Megyn Kelly makes the Cheneys answer for being ‘wrong’ on Iraq

posted at 10:01 am on June 19, 2014 by Noah Rothman

It isn’t just the left that is cheering Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly this morning, a day after she gave former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz Cheney a sound grilling over Iraq, many on the right suspicious of an interventionist foreign policy are cheering her as well.

On Wednesday night, Kelly hosted the Cheney’s for what was billed as a discussion about their new political initiative aimed at crafting criticisms of President Barack Obama’s present approach to foreign policy. While there is much that is worthy of criticism in Obama’s handling of foreign affairs, some, including AllahPundit, wondered if the Cheneys could serve as helpful messengers.

Kelly brought those concerns directly to the Cheneys. After reading a portion of a brutal op-ed which essentially accused Cheney of setting in motion the events which have led to the present chaos in Iraq, Kelly voiced her own criticism of the former vice president.

“Time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong as well in Iraq, sir,” she said


That’s a little harsh, and it’s certainly a debatable point, but the substance of this interview is not what struck me. What was important, and is frankly undervalued by the rest of the political press, is how frequently the supposedly conservative news network veers off what many believe is their script. What’s more, when this sort of contentious interview with a prominent Republican occurs, Fox is rewarded for it by their core audience.

The opposite is not the case, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey on cable news viewers’ satisfaction with the product they are consuming:

One thing that differs when it comes to MSNBC is that it does not draw the same uniformly positive reviews from consistent liberals that FNC does from consistent conservatives. While nearly half (45%) of consistent liberals view MSNBC favorably, that’s not much better than how MSNBC rates among those with mixed ideological views (38%). Nearly half of consistent liberals offer no opinion of MSNBC. By contrast, the vast majority of consistent conservatives offer an opinion of Fox News, with 74% favorable and just 5% unfavorable.

“When MSNBC President Phil Griffin decided to turn his network into a liberal answer to Fox News, he was betting that there was a progressive audience out there to match the conservative faithful on the other side,” Politico’s Dylan Byers reacted. “But people don’t simply watch opinion channels because the programming matches their partisan views. The programming has to be compelling.”

Yes, but it’s more than that. Having watched MSNBC evolve as a network over the last two years, it seems to me that their every answer to ratings challenges is strive to be even more predictable. It has become increasingly rare for an MSNBC host to go off the reservation of progressive thought.

Kelly’s interview of the Cheneys was compelling, but it was also contentious and tension makes for good television. It is possible that MSNBC’s core audience simply does not appreciate having the members of their “team” challenged by those who are supposedly on their side. When was the last time you saw Chris Hayes or Rachel Maddow interrogate a Democratic officeholder from the right?

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

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Fox News isn’t out to change the world, they only want more money. They’re fair and balanced, which has nothing to do with truth.

RayBacliff on June 19, 2014 at 12:02 PM

Credible, multi-sourced links of the Faux News Lies would be nice…

Del Dolemonte on June 19, 2014 at 12:04 PM

So you’re blaming the current republican congress for our current economic stagnation, correct?

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 11:20 AM

So much ignorance in one sentence….

tanked59 on June 19, 2014 at 12:06 PM

verbaluce on June 19, 2014 at 11:56 AM

I don’t think the interview was as hard hitting as libfreeordie or others think but it’s not as softball as you’re making it out to be.

She did ask him the basic question – why isn’t the deteriorating state of Iraq your fault?

He gave a somewhat reasonable answer: When Bush left office Iraq was stable and if we’d actually tried to negotiate a reasonable presence there to shore up the Iraqi government we wouldn’t be seeing Iraq in it’s current state. Cheney is probably right.

But this is all sorta beside the issue – lefties want to go back to why we even went over there. Forgetting as usual that the Democrat party supported the effort and ignoring Afghanistan which Obama and many others on the left have long called the right war which we’re also abandoning and will see the same chaos after we leave.

Many if not most conservatives who supported the war in Iraq are now ambivalent about it or now think it was a mistake and that the notion of nation building isn’t as simple in the middle east as it was in Europe or Japan. The left likes to pretend this isn’t true. And the left likes to pretend they didn’t want the war in Afghanistan – when they largely did.

gwelf on June 19, 2014 at 12:06 PM

test

Trying it Christien,

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 12:09 PM

Eureka, it worked, thanks!

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 12:11 PM

So everdiso do you cheer every death that Obitler’s VA causes? Those must make you ecstatic.

bbinfl on June 19, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Link to resolution to invade Iraq..

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 12:14 PM

gwelf on June 19, 2014 at 12:06 PM

I generally agree with you – it’s a pox on everyone’s house.

