowd mocked the morality of this war....

"Do you all remember Scott Ritter, you know, the former chief U.N.

weapons inspector who played chief stooge for Saddam Hussein? Well, Mr.

Ritter actually told a French radio network that -- quote, "The United

States is going to leave Baghdad with its tail between its legs,

defeated." Sorry, Scott. I think you've been chasing the wrong tail,


"Maybe disgraced commentators and politicians alike, like Daschle,

Jimmy Carter, Dennis Kucinich, and all those others, will step forward

tonight and show the content of their character by simply admitting

what we know already: that their wartime predictions were arrogant,

they were misguided and they were dead wrong. Maybe, just maybe, these

self-anointed critics will learn from their mistakes. But I doubt it.

After all, we don't call them 'elitists' for nothing."

(MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 4/10/03)

"Over the next couple of weeks when we find the chemical weapons this

guy was amassing, the fact that this war was attacked by the left and

so the right was so vindicated, I think, really means that the left is

going to have to hang its head for three or four more years."

(Fox News Channel's Dick Morris, 4/9/03)

"This has been a tough war for commentators on the American left. To

hope for defeat meant cheering for Saddam Hussein. To hope for victory

meant cheering for President Bush. The toppling of Mr. Hussein, or at

least a statue of him, has made their arguments even harder to defend.

Liberal writers for ideologically driven magazines like The Nation and

for less overtly political ones like The New Yorker did not predict a

defeat, but the terrible consequences many warned of have not happened.

Now liberal commentators must address the victory at hand and confront

an ascendant conservative juggernaut that asserts United States might

can set the world right."

(New York Times reporter David Carr, 4/16/03)

"Well, the hot story of the week is victory.... The Tommy Franks-Don

Rumsfeld battle plan, war plan, worked brilliantly, a three-week war

with mercifully few American deaths or Iraqi civilian deaths.... There

is a lot of work yet to do, but all the naysayers have been humiliated

so far.... The final word on this is, hooray."

(Fox News Channel's Morton Kondracke, 4/12/03)

"Shouldn't the prime minister and all of us who thought the

war was hasty and dangerous and wrongheaded admit that we were wrong? I

mean, with the pictures of those Iraqis dancing in the streets, hauling

down statues of Saddam Hussein and gushing their thanks to the

Americans, isn't it clear that President Bush and Britain's Tony Blair

were right all along? If we believe it's a good thing that Hussein's

regime has been dismantled, aren't we hypocritical not to acknowledge

Bush's superior judgment?... Why can't those of us who thought the war

was a bad idea (or, at any rate, a premature one) let it go now and

just join in celebrating the victory wrought by our magnificent

military forces?"

(Washington Post's William Raspberry, 4/14/03)

"Some journalists, in my judgment, just can't stand success, especially

a few liberal columnists and newspapers and a few Arab reporters."

(CNN's Lou Dobbs, 4/14/03)

"Sean Penn is at it again. The Hollywood star takes out a full-page ad

out in the New York Times bashing George Bush. Apparently he still

hasn't figured out we won the war."

(MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 5/30/03)

"This will be no war -- there will be a fairly brief and ruthless

military intervention.... The president will give an order. attack] will be rapid, accurate and dazzling.... It will be greeted by

the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring

it on."

(Christopher Hitchens, in a 1/28/03 debate-- cited in the Observer,


"I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego

that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to

take that wager?"

(Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 1/29/03)

"There's no way. There's absolutely no way. They may bomb for a matter

of weeks, try to soften them up as they did in Afghanistan. But once

the United States and Britain unleash, it's maybe hours. They're going

to fold like that."

(Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03)

"He actually thought that he could stop us and win the

debate worldwide. But he didn't--he didn't bargain on a two- or three

week war. I actually thought it would be less than two weeks."

(NBC reporter Fred Francis, Chris Matthews Show, 4/13/03)

"Speaking to the U.N. Security Council last week, Secretary of State

Colin Powell made so strong a case that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein

is in material breach of U.N. resolutions that only the duped, the dumb

and the desperate could ignore it."

(Cal Thomas, syndicated column, 2/12/03)

"Chris, more than anything else, real vindication for the

administration. One, credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

Two, you know what? There were a lot of terrorists here, really bad

guys. I saw them."

