Wolfowitz on Iraq crisis: ‘This is about preventing another 9/11′

posted at 2:01 pm on June 17, 2014 by Noah Rothman

In an appearance on MSNBC with host Chuck Todd on Tuesday, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz insisted that the present crisis in Iraq in one that demands forward thinking and not an endless series of retrospectives on the Iraq War.

Of course, Wolfowitz has an obvious self-interest in making that assertion, and escaping the part he played in the 2003 invasion of Iraq is an impossible task. Though while maintaining that he would have conducted the war differently, and objecting to the term “architect,” the former deputy defense secretary defended his role in the war and argued that American withdrawal from Iraq was premature.

Wolfowitz added that abandoning Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is a luxury the West cannot afford at the moment. “If we had walked away from [former South Korean Prime Minister] Syngman Rhee, who was the Maliki of his time, we would have had North Korea taking over South Korea,” Wolfowitz asserted.

He added that the threat posed by ISIS creating a safe haven in Iraq represents a clear and present threat to the homeland. “This is about preventing another 9/11,” he said.

While some may disregard this claim, it seems that Wolfowitz is not alone in this belief.

“At the end of the day, if ISIS continues, then we’ll have to — and succeeds, then we’ll have to consider what is the threat to us,” said chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) who also appeared on Todd’s program. “I believe ISIS would clearly want to launch attacks against the United States.”

“Whether it be successful or not would be a question, but their desire to do so and the ability to launch from a place in which they could act with impunity is something we have to consider in our national interest,” the ranking Democrat concluded.

Menendez joins former acting CIA director Mike Morell who told CBS News on Monday that one of ISIS’s goals, after the creation of a pan-Islamic caliphate in the Fertile Crescent, would be to launch attacks against Americans and the American homeland.

That’s as broad an ideological consensus on matters of national security and foreign affairs as it gets. How long can President Barack Obama resist that kind of pressure before acting?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Wolfowitz on Iraq crisis: ‘This is about preventing another 9/11′

Actually just the opposite. Most likely creating the environment for another 9/11.

hawkeye54 on June 17, 2014 at 2:02 PM

It’s the evil neocons!!!!!111!!! The Joooooooooos!!!!111!!!!11!!

Ward Cleaver on June 17, 2014 at 2:03 PM

Don’t worry, Obama will be out of office when we get nailed again, and it will be someone else’s problem.

Ward Cleaver on June 17, 2014 at 2:04 PM

You have to ask in the end what is Al Queada’s long term goal? This is the answer.

Sven on June 17, 2014 at 2:06 PM

Realistically speaking, what’s the best outcome America could hope for with American intervention?

chris0christies0donut on June 17, 2014 at 2:06 PM

Realistically speaking, what’s the best outcome America could hope for with American intervention?

chris0christies0donut on June 17, 2014 at 2:06 PM

A stable government.

Sven on June 17, 2014 at 2:07 PM

“I killed Osama Bin Laden. I’m a hero.”

-Obama

portlandon on June 17, 2014 at 2:07 PM

Realistically speaking, what’s the best outcome America could hope for with American intervention?

chris0christies0donut on June 17, 2014 at 2:06 PM
A stable government.

Sven on June 17, 2014 at 2:07 PM

A stable American government after this one is thrown out.

Sven on June 17, 2014 at 2:08 PM

And last time, Dr Wolfowitz, it was about the spread of WMD’s.

Where, exactly, are those WMD’s, by the bye?

You’ll forgive us our skepticism of your opinions of US relations in SW Asia…

JohnGalt23 on June 17, 2014 at 2:08 PM

this is about preventing another 911

Or worse. Don’t think that 9/11 is as bad as it can get. A nutcase ISIS or Afghan Taliban state could conceivably get nukes or other WMDs, and make 911 look like a walk in the park.

Of course, who knows exactly what’s going on in the present Iraq case, who the bad and good guys are.

anotherJoe on June 17, 2014 at 2:09 PM

And last time, Dr Wolfowitz, it was about the spread of WMD’s.

Where, exactly, are those WMD’s, by the bye?

You’ll forgive us our skepticism of your opinions of US relations in SW Asia…

JohnGalt23 on June 17, 2014 at 2:08 PM

In dead Syrians.