But I think it’s wrong for Cheney to refuse to acknowledge any regrets of his decisions and advocacy. And could he maybe find an oz of humility?
I think it’s truly unfortunate that the continued mess over there is largely a snarky political debate here, where the ‘discussion’ devolves into nothing more substantive that a fan cheering for a team.
Cheney could be a true patriot by simply being quiet and offering his counsel intimately to the president…if wanted.
I think there’s a guy he used to know who does just that.

verbaluce on June 19, 2014 at 12:15 PM

McCain and his whore, Ms. Lindsey, were on TV “we need to go to Syria and Iraq…” Then some D senator Van Hollen or such, lied through his teeth how the foreign policy low numbers for oaf in chief are due to you and me, because “we no longer come together on foreign policy because we hate obama”.

Hammer asked him to name one success of obama, on foreign policy, and he stammered around and then Bill Hammer said “You have nothing”…and listed all the lands where they failed.

Van Hollen then said “it was the right thing to go into Libya and kill Qaddafi; it’s not our fault that they couldn’t keep their land”…

Hammer reminded him of same in Iraq “oh, that’s different, because…Bush….”

So, on Bush we don’t need to come together, but on obama we do.

One can’t make this up in the best/worst of fiction.

Schadenfreude on June 19, 2014 at 12:15 PM

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Nicely done! Now, just say “Resolution to invade Iraq.” When you post your link, most of us can see it highlighted, indicating it is a link.

Happy linking!

Christien on June 19, 2014 at 12:16 PM

Thanks Christien.

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 12:19 PM

Democrats supported the joint resolution 58% and 39% in the Senate and House respectively.

Schadenfreude on June 19, 2014 at 12:20 PM

I generally agree with you – it’s a pox on everyone’s house.

But I think it’s wrong for Cheney to refuse to acknowledge any regrets of his decisions and advocacy. And could he maybe find an oz of humility?
I think it’s truly unfortunate that the continued mess over there is largely a snarky political debate here, where the ‘discussion’ devolves into nothing more substantive that a fan cheering for a team.
Cheney could be a true patriot by simply being quiet and offering his counsel intimately to the president…if wanted.
I think there’s a guy he used to know who does just that.

verbaluce on June 19, 2014 at 12:15 PM

I think it would be better if Cheney gave a more balanced accounting of Iraq but that would be a much longer interview and he wasn’t pressed on it. I’m not saying he would give a more balanced accounting of the Iraq war but it would make for an interesting detailed interview. But that’s unlikely to happen.

Just like the left can’t let go of various untruths about the Iraq war Cheney is not going to own up to certain mistakes and express any doubt about the course of action.

gwelf on June 19, 2014 at 12:23 PM

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 12:19 PM

You got it.

Christien on June 19, 2014 at 12:24 PM

Um…what makes everdiso such a “keeper”? It’s comedy relief factor?

Newtie and the Beauty on June 19, 2014 at 12:25 PM

generally agree with you – it’s a pox on everyone’s house.

But I think it’s wrong for Cheney to refuse to acknowledge any regrets of his decisions and advocacy. And could he maybe find an oz of humility?
I think it’s truly unfortunate that the continued mess over there is largely a snarky political debate here, where the ‘discussion’ devolves into nothing more substantive that a fan cheering for a team.
Cheney could be a true patriot by simply being quiet and offering his counsel intimately to the president…if wanted.
I think there’s a guy he used to know who does just that.

verbaluce on June 19, 2014 at 12:15 PM

Why should Cheney be quiet when he believes strongly, as do a lot of American’s apparently, (based on latest polls) that Obama has no clue on foreign policy and is not respected on the globe?

A “true patriot” is someone who doesn’t voice concern over a traitor, or at the VERY least incompetent anti-american, who never had a real job in his life, in our White House? Get real will you?

Here’s a video of Hillary Clinton screeching about how “patriotic” it is to offer dissent when Bush was president…did you forget?

And speaking of humility, does Obama have one scintilla of it in his body? Pot meet kettle…*shaking my head

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 12:27 PM

I haven’t watched the video, which is just too long to watch right now, but I certainly hope by “got it wrong” she had something more substantial to say than the tiresome “where are the WMDs?” rhetorical question, and more sensible than the Ron Paul “it’s wrong because I don’t like it” complaint.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 19, 2014 at 12:41 PM

Why should Cheney be quiet when he believes strongly, as do a lot of American’s apparently, (based on latest polls) that Obama has no clue on foreign policy and is not respected on the globe?

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 12:27 PM

Because, I believe, he is not and can not be the one to make that argument. And for sure many strong Obama critics feel the same way.
It’s that simple.
But you feel that someone who is reviled (whether fairly or not) around the world should counsel Obama on international respect?
That just makes no sense.
And you feel that someone who pursued and push through a FP agenda that is viewed by most of all political stripes as a misadventure and tragic failure – he should be the one to offer advice and criticism now?
And if you think I have nothing good to say about him…
If Dick Cheney wants to be out in public, he should teach retirees how to tie flies at the local community center.
I think he’d be good at that.

verbaluce on June 19, 2014 at 12:49 PM

I haven’t watched the video, which is just too long to watch right now, but I certainly hope by “got it wrong” she had something more substantial to say than the tiresome “where are the WMDs?” rhetorical question, and more sensible than the Ron Paul “it’s wrong because I don’t like it” complaint.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 19, 2014 at 12:41 PM

Who cares if Iraq had WMDs or not, that was never the real reason we entered Iraq. The real reason was Bush and Co. wanted to establish a democracy in Iraq and it failed for a variety of reasons, with the number one reason being Iraq is a Islamic nation. If this was all about WMDs we would have invaded Pakistan, who has a lot of nukes, and are big supporters of Sunni Jihadists like the Taliban.