(MSNBC reporter Bob Arnot, 4/9/03)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I beleive he is attempting to start the whole "war in iraq was a failure" argument again. At least it sounds like that.

-In case no one noticed too, none of those quotes came from anyone but news reporters and talkshow hosts so I dont see how it supports any point at all. -Except that the media is not always right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if he IS trying that he's going to fail. The media has ALWAYS been Anti-War, so it's a VERY poor place to find anyting related to the War on Terrorism

I know Jag had a list somewhere, but now I can't find it, basically lets just put it this way: We've done a lot of good in Iraq and the people there, for the most part, are thankful for our help, the only things you hear about these days are soldiers being killed and iraq's attacking our troops. The fact of the matter is, the "iraq attacking our troops" part is slightly a lie

1. Because it's not iraq's in general: It's terrorists opposed to our Iraq Freedom

2. Because the Media is trying to spin the story and make Iraq sound worse than it already is. The media is well known for being biased toward several area's

But, to put it right down, if he WAS going to try and start up another "War in iraq was a failure" crude he's going to have a very difficult time doing that, because quotes from newscasters and talk-show-hosts are not worth the time it took to bring them here, after all, NONE OF THEM are even IN iraq or have taken PART in any of the operations, that what makes their quotes nothing more than dead weight

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1. Because it's not iraq's in general: It's terrorists opposed to our Iraq Freedom

There are (of course) some people (who arn't terrorist) who want everyone who dosn't live there out of Iraq (pretty much everone, including some terrorists) which is probably most of the insurgency (which dosn't mean all the citizens support them).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right about that Aperson

It's only natural for some people to be against us going in.

The problem isn't much that, it's the Media that won't get it's head out of it's ass and start reporting the positive's of whats been going on

And don't you even DARE come here and ask me "What positives?" because I can just as easilly get ahold of several friends of mine who have been iraq for one year, two years and where there even BEFORE we went in and I assure you they know much more about whats going on than most of you people

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just found it interesting that the media was doing more cheerleading during the Iraq war than actual reporting.

Despite any positives there are over 2000 negatives that I can point to easily.

I am very concerned that my country is going around being an aggressor nation against nations who have never attacked us.

I support a strong national defense. With our current policies - I believe it would be more appropriate to rename the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of War as the cabinet position was called during and before WW2.

Neoconservatism is a failed ideology. It's just taking a while for those who are actually conservative to recognize it for what it is and abandon it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I just found it interesting that the media was doing more cheerleading during the Iraq war than actual reporting.

I really don't understand you

You complain that the media is 'cheerleading' the war and praising our troops

Yet when the media goes bush bashing, or only reports the negative stuff about the war you don't complain

When I took Broadcast Journalism in high school I was taught that in the news world you are to report the bad AND the good, in this case, since the media is reporting the good you have a problem with it, yet when they report the bad you don't

I really don't understand you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are really putting words in my mouth aren't you? Any successes in Iraq do not negate the fact that we do not belong there.

That's like if you rape a woman but brag about how you gave her a new dress after the fact.

I'm sure China feels the same way about Tibet that we feel about Iraq. They were just 'liberating' those who were so ignorant as to follow the teachings espoused by the Dalai Lama.

I truly hope that the country stabilizes and something meaningful emerges. It still wouldn't have been worth it - but at least it wouldn't be a complete failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, who called it? What did I tell you: war in Iraq!

-First of all: : The Iraq war was not just for liberation, there were loads of other, more responsible purposes.

-Secondly: The war was far from a complete failure. In fact it can be considered a major success on the world scale of things.

-Third: If you start this argument you are going to lose. It would be best to drop the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


there were loads of other, more responsible purposes.

Such as? WMDs? lol or maybe it was enforcing UN mandates (as if that was our responsibility) or maybe it was because they tried to kill Bush's daddy?

Or maybe it was because they intended to invade Iraq before Bush even became president. Bush said so when he was campaigning... Cheney and Rumsfield were members of PNAC along with Paul Wolfowitz. That's 3 major cabinet members who supported invading Iraq as early as 1998.


The war was far from a complete failure. In fact it can be considered a major success on the world scale of things.

By tying down 150,000 US troops and tying up $2 Trillion that will never be paid back and leading to the bombing and terrorist attacks against Iraqi civilians and leading to basically every single one of our major European allies to disagree with us?

Not to mention the Constitutional questions surrounding it.