Sven on June 17, 2014 at 2:10 PM

Why Iraq could be more dangerous than pre-9/11 Afghanistan

As Sunni extremists broaden their control of territory from Syria deep into Iraq, the Middle East may now be facing its greatest challenge in decades.

“This is the Talibanization of Iraq,” journalist and author Robin Wright told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour on Monday. “And there’s no question that the global Jihadi threat is greater today than it was at the height in the 1980s or even in 2001, when we saw the attacks in Washington and New York.”

The U.S. has started moving more military assets into the region as militants advance towards the Iraqi city of Baquba, just 60 kilometers from Baghdad. President Barack Obama has said that he will not send troops in on the ground.

The rise of ISIS, or the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, has been fuelled by civil war in Syria. The group is trying to carve out a Sunni statelet that straddles the nearly none-existent border between Iraq and Syria.

“Ultimately we can’t solve Iraq with also dealing with Syria,” Wright said. “That’s what makes this challenge arguably greater than any one we’ve faced in the Middle East, you could argue, in six or seven decades.”

“The whole map of the Middle East is now up for grabs. There are fundamental questions about borders that have prevailed for a century that now may not be hold together. We find a jihadi threat that could be with us for a far longer period of time, in far greater numbers than in Afghanistan.”

So worrying is the situation that there is a real possibility that Iran and the United States, which both support the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, may join forces to try to diffuse the situation.

“There is a sense that they share a common cause right now – they both are concerned that their policies of the decade have failed.”

“That doesn’t mean we’re going to see American drone strikes providing air cover for ground involvement by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard,” she said, but rather an effort to “salvage the Iraqi state diplomatically.”

There are two chief concerns about latest rapid developments in Iraq, Geoff Dyer, Washington correspondent for The Financial Times, told Amanpour.

“You have the immediate fear that you have this very, very radical jihadi group that is taking control of a huge slate of territory, mostly in Iraq but also in Syria.”

“And then you have a secondary fear, which is that this will start at a deeper civil war in Iraq and that the country will essentially fragment into three ethnic statelets – a Sunni statelet, a Shia statelet and a Kurdish statelet.”

“And these are two very interlinked but different types of crises. And the U.S. is going to have to have different types of policies to deal with both. And that’s the real problem.”

Insofar as the chaos in Iraq is a result of the civil war in Syria, many criticize the Obama Administration for failing to robustly back Syria’s moderate early in the conflict.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in a new book about her time at the State Department that she disagreed with the president on his decision not to arm the moderate opposition.

“There’s a very valid debate about what the U.S. could or could not have done in 2011 when the civil war in Syria was just beginning to get going,” Dyer said.

“But we’re now two and a half years later from that. The reality on the ground is very much different. The options the U.S. has even if it did want to change its approach are much more limited. And so it’s not such a simple question to say the U.S. needs to change its attitude. Unfortunately, the things that it has, and its capacity to do are very limited.”

Resist We Much on June 17, 2014 at 2:10 PM

Realistically speaking, what’s the best outcome America could hope for with American intervention?

chris0christies0donut on June 17, 2014 at 2:06 PM

Realistically? Ahmed Chalabi and a bunch of INC goons go over and take command of a bunch of former Baathist military officers, with as much hardware, money and leeway to do what needs to be done to pacify the population.

Just don’t be surprised if he turns into the next Saddam Hussein in the process. If you like sausage…

JohnGalt23 on June 17, 2014 at 2:11 PM

And last time, Dr Wolfowitz, it was about the spread of WMD’s.

Where, exactly, are those WMD’s, by the bye?

You’ll forgive us our skepticism of your opinions of US relations in SW Asia…

JohnGalt23 on June 17, 2014 at 2:08 PM

In dead Syrians.

Sven on June 17, 2014 at 2:10 PM

The CIA says that the al-Assad clan in Syria has been making chemical weapons since before Saddam Hussein even took power in Iraq.

Not even the Bush Administration tried selling that day old fish…

JohnGalt23 on June 17, 2014 at 2:14 PM

A stable government.

Sven on June 17, 2014 at 2:07 PM

I don’t think that’s realistic, but…

A stable American government after this one is thrown out.

Sven on June 17, 2014 at 2:08 PM

… OK, I see where you’re going here.

chris0christies0donut on June 17, 2014 at 2:14 PM

It’ll happen again because we have voted eunuchs in for decades and all they care about is feeding at the public trough.

vityas on June 17, 2014 at 2:15 PM

Can we start profiling now, or do we have to wait until after the first nuclear strike?

fogw on June 17, 2014 at 2:15 PM

If this were about preventing another 9/11, we would be invading Saudi Arabia.