It is amazing how both sides (left and right) of the debate get caught up in the WMD question. That was just a cause or excuse to invade. Just look at who surrounded Bush, like Paul Wolfowitz, said in the years before 9-11 and it becomes clear. These people really believed that democracy was the answer to all the problems in the Islamic world, and they also, wrongly, believed that democracies don’t fight each other. They did not understand (and still don’t) the power and influence Islam has on the people who live there.

William Eaton on June 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM

I haven’t watched the video, which is just too long to watch right now, but I certainly hope by “got it wrong” she had something more substantial to say than the tiresome “where are the WMDs?” rhetorical question, and more sensible than the Ron Paul “it’s wrong because I don’t like it” complaint.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 19, 2014 at 12:41 PM

Well, you pretty much didn’t miss anything then. Once again, the left yells “squirrel”, and we’re all supposed to ignore the fact that the CURRENT president has botched the job. All he had to do was get the stay-behind forces agreement, basically just a mopping up job. But he couldn’t even manage that. Not that anyone is surprised that Barack Oblunder failed to get it done. The only surprise here is Megyn Kelly holding their bullhorn for them.

Murf76 on June 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM

Why should Cheney be quiet when he believes strongly, as do a lot of American’s apparently, (based on latest polls) that Obama has no clue on foreign policy and is not respected on the globe?

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 12:27 PM

Two words:

Bad optics.

Good Lt on June 19, 2014 at 12:53 PM

Hey DebraChicago,, is Obama still popular in Chicago??? I have wondered if his home base still is in love with him?

garydt on June 19, 2014 at 11:58 AM

He’s obviously still got a ton of political clout there, based on the way little Rahm was handed the key to the Mayor’s office so easily.

JannyMae on June 19, 2014 at 12:54 PM

If I were you people I’d be much more concerned with what Congress, Obama and the SCOTUS is doing to US, We the People here in the homeland.

When you twist the US Constitution into a  pretzel, you have effectively overthrown the instrument by which government in America was established, i.e.: you have committed an illegal coup d’etat. That this coup has been a slow-motion, long-running trainwreck to soften-up the American people, changes nothing about its character. Absent the US Constitution, we have AN ILLEGAL GOVERNMENT which has “no” legitimate claim to our obedience, our support, our taxes, or our sanction. It is said that the American government is sustained by “the consent of the governed.” Withdraw that consent — that sanction and, you have tyranny/Fascism. 

Let’s get crazy and think outside the box… One of those WHAT IF deals. 

WHAT IF.. the President declared an Official State of Emergency? George W Bush did the day after 9/11 and it remains active to this very day! Congress has the obligation to review the need for State of Emergency every 6 months while it is active and has the authority to extend or or cancel. They have left it active for 13 years. Why should We the People be concerned that it is STILL active? Because the President has extreme powers…
“These proclamations/executive orders give force to 470 provisions of Federal law, delegating to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which effect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners…The President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all Americans.”

We have become a police state and we have no one to blame but the Federal Government!

wartface on June 19, 2014 at 12:55 PM

If one party starts a project and then the other party drops it leading to disaster, do you blame the one that started the project or the one that dropped it.

In Korea both parties supported the project and a stable democracy that both trades and allies with the US resulted. In Vietnam, the same party that started the conflict eventually abondoned it leading to disaster while blaming the party that neither started or abondoned it.

In Iraq, we cannot know what would have resulted if a residual force had been left there. We do know that leaving entirely has not turned out well. Cheney could not presume when this project began that it would follow a course like that in South Vietnam rather than a course like that in South Korea.

KW64 on June 19, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Well said.

tomshup on June 19, 2014 at 11:01 AM

The Korean War was started during the term of Harry S. Truman (Democrat) and ended during the term of Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican).

The Vietnam war was started by JFK (Democrat) and GREATLY expanded by LBJ (Democrat) and ended, arguably badly, by RMN (Republican).

The Iraq war was started by Bush 43 (Republican), an argument could be made it was Bush 41 (Republican), and both parties overwhelmingly supported it at the time. It was ended, WITH NO ARGUMENT VERY BADLY, by Obama (Democrat).

Pretty much the opposite of what you are trying, very poorly, to say. Both of you, KW64 and tomshup, are obviously not history buffs.