If you start this argument you are going to lose. It would be best to drop the issue.

only in the Sean Hannity sense of me losing it. The one where you plug your ears, cut the mic, and start asking me "Was Saddam Hussein a bad man?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally posted by $iLk:

The biggest success of all was empowering a Shiite majority to form the government next to Shiite Iran.

Yeah, like the Arab Shiites in Iraq, want anything to do with the nutso Persian Shiites in Iran...

I don't think so....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They obviously don't I guess:



Those two are in relation to Iran and Iraq's transportation and economic programs that are underway between the two countries.


That is someone's blog about the military cooperation deal that Iran and Iraq signed in July of 2005.

Here is something further that brings it up:


Forgive me for the sources... I just grabbed the first few results off of Google as the MSM decided against running with these stories, although I believe the Washington Post had some coverage...

Yeah they did:


BAGHDAD, July 16 2005 -- A quarter-century after Iraq's invasion of Iran launched the Middle East's bloodiest modern war, Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari arrived in Tehran on Saturday for a three-day visit that officials on both sides said signals a new alliance that could change the religious and political balance of power in the region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Remo Williams

No actually the biggest success was bring out in the open the people here in the USA that could careless about the suffering of others in distant lands.

That would rather cry about what it cost to do the right thing for someone else. Must be nice to set in your warm home and not give a damn about people, human beings just like you and me, so what if Saddam was putting entire families and villages into mass graves why should we care the Europeans don't, so why should we put our lives on the line to make the world a better place for someone else. When we can enjoy our lives by sticking our heads in the sand and keeping our pockets full.

I should know better to stick my nose in this stink it just turns my stomach to see this tripe coming from Americans. This use to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, the defenders of liberty my ass look at what we have become a nation of self centered wieners

IÔÇÖm out of here have fun pointing finger over bogus concepts and ignoring what really matters, humanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said Remo.

Of course, you'll be accused of being "duped" by the evil and sinister war-mongering devils, Bush and Cheney. You bought the whole WMD line hook line and sinker; never mind that the whole WMD issue was never a very big thing for you (or most quasi-connected people with half a brain). The Ritalin-fueled sheeple of today need a focal point on which to focus their miniscule attention spans in order to grasp the gravity of a given situation; something that rolls off the tongue; a buzz word that can be remembered between pointless cell phone conversations and complaining about gas prices. Bush chose WMD for the sheeple. Hell, it could have been his dislike of Saddam's attire for all you care. For shame!

Next, you'll be attacked for supporting a "war of agression". Saddam didn't attack us, don't you know? Never mind that he was a crazed billionaire leader of a oil-rich rogue terrorist nation who has imparted untold suffering on his people while fisaclly supporting and harboring terrorists practically in his own house. He couldn't be bothered with them, silly man! He had innocent townsfolk to gas!

Ah, but then next comes the real kicker! Rumsfeld, that evil bastard, gave the chemical weapons to Saddam! Yup. I've read it all over the internet. And we all know that information on the net is NEVER misconstrued or taken out of context for peoples' own purposes. Rumsfeld, and of course, by extension, you yourself, may as well have gassed those people personally! Egads, you are evil to the core!

And of course, what discussion of the Iraq war would be complete without another sheeple-generated buzz word being thrown around; you know that one we all know and love - NEO-CON! Oooh, the very word just SOUNDS sinister. Why, a neo-con makes Darth Vader look like a boy scout! Never mind that there IS no such thing as a neo-con; that it's just another fatanstical fabrication of conservative bloggers who need to demonize Bush so that people will read their self-important ramblings. It's not enough just to dislike him, you see. Or to disagree. Oh no. Bush drowns puppies while smoking furled up photographs of the families of the dead American soldiers, haven't you heard? And laughs! Mike Moore(on) said so!

So never make the mistake of calling the "insurgents" terrorists. That would be the supreme sin. All occupied peoples of history have resorted to blowing up their own women and children in a desperate attempt to plunge their country into civil war, causing even greater bloodshed. This is nothing more than a noble resistance, and don't you dare say it's not! Haven't you ever taken a history class? All aggressors have used as little force as humanly possible when attacking a foreign nation. Surely you will see if you study history that the college prank-level offenses committed in the US prisons far outweigh the death camps of the Nazi's and the rape of Nanking. Nothing could be compare to the atrocity of giving people their freedom while killing off the poor misunderstood freedom fighters you so blithely label "terrorists".