This isn’t.

antisense on June 17, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Wolfowitz is right, but he and the neocons are making a crap argument.

They cannot simply say “Preventing another 9/11″.

You have to lay out – detail by detail – how Afghanistan became a safe haven and that Iraq is not just on same path, but worse, because of it’s centralized location.

Unless you do that, it’s a waste of time.

And the real problem? The W Admin was the worst at making any type of coherent case because they always believed they were above the need, and most people wouldn’t comprehend.

budfox on June 17, 2014 at 2:17 PM

“I killed Osama Bin Laden. I’m a hero.”

-Obama

portlandon on June 17, 2014 at 2:07 PM

Ah, yes, legendary.

“Everyone heard two shots ring out, one shot made Bin Laden fall
The man who shot Osama Bin Laden
He shot Osama Bin Laden
He was the bravest of them all.”

“When the fact becomes legend, print the legend.”

hawkeye54 on June 17, 2014 at 2:20 PM

That is one strange looking dude.

Bishop on June 17, 2014 at 2:21 PM

Let them set up their Sunni state and settle in.Build a coalition then jointly bomb the place into sand and not worry about the collaterals.Iran won’t mind.They may even help with the bombings.

docflash on June 17, 2014 at 2:21 PM

Taliban/Al Queda in control of and funded by oil rich country?

9/11 might be small compared to what they could do.

portlandon on June 17, 2014 at 2:22 PM

Wolfowitz added that abandoning Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is a luxury the West cannot afford at the moment. “If we had walked away from [former South Korean Prime Minister] Syngman Rhee, who was the Maliki of his time, we would have had North Korea taking over South Korea,” Wolfowitz asserted.

Riiight… because we all know that Syngman Rhee was a Muslim.

Wolfowitz is a moron living in the stone ages just like every other retarded neo-con.

The problem is MUSLIMS you moron! They don’t think the same way anyone else does.

Menendez joins former acting CIA director Mike Morell who told CBS News on Monday that one of ISIS’s goals, after the creation of a pan-Islamic caliphate in the Fertile Crescent, would be to launch attacks against Americans and the American homeland.

Muslims already are attacking us, and have been doing this for a long time, even pre-9/11.

WhatSlushfund on June 17, 2014 at 2:26 PM

Neo-con rubbish. This is the narrative these Republicans will follow, so that they can avoid doing anything positive to address our economic malaise. I don’t think it will work.

rickv404 on June 17, 2014 at 2:28 PM

Why would anyone listen to Wolfowitz?

Pincher Martin on June 17, 2014 at 2:28 PM

And last time, Dr Wolfowitz, it was about the spread of WMD’s.

Where, exactly, are those WMD’s, by the bye?

You’ll forgive us our skepticism of your opinions of US relations in SW Asia…

JohnGalt23 on June 17, 2014 at 2:08 PM

In dead Syrians.

Sven on June 17, 2014 at 2:10 PM

This.

The WMD were there, we just weren’t fast enough before they were shipped off to Syria.

Critic2029 on June 17, 2014 at 2:29 PM

WhatSlushfund on June 17, 2014 at 2:26 PM

Sounds to me like you have a problem with Muslims…

Critic2029 on June 17, 2014 at 2:31 PM

Not a Wolfowitz fan other than fact he makes liberal heads explode.

swamp_yankee on June 17, 2014 at 2:31 PM

9/11 2001
or
9/11 2012 ?

burrata on June 17, 2014 at 2:33 PM

I’m not overly worried, Dog Eater has calmed the mideast through the power of his soothing words, ISIS just hasn’t had time to listen to his Cairo speech yet.