1791 on June 19, 2014 at 12:55 PM

verbaluce on June 19, 2014 at 12:49 PM

Your condescending/disrespectful tripe about Cheney is typical double-standard hypocrisy trotted out by the left as they screech…DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO! EPIC hypocrisy and your pure projection/opinion and conjecture spewed as if it’s actually factual and/or relevant ; )

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 12:56 PM

Why should Cheney be quiet when he believes strongly, as do a lot of American’s apparently, (based on latest polls) that Obama has no clue on foreign policy and is not respected on the globe?

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 12:27 PM

Two words:

Bad optics.

Good Lt on June 19, 2014 at 12:53 PM

Not to me. I’m glad someone is finally verbalizing what I’ve been thinking and screaming at the TV for a few years now ; )

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 12:57 PM

Why should Cheney be quiet when he believes strongly, as do a lot of American’s apparently, (based on latest polls) that Obama has no clue on foreign policy and is not respected on the globe?

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 12:27 PM

Because more Americans dislike Cheney’s version of foreign policy than Obama’s version of foreign policy. That is not saying they like Obama’s version either, just better than Cheney’s version.

William Eaton on June 19, 2014 at 12:59 PM

You all need to see Drudge.

I hope that it spreads onto all politicians.

Schadenfreude on June 19, 2014 at 1:03 PM

William Eaton on June 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM

There were 23 reasons stated for invading Iraq and it had bi-partisan support in both houses.

Resolution to Invade Iraq

Also, Wiki-leaks talked about WMD’s being found and we all heard they were moved to Syria in the weeks we gave them a heads up to leave before we bombed ‘em…*wink, wink

Wikileaks shows WMDs found

The release by Julian Assange’s web site Wikileaks of classified documents reveals that U.S. military intelligence discovered chemical weapons labs, encountered insurgents who were specialists in the creation of toxins, and uncovered weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. However, Washington, DC officials and the news media have ignored this information.

One of the WikiLeaks document dumps reveals that as late as 2008, American troops continued to find WMD in the region.

There are numerous mentions of chemical and biological weapons in the WikiLeaks documents, however the U.S. media appear only interested in those portions of the leaked material that highlight actions that are viewed as embarrassing for the U.S. military such as the accusation that U.S. commanders were aware of abuse and “torture” of prisoners by Iraqi soldiers and police officers.

The U.S. Defense Department continues to demand that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange immediately return the stolen military documents in his possession, including recent documents that created another stir when published, according to Elaine Wilson of American Forces Press Service.

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 1:06 PM

Because more Americans dislike Cheney’s version of foreign policy than Obama’s version of foreign policy. That is not saying they like Obama’s version either, just better than Cheney’s version.

William Eaton on June 19, 2014 at 12:59 PM

Hardly.

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 1:06 PM

What could anyone POSSIBLY like about Obama’s foreign policy failures on the globe William Eaton? Name one place where things are better today than when he took over.

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 1:10 PM

Is Kelly now interviewing for a job at CNN ?? Nice way to stick a knife in the back of former admin that gave the punk Kenyan cakewalk in the middle east only to destroy all that was accomplished by them and the military.

Thanks for nothing Kelly.

Texyank on June 19, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Iraq crisis: Isis jihadists ‘seize Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons stockpile’ – live

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10910868/Iraq-crisis-Obama-may-launch-air-strikes-without-Congress-amid-calls-for-Maliki-to-go-live.html

How could this be?
All the lefties (still) keep telling us Bush and Cheney were wrong and Saddam didn’t have ANY WMDs…..

dentarthurdent on June 19, 2014 at 1:15 PM

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 1:06 PM

Who cares? Pakistan, who is a hardcore supporter of Sunni Jihadist groups and far more of a threat than Saddam ever was, has lots of real live nuclear weapons. Let me repeat…Nukes! Real ones…and lots of them. That is more important than some old chemical and biological weapons stockpiles.

The Pakistani ISI has close times to various Jihadist groups and have a history of handing “stuff” out to them. Even a dipstick like Obama realized that you could not tell Pakistan anything, like the raid to get Osama, because the info always made it to the Jihadists for some reason. I wonder why…

So I don’t care if WMDs were found our not in Iraq, that was not the real object of the war. Bush used that as a convenient excuse to remove Saddam from power and replace it with a democracy that he and his advisors hoped would spread across the Islamic world. Democracy and nation building was always the main agenda.

William Eaton on June 19, 2014 at 1:17 PM

verbaluce on June 19, 2014 at 12:49 PM

Your condescending/disrespectful tripe about Cheney is typical double-standard hypocrisy trotted out by the left as they screech…DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO! EPIC hypocrisy and your pure projection/opinion and conjecture spewed as if it’s actually factual and/or relevant ; )

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 12:56 PM

How you can cheer Cheney yet protest anyone being ‘condescending/disrespectful’ is beyond me.
If I was speaking with Cheney I’d be very respectful. And I’d tell him the same thing…that he should stfu (respectfully).
I would also say Kathleen Sebelius would not be the one to go comment/critique anyone building a healthcare website.
I don’t think someone should seek selfless-etiqutee advice from Paris Hilton.
This isn’t political…it’s logical.

verbaluce on June 19, 2014 at 1:20 PM

William Eaton on June 19, 2014 at 1:17 PM

“who cares” “what difference, at this point, does it make”= you don’t have anything *LMAO blah, blah, blah, more pure projection/conjecture and your opinion trotted out as fact ; )

I’m still waiting for you to name one place on the globe that’s better today than when Obama took over with his appease, apologize and ignore policies of weakness.