Terrorists really just want to be understood, ya know. When they commit their trademark noble acts like suicide bombings and beheadings, they are merely trying to call attention to their noble plight. Consider 9/11 a desperate cry for help.

Anyway, I just wanted to prepare you for the inevitable cavalcade of self-righteous pretentiousness. Gotta go, my sarcasm meter is pegged high, and it needs to cool off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally posted by $iLk:

I don't think Rush or Hannity covered this so excuse me if it's new information.

Mega dittos.

Sometimes $iLk, I think you need a good thump in the head.

There are political and geophysical realities that you just need to come to terms with.

Iran is Iraq's next door neighbor, they share a HUGE border, and were at war for years because Saddam wanted Iran's oil fields.

The fact of the matter is, Iraq is becoming a Federalist republic, with all the minorites guaranteed certain rights.

Also, you fail to realize the difference between Persian Shiites, and Arab ones.

The economic advantages are right there in front of your face, but since the negative is all that you are looking for, the negative is all that you are going to see.

We are diplomatically attempting to get Iran to ive up their nuclear bomb ambitions, and with a freindly Iraq, who is ALSO our ally, we have a much better handle on the situation then we did when Saddam was in power.

The Iran/Iraq, POLITICAL/economic alliace will help us greatly int his respect.

The glass is half full $iLk, but to you it is half empty.

Pity for you bro.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally posted by Remo Williams:

No actually the biggest success was bring out in the open the people here in the USA that could careless about the suffering of others in distant lands.

"America does not go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

- John Quincy Adams

Do I care about their suffering? Of course. But aren't millions dying in Rwanda instead of the paltry few thousand that were dying each year under Saddam?

Don't use their suffering as an excuse to blind you to the real cause of the Iraq War. This wasn't about liberating people. This was about reshaping the Middle East to suit America's interests.

It pains me to see my country involved in a war against a country that never attacked us, had no ability to attack us, and had no plans to attack us.

Instead - we brought the war to them - and daily suicide bombings are killing up to 100 per day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally posted by Jaguar:

The fact of the matter is, Iraq is becoming a Federalist republic, with all the minorites guaranteed certain rights.

That government we set up in Afghanistan was a Democracy right?

I read yesterday that an Afghan man is facing the Death Penalty for converting to Christianity unless he can prove that he only converted because he was 'insane'.

My problem with the Iraq War is that it is $2 Trillion that didn't need to be spent there. It could have been spent on a ton of things more useful that would have kept us more flexible in the War on Terror.

The border, the ports, stronger internal security, there are a host of things that have been squandered. Whether you like it or not, Bush has pissed off a lot of Conservatives along with the liberals and cannot get anything done.

He blew his political capital in Iraq - just like he said he would back in 1999.


Posted by Bush in May 1999:

"One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief."

"My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. "If I
have a chance to invade
; if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."

Jag... I want us to fight the War on Terror. I don't want us running around spending $Trillions we can't afford setting up pseudo-Democracy all over the Middle East.

Democracy cannot exist without the support of the people under it. For better or worse, the people didn't like Saddam in Iraq - but they like U.S. Democracy even less.

I've been keeping tabs on what's going on... public schools are available along with running water. Of course, women are being forced into burkas and beaten with sticks. But that's an even trade I guess.

Bush does not have the will to win the Iraq War. If he wanted to win it he would have gone in with overwhelming force and demolished the first city that showed resistance.

Instead he's bleeding our military out slowly... eating at it's numbers and morale.

And while we've got our finger up our ass trying to install Democracy in a country that doesn't want it - Iran is working on an atomic bomb. North Korea has developed atomic weaponry while we've been in Iraq.

Iraq wasn't working on anything. Hannity rants on and on that they were - but no evidence has been found. Memos/tapes have been released where Saddam talks about destroying his WMD programs long before our invasion.

It's like we invaded Iran and missed. I still see an appropriate analogy being that we raped Iraq and bought it a dress after the fact.

That's nothing to be proud of.

I hope Iraq sets up a super-Democracy that is the beacon of the Western world in the Mid-East and they do it in 6 months. Not so I can hear Hannity and the rest of the neo-cons circle-jerk each other, but so we can quit dumping money down a hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...