Bishop on June 17, 2014 at 2:34 PM

Why. The. F*ck. is MSNBC asking Paul Wolfowitz *anything* about Iraq? Everything he said in the lead up about how the invasion and occupation would play out was wrong. Literally, everything. Do you people really think MSNBC is some anti-war network? I’m literally sick to my stomach.

libfreeordie on June 17, 2014 at 2:36 PM

Do you people really think MSNBC is some anti-war network? I’m literally sick to my stomach.

libfreeordie on June 17, 2014 at 2:36 PM

They have been waging their own little war on intelligence for quite some time. Yeah, I guess I see what you’re getting at.

chris0christies0donut on June 17, 2014 at 2:40 PM

Why. The. F*ck. is MSNBC asking Paul Wolfowitz *anything* about Iraq? Everything he said in the lead up about how the invasion and occupation would play out was wrong. Literally, everything. Do you people really think MSNBC is some anti-war network? I’m literally sick to my stomach.

libfreeordie on June 17, 2014 at 2:36 PM

It says a lot that MSNBC would turn to Wolfowitz on how to UnFu*k what Obama has done. Doesn’t it?

How bad does this administration have to be for MSNBC to turn to Bush Administration for strategy?

portlandon on June 17, 2014 at 2:42 PM

“If we had walked away from [former South Korean Prime Minister] Syngman Rhee, who was the Maliki of his time, we would have had North Korea taking over South Korea,” Wolfowitz asserted.

Rhee was anti-communist. He opposed the regime in North Korea.

Maliki is pro-Iran. He is helping them take over Iraq.

kcewa on June 17, 2014 at 2:46 PM

I’m literally sick to my stomach.

libfreeordie on June 17, 2014 at 2:36 PM

Nice to know. Thanks.

Bmore on June 17, 2014 at 2:55 PM

Rhee was anti-communist. He opposed the regime in North Korea.

Maliki is pro-Iran. He is helping them take over Iraq.

kcewa on June 17, 2014 at 2:46 PM

Thank you for putting it more succinctly than I did. Sometimes I let my frustration with these people get the better of me.

WhatSlushfund on June 17, 2014 at 2:58 PM

Why. The. F*ck. is MSNBC asking Paul Wolfowitz *anything* about Iraq? Everything he said in the lead up about how the invasion and occupation would play out was wrong. Literally, everything. Do you people really think MSNBC is some anti-war network? I’m literally sick to my stomach.

libfreeordie on June 17, 2014 at 2:36 PM

The images of carnage caused by ISIS, however seem not to impact this person.

Ricard on June 17, 2014 at 3:10 PM

The CIA says that the al-Assad clan in Syria has been making chemical weapons since before Saddam Hussein even took power in Iraq.

Not even the Bush Administration tried selling that day old fish…

JohnGalt23 on June 17, 2014 at 2:14 PM

I SAW them being moved to Syria for over a year before we went in. As part of my old employment I was able to review imagery showing the convoys moving the materials.

Why that never gets said is beyond me. I speculate that we fear widening the conflict there.

Bottom line: There were WMD’s. We know they had them. We know they did not destroy them. We saw them moved. Galt my ass! Just another Libertarian fool.

Capt Blasto on June 17, 2014 at 3:14 PM

Wolfowitz is right, of course.

These nuts have money and weapons and they’re winning, so a lot of Moslems with nothing better to do will flock to their banner.

And, yes, the WMDs were right where the CIA said they were – trucked by Spetznaz on Vlad’s order into Syria.

Next dumb rehash of Lefty lies….

formwiz on June 17, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Of course Saddam had WMDs. The U.S. sold them to him in the first place.

Moron Labe on June 17, 2014 at 3:38 PM

The CIA says that the al-Assad clan in Syria has been making chemical weapons since before Saddam Hussein even took power in Iraq.

Not even the Bush Administration tried selling that day old fish…

JohnGalt23 on June 17, 2014 at 2:14 PM

I SAW them being moved to Syria for over a year before we went in. As part of my old employment I was able to review imagery showing the convoys moving the materials.

Why that never gets said is beyond me. I speculate that we fear widening the conflict there.

Bottom line: There were WMD’s. We know they had them. We know they did not destroy them. We saw them moved. Galt my ass! Just another Libertarian fool.

Capt Blasto on June 17, 2014 at 3:14 PM

Of course. Syria had their own chemical weapons industry going back to the seventies, and it was much more advanced than Iraq’s, second only to that of the major powers. When Syria took the WMDs from Iraq as a favor to Russia, they would have seen them as dangerous junk and simply buried them.

slickwillie2001 on June 17, 2014 at 4:15 PM

The CIA says that the al-Assad clan in Syria has been making chemical weapons since before Saddam Hussein even took power in Iraq.