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 1:21 PM

How you can cheer Cheney yet protest anyone being ‘condescending/disrespectful’ is beyond me.
If I was speaking with Cheney I’d be very respectful. And I’d tell him the same thing…that he should stfu (respectfully).
I would also say Kathleen Sebelius would not be the one to go comment/critique anyone building a healthcare website.
I don’t think someone should seek selfless-etiqutee advice from Paris Hilton.
This isn’t political…it’s logical.

verbaluce on June 19, 2014 at 1:20 PM

“cheer?” you are a typical whiny, double-standard loving, hypocritical liberal douche spewing your regressive projection and putting it in the opposition’s mouth, bless your heart ; )

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 1:23 PM

I get so tired of having to explain to the ignorant populace, including Ms. Kelly apparently, as to why we thought there were WMD’s in Iraq (and the fact we found them there). History belongs to the victors, and GWB refused to defend himself or allow his people to defend him, because he felt it took away from the fact our people were there. How didn’t matter. Winning the argument didn’t matter. So he let people attack, and because he didn’t tell them to pound sand, it let people believe they were right. They were not.

So, let me go through this again. 1. Read Tommy Frank’s book. In it he describes the intelligence we were getting FROM EVERY ALLY SURROUNDING IRAQ!! That intelligence was Saddam had chemical and bio-weapons deployed, ready to release if we attacked. Heck, we found Iraqi Mopp suits stored near their front lines. Why? We made our guys were Mopp suits for thirty days waiting for the attack. Why? Because everybody told us he had them. Did he?

2. Yes, and no. He had dispersed his research to hidden places, many we discovered, many turned in by scientists after we invaded. He had 1980′s warheads and mortar round with chemical weapons in them, many degraded. What he didn’t have was that shiny new battery of Scuds with brand new chemical weapons on top that the talking heads could point to, or reluctantly admit to at least.

That is what people expected to find. We expected to be attacked with them. We did find stockpiles of precursors. One unit I read about discovered camouflaged 55 gallon drums in an underground bunker. The drums were marked for pest control. The unit damn near died when exposed. Turned out the chemicals were precursors for nerve agents. Ask yourself why Saddam thought it a bright idea to camouflage and hide Raid?

3. But if he didn’t have them, why did Iraq unit have Mopps at the front? In a report done by the FBI agent assigned to Saddam it was revealed that Saddam was playing a game of chance. He was paranoid that the US was going to invade. He was paranoid that his enemies (like Iran) would find out how badly beat up his army was, and invade. So he came up with an idea. Basically it went like this. He told everyone, including his own generals he had the weapons. He knew the information would get back to the US. He hoped the thought of thousand dying from chemical attacks would dissuade anyone from attacking. He told one general that the other general had the weapons, and the second general the first had them. They were so afraid of him, they never questioned his word. They fully expected to see chemical laden Scuds rain down on the Americans.

What Saddam didn’t count on was 9/11. That changed the calculation, and he was screwed. If he admitted he was lying he would be overthrown. If he kept up the charade, he was going to get invaded. He bet on our inability to convince our people, our politicians, our allies to take him out.

He was hung by his own people, so I guess he was wrong on that too.

archer52 on June 19, 2014 at 1:23 PM

She didn’t get to the crazy nation building. Or the Constitution enshrining Islam. Still, I think a Romney administration not have allowed Maliki to overturn the 2010 election.

J.B. Say on June 19, 2014 at 1:25 PM

would not have allowed Maliki to overturn the 2010 election

J.B. Say on June 19, 2014 at 1:25 PM

How could this be?
All the lefties (still) keep telling us Bush and Cheney were wrong and Saddam didn’t have ANY WMDs…..

dentarthurdent on June 19, 2014 at 1:15 PM

I am not sure that helps…

So the message is our military was there for years and missed these stockpiles, but the ISIS shows up and right away…bingo they find it.

Is that our new GOP message to the American people? The ISIS found the old mustard gas stockpiles! The left is wrong and Bush is a god!

William Eaton on June 19, 2014 at 1:27 PM

Um…what makes everdiso such a “keeper”? It’s comedy relief factor?

Newtie and the Beauty on June 19, 2014 at 12:25 PM

It’s not a keeper, it’s just a common ahole.

slickwillie2001 on June 19, 2014 at 1:28 PM

Who cares? Pakistan, who is a hardcore supporter of Sunni Jihadist groups and far more of a threat than Saddam ever was, has lots of real live nuclear weapons. Let me repeat…Nukes! Real ones…and lots of them.

William Eaton

Exactly. That’s why we COULDN’T go into Pakistan, unless you wanted a nuclear war. As a result of those nukes, we had to pursue different options, and Bush did that by trying to make Pakistan an ally.

We went into Iraq in part to make sure he never got nuclear weapons because going nuclear changes the ballgame. That’s why we’re trying to keep Iran from getting them.

Furthermore, we didn’t have numerous UN Sanctions against Pakistan and a cease fire agreement that gave us the legal right to go into Pakistan the way we did with Iraq.

xblade on June 19, 2014 at 1:29 PM

Excellent Archer52, as you mentioned, we (thanks to the UN) notified them when we were going to liberate for weeks and weeks. Does anyone honestly believe for one moment that Iraq’s neighbors (Iran, Syria, etc.) didn’t willingly accept the WMD’s during that time frame? There were plenty of intelligence reports (right or wrong) of trucks going from Iraq to Syria during the “warning” period? It’s amazing how people ignore facts when they don’t support their conclusions. We’ve heard of Syria using WMD’s against their own people, I wonder where they got them from?

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 1:30 PM

Hindsight is 20/20, Megyn. We’d hoped they weren’t barbarians.

John the Libertarian on June 19, 2014 at 1:31 PM

So the message is our military was there for years and missed these stockpiles, but the ISIS shows up and right away…bingo they find it.

Is that our new GOP message to the American people? The ISIS found the old mustard gas stockpiles! The left is wrong and Bush is a god!

William Eaton on June 19, 2014 at 1:27 PM

Try reading the article.

17.09 Chemical weapons produced at the Al Muthanna facility, which Isis today seized, are believed to have included mustard gas, Sarin, Tabun, and VX.

Here is the CIA’s file on the complex.

Stockpiles of chemical munitions are still stored there. The most dangerous ones have been declared to the UN and are sealed in bunkers.

Although declared, the bunkers contents have yet to be confirmed.

These areas of the compound pose a hazard to civilians and potential blackmarketers.

Numerous bunkers, including eleven cruciform shaped bunkers were exploited. Some of the bunkers were empty. Some of the bunkers contained large quantitiesof unfilled chemical munitions, conventional munitions, one-ton shipping containers, old disabled production equipment (presumed disabled under UNSCOM supervision), and other hazardous industrial chemicals.

17.05 The Chemical Weapons Convention, which Iraq joined in 2009, requires it to dispose of the material at Al Muthanna, even though it was declared unusable and “does not pose a significant security risk”

However, the UK goverment has acknowledgeded that the nature of the material contained in the two bunkers would make the destruction process difficult and technically challenging.

Under an agreement signed in Baghdad in July 2012, experts from the MOD’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) were due to provide training to Iraqi personnel in order to help them to dispose of the chemical munitions and agents.

16.52 The remaining chemical weapons from Saddam Hussein’s regime are stored in two sealed bunkers, both located at the Al Muthanna Chemicals Weapons Complex, a large site in the western desert some 80km north west of Baghdad.

This was the principal manufacturing plant for both chemical agents and munitions during Saddam Hussein’s rule.

Thousands of tonnes of chemical weapons were produced, stored and deployed by the Saddam Hussein regime. Iraq used these weapons during the Iran – Iraq War (1980 to 1988) and against the Kurds in Halabja in 1988.

16.32 Isis jihadists have seized a chemical weapons facility built by Saddam Hussein which contains a stockpile of old weapons, State Department officials have told the Wall Street Journal:

U.S. officials don’t believe the Sunni militants will be able to create a functional chemical weapon from the material. The weapons stockpiled at the Al Muthanna complex are old, contaminated and hard to move, officials said.

Nonetheless, the capture of the chemical-weapon stockpile by the forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, known as ISIS or ISIL, the militant group that is seizing territory in the country, has grabbed the attention of the U.S.

dentarthurdent on June 19, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Obama speaks about the crisis in Iraq as if he’s still lecturing in college, unreal.

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 1:37 PM

“who cares” “what difference, at this point, does it make”= you don’t have anything *LMAO blah, blah, blah, more pure projection/conjecture and your opinion trotted out as fact ; )

I’m still waiting for you to name one place on the globe that’s better today than when Obama took over with his appease, apologize and ignore policies of weakness.

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 1:21 PM

I dislike Obama…I am just pointing out that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, helps the Taliban, gave Osama a place to hideout, gives weapons to jihadist groups who slaughter folks in India, and George W. Bush called them our ally.

That is weakness, real weakness of the first order. We bombed the wrong countries…it should have been Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, who are the two of the biggest supporters of Sunni Jihadist in the world.

I don’t give a flying %%%% what we found in Iraq because whatever it was it was not worth it compared to the loss of life (and money) we suffered to get it. 9-11 has never been avenged really, because the two nations most responsible for it walked free and still are arming and supporting Sunni jihadists groups all over this planet.