Not even the Bush Administration tried selling that day old fish…

JohnGalt23 on June 17, 2014 at 2:14 PM

I SAW them being moved to Syria for over a year before we went in. As part of my old employment I was able to review imagery showing the convoys moving the materials.

Why that never gets said is beyond me. I speculate that we fear widening the conflict there.

Bottom line: There were WMD’s. We know they had them. We know they did not destroy them. We saw them moved. Galt my ass! Just another Libertarian fool.

Capt Blasto on June 17, 2014 at 3:14 PM

Remember, we did find and did destroy 3 of the biggest WMDs in Iraq, namely Saddam Hussein and his 2 sons.

By the way, O’bama’s current Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, also claimed-and still does-that Iraq did move WMDs to Syria before 2003.

Del Dolemonte on June 17, 2014 at 4:16 PM

IF the democrats had left our troops in Iraq, this would not be happening. Remember, it took Germany and Japan 10 years b/4 they were “allowed” to do their own thing. And our MSM thinks a culture that has few beliefs in individual responsibility can go from totalitarianism to freedom in five years??? Give me a break.

The original blame is on the MSM. Subsequent blame, this democrat administration and its top-paid people.

If I were in Afghanistan, I’d be afraid, very afraid. Too many people of a certain “religion” have zero tolerance, to the extent of murder. Whoever teaches these thugs is also very guilty.

MN J on June 17, 2014 at 4:18 PM

Of course Saddam had WMDs. The U.S. sold them to him in the first place.

Moron Labe on June 17, 2014 at 3:38 PM

So did the Russians and the Germans and the British.

Del Dolemonte on June 17, 2014 at 4:20 PM

Wolfowitz added that abandoning Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is a luxury the West cannot afford at the moment. “If we had walked away from [former South Korean Prime Minister] Syngman Rhee, who was the Maliki of his time, we would have had North Korea taking over South Korea,” Wolfowitz asserted.

Bull%$&#…

Korea was in the whitehot start of the Cold War. The Korean peninsula sticks out like a knife into Japan (look at a map) and even the Prussian/German advisors the Japanese had back in the 19th century pointed this out. This is a Japan we now occupied. This is a Japan that we now realized was to be a unsinkable aircraft carrier for us against the Soviet Union and a newly red China. Korea was now of strategic importance.

Also this was an easy to discern fight with Communists vs. Non-Communist Koreans, not the disorganized religious and ethnic mess that is Iraq. If we jump into Iraq to save Maliki we will have to side with the Shia and Iran, Period…End of Story! Is that now our ally? Rhee clearly was, not so with Maliki and Iran.

He added that the threat posed by ISIS creating a safe haven in Iraq represents a clear and present threat to the homeland. “This is about preventing another 9/11,” he said.

Good god…so is Afghanistan, Somalia, Syria, the Palestinian controlled areas, Pakistan, Yemen, many more…is Paul wanting to invade those places too? This is not about ISIS, this is about Sunni Islamic Jihad. There are hundreds, if not thousands of groups out there who all want to do a 9-11 on us. They are located all over the place.

Now maybe someone should ask Wolfowitz where do these groups get their money, weapons, etc. from? It does not just come out of thin air! Oh…that is right…it comes from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, etc. All the places Wolfowitz and his “Bush Wing of the GOP” keep thinking are America’s allies. Are we really going to run around this earth putting down every Jihadist forest fire started by the House of Saud and their comrades? If we are going to fight Sunni Islamic Jihadists then that is where we should start, with Saudi Arabia, but no one wants to do that. Therefore, America should fold its cards in the Islamic world and focus on more important thing.

That’s as broad an ideological consensus on matters of national security and foreign affairs as it gets. How long can President Barack Obama resist that kind of pressure before acting?

It is broad ideological consensus of fat cat elite politicians, none of whom have clue one about Islam, its history, or what is really the cause for Sunni Jihadist groups like ISIS. They are imbeciles of the first order. As for Obama, as stupid as he is, he probably can read the polls…Most of America does not want to have anything to do with Iraq ever again. Hopefully this time I am rooting for Obama to do what he is best at…acting like a political hack and jerk and doing what is in his best political interests. That means no trying to save Iraq.

William Eaton on June 17, 2014 at 5:23 PM

I think the last people anyone wants to hear from about Iraq are Cheney or Wolfowitz or Rumsfeld.