That is why I hate Bush’s policies, and Cheney’s and rest of the cowardly “House of Saud” supporters in our government.

William Eaton on June 19, 2014 at 1:38 PM

So the message is our military was there for years and missed these stockpiles, but the ISIS shows up and right away…bingo they find it.

William Eaton

No, that’s your message. They didn’t miss these stockpile. They were found while we were there.

Military officials said the U.S. was well aware of the Muthanna stockpile and wouldn’t have left it there if it posed a military threat. Still, when the U.S. pulled out of Iraq, it didn’t anticipate a large swath of the country, including numerous military bases, would be overrun by radical Sunni militants. One defense official said that if the U.S. had known the Iraqi government would lose control so soon, it might not have left the old chemical weapons in place.

Maybe you should ask the media why they weren’t interested in these chemical weapons when they were found and instead ran with the “Bush lied” narrative.

xblade on June 19, 2014 at 1:50 PM

why does Cheney and daughter think that anyone wants to hear their opinion? he served his time, and it isn’t something he should be bragging about. go into retirement and leave us alone. he must be broke like the Clintons are broke, and needed another reason to trick low info conservatives into donating to his bank account.

burserker on June 19, 2014 at 1:51 PM

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 1:21 PM

I dislike Obama…I am just pointing out that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, helps the Taliban, gave Osama a place to hideout, gives weapons to jihadist groups who slaughter folks in India, and George W. Bush called them our ally.

That is weakness, real weakness of the first order. We bombed the wrong countries…it should have been Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, who are the two of the biggest supporters of Sunni Jihadist in the world.

William Eaton on June 19, 2014 at 1:38 PM

Leaving Saudi Arabia out of the discussion, how exactly could we have gone into Pakistan, or even bombed them? Not only does its border with Afghanistan stretch for over 1,500 miles, but western Pakistan also has some of the tallest mountains on the planet. It would have been a logistical military nightmare.

Del Dolemonte on June 19, 2014 at 1:52 PM

Exactly. That’s why we COULDN’T go into Pakistan, unless you wanted a nuclear war. As a result of those nukes, we had to pursue different options, and Bush did that by trying to make Pakistan an ally.

We went into Iraq in part to make sure he never got nuclear weapons because going nuclear changes the ballgame. That’s why we’re trying to keep Iran from getting them.

Furthermore, we didn’t have numerous UN Sanctions against Pakistan and a cease fire agreement that gave us the legal right to go into Pakistan the way we did with Iraq.

xblade on June 19, 2014 at 1:29 PM

They don’t have ICBMs or subs capable of carrying nukes to the U.S.! They cannot hit the U.S. at least not yet, but they are working on them now. They are also going to probably hand them out to Saudi Arabia. So it is your policy that Pakistan can continue to attack the U.S. at will with 9-11 style attacks and there is nothing we can do about that because they have nukes?

Let me tell you something, if a nuclear attack by a Jihadist group does happen in the U.S. at some point I guarantee you the nuke will come from Pakistan somehow. What do we do then? Do we vaporize Pakistan, or will we blunder about trying to capture the “terror leader” of the group who did the attack? Based on the Bush doctrine of warfare we will chase the terror leader around, invade Iran to stop them getting nukes, and beg Pakistan to be our friend.

Also you may not have noticed while we were bungling around in Iraq, China and Russia took advantage of that. This is really the case with China. I personally think they are a greater danger to U.S. national security…

William Eaton on June 19, 2014 at 1:53 PM

low info conservatives

burserker on June 19, 2014 at 1:51 PM

The Republicans won the college graduate vote in 2012. Your Democrats won the high school dropout vote.

Thanks for playing!

F-

Del Dolemonte on June 19, 2014 at 1:53 PM

William Eaton on June 19, 2014 at 1:38 PM

I dislike Obama too and I also dislike the fact that we give Pakistan and a whole bunch of other terrorist loving nations billions and billions in foreign aid.

Your pure speculation and opinion that we bombed the wrong countries and the rest of your baseless rant is irrelevant to me.

We need to drill and frack and build the pipeline, become 100% energy independent and then we can cut off ALL aid to everyone except Israel (since they spend most of it buying our weapons to defend themselves from the brutal savages that surround them and whose stated mission is to wipe them off the face of the planet); pull out all our troops (since Obama’s ROE are ridiculous); surround and guard our borders; become “isolationists”; continue to stockpile our nukes with the hope that the fear of blowing up the planet will stop the nutcases from using nukes (I doubt it); re-establish our nuke defenses in Europe and I suppose, just wait for the end…..