They don’t get to be taken seriously any more.

Toocon on June 17, 2014 at 6:02 PM

Why do people waste time claiming that Iraq had no WMDs? Saddam used chemical weapons against his own people, so he obviously had them.

But they always try to claim there were none. Not, “You know, maybe the Bush administration over-estimated how many there really were.” No, the claim is always, “He didn’t have any.”

Now, you can debate from here to the end of days how many WMDs Saddam had, and how big of a threat he really was. But when you claim he had none, you just reveal yourself to be ignorant or dishonest or both.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 17, 2014 at 6:04 PM

I think the last people anyone wants to hear from about Iraq are Cheney or Wolfowitz or Rumsfeld.

They don’t get to be taken seriously any more.

Toocon on June 17, 2014 at 6:02 PM

After watching Iraq fall apart 3 years after Obama was taking credit for how great it was, attacked by people that Obama assisted in the rebellion against Syria……

Yeah, the Bush administration were all foreign policy geniuses by comparison.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 17, 2014 at 6:06 PM

After watching Iraq fall apart 3 years after Obama was taking credit for how great it was, attacked by people that Obama assisted in the rebellion against Syria……

Yeah, the Bush administration were all foreign policy geniuses by comparison.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 17, 2014 at 6:06 PM

I hate Obama…

But lets be clear about the Bush Administration.

(1) They handed Iraq to Iran. We have a constitutional republic, with lots of elections, and anyone who thinks we were going to stay in Iraq for a 100 years to sort things out needs to have their head examined.

(2) Bush ran around calling Pakistan and Saudi Arabia our allies, despite the fact they were the number one cause of 9-11.

(3) Bush called Islam the Religion of Peace, and never once made the connection between traditional Islam and Jihadism.

(4) Bush completely took his eye off Russia and even worse China. Both of which took advantage of us while we were playing around in Iraq. Now we will have to deal with the consequences of that. China is a far greater threat to U.S. national security than the entire Islamic world combined.

(5) If we were really interested in WMDs we should have taken out Pakistan. They have lots of nukes…not paper ones…real ones, and they hand the technology out like candy. Not to mention Pakistan was a major supporter of the Taliban, and that is were a certain Osama was hiding out. You ever wonder why we never told the Pakistanis we were going to do that hot on Osama?

(6) Oh yes…Bush got Obama elected. Congradulations…

William Eaton on June 17, 2014 at 6:31 PM

All of the 911 terrorists came to America legally. Seems like we need to tighten the immigration laws and change the favored nation of origin. Clean up our own messy house and stop worrying about Iraq and Syria.

cimbri on June 17, 2014 at 6:46 PM

So did the Russians and the Germans and the British.

Right. The whole “coalition” (except for the Russians.)

At one point years previously, the UN Security Council was set to condemn Iraq for its WMDs; the U.S. vetoed that condemnation at the time, for political reasons.

Moron Labe on June 17, 2014 at 7:04 PM

At one point years previously, the UN Security Council was set to condemn Iraq for its WMDs; the U.S. vetoed that condemnation at the time, for political reasons.

Moron Labe on June 17, 2014 at 7:04 PM

Yeah, UN Security Council members have never done that before…

Del Dolemonte on June 17, 2014 at 7:34 PM

Not a Wolfowitz fan other than fact he makes liberal heads explode.

swamp_yankee on June 17, 2014 at 2:31 PM

libfreeordie on June 17, 2014 at 2:36 PM

Hehe.

Dirt McGirt on June 17, 2014 at 7:42 PM

After watching Iraq fall apart 3 years after Obama was taking credit for how great it was, attacked by people that Obama assisted in the rebellion against Syria……

Yeah, the Bush administration were all foreign policy geniuses by comparison.

There Goes the Neighborhood at 6:06 PM

I take your intended point but…no, they were no more geniuses than the current hacks in charge.

Just because Obama & Co. suck doesn’t mean that Bush & Co. didn’t suck too.

We deserve better than either of these clown parades.

Toocon on June 17, 2014 at 7:56 PM

All of the 911 terrorists came to America legally. Seems like we need to tighten the immigration laws and change the favored nation of origin. Clean up our own messy house and stop worrying about Iraq and Syria.

cimbri on June 17, 2014 at 6:46 PM

Quote of the Day…

William Eaton on June 17, 2014 at 10:41 PM