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 1:54 PM

Also you may not have noticed while we were bungling around in Iraq, China and Russia took advantage of that. This is really the case with China. I personally think they are a greater danger to U.S. national security…

William Eaton on June 19, 2014 at 1:53 PM

Gee, you sound like Romney now *laughs Do you see dead people too? *winks

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 1:57 PM

Leaving Saudi Arabia out of the discussion, how exactly could we have gone into Pakistan, or even bombed them? Not only does its border with Afghanistan stretch for over 1,500 miles, but western Pakistan also has some of the tallest mountains on the planet. It would have been a logistical military nightmare.

Del Dolemonte on June 19, 2014 at 1:52 PM

You take out all their nuclear facilities, you destroy their air force, and you hit their military forces close to the Indian border. Then you send a message to the Pakistani government that if another 9-11 ever happens on American soil because of some jihadist group they support (Taliban/al-qaeda, etc.) they will cease to exist as a nation because we will nuke them out of existence.

Same message to the Arabians…

No need to go into Afghanistan then…or anywhere else. Everyone would be too scared to take us on after that. Message sent…and understood. I don’t want the Islamic world to like Americans, that is impossible because we are infidels, I want them to fear us.

William Eaton on June 19, 2014 at 2:02 PM

Your pure speculation and opinion that we bombed the wrong countries and the rest of your baseless rant is irrelevant to me.

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 1:54 PM

You don’t know enemies are do you? Have you ever read the Quran or Hadith? It is not speculation…Iraq was a strategic blunder. Thankfully now that blunder may turn out ok if the Shia/Iranians and Sunnis/Arabians become embroiled into a big war.

You on other hand want to stop them…why I have no idea. Since the days of Thucydides and Sun Tzu it is a good thing when your enemies wage war against each other. Maybe the Neo-cons have reinvented history and warfare and we don’t need to know no stinking history…or strategy…or anything else.

William Eaton on June 19, 2014 at 2:11 PM

you are a typical whiny, double-standard loving, hypocritical liberal douche spewing your regressive projection and putting it in the opposition’s mouth, bless your heart ; )

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 1:23 PM

You should’ve started with this.
Then I wouldn’t have had to waste any time being mildly dismissive whilst working up to fully…
You’re just another plant looking for water.
Try Huff Post or Kos.

verbaluce on June 19, 2014 at 2:17 PM

verbaluce
Without your regressive projection and speaking for me, you’d have nothing would you?

Anyone with whom you disagree or calls you on your garbage is automatically labeled a “plant?” How funny ; )

You’re just another foreigner talking trash about the USA, why don’t you MYOB?

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 2:21 PM

Fox News isn’t out to change the world, they only want more money. They’re fair and balanced, which has nothing to do with truth.

RayBacliff on June 19, 2014 at 12:02 PM

Agree 100%. Stopped watching FNC cold turkey two years ago and have been much happier since.

That said, you don’t get any more establishment Republican than Dick Cheney. The next conservative thing he does/says will also be the first.

bw222 on June 19, 2014 at 2:21 PM

William Eaton on June 19, 2014 at 2:11 PM

I can’t fathom why you continue to speak for me as if you know what I think and put your words in my mouth, it’s a weak debate tactic.

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 2:23 PM

Anyone with whom you disagree or calls you on your garbage is automatically labeled a “plant?”

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 2:21 PM

Not just anyone and not automatically.
Feel special…because you are.

verbaluce on June 19, 2014 at 2:26 PM

William Eaton on June 19, 2014 at 2:11 PM

A “big blunder” occurred when Obama didn’t negotiate the SOFA that Bush brokered, even though he took credit for “leaving” Iraq. He turned a very costly victory into a defeat that you’re seeing manifested today.

I understand the Quran is basically plagiarized from the Bible some 400 years after Jesus walked on this planet.

I also understand that once, the Muslims were a proud people and pioneers in many fields. Sadly, however, they haven’t progressed for hundreds, if not thousands of years and still live in the stone-ages.

I also realize to the radical Islamists, America is considered the Big Satan, and Israel the Little Satan, mostly, in my opinion, out of shame for being beaten so badly by tiny little Israel a couple of times since 1948 : )

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 2:28 PM

Not just anyone and not automatically.
Feel special…because you are.

verbaluce on June 19, 2014 at 2:26 PM

I feel special, just because of the love of God ; )

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 2:29 PM

William Eaton…here’s what I know…

“Once the Islamic people were understandably considered the greatest military and economic powers on the planet. Muslim militarizes and merchants spanned the globe and dominated nearly everywhere they went from N Africa and Spain in the West to India, China and ultimately Indonesia, today the most populous Muslim

Further it was Muslims who controlled the great trading routes of gold and silver and silk and s laves from Asia to Europe. It was Muslims who led the world in science and medicine and architecture and music and literature and poetry for a thousand years or more……sadly however…..Today, Islamic journalists, academics, and politicians themselves say that the Muslim world is best known for tyranny, abject poverty of all but the elite, rampant corruption, violence and terrorism.

Despite the discovery of oil and fantastic wealth in Islamic territories, despite the rise of nationalism and the creation of nation states after the departure of colonial Britain and France from the Middle East and North Africa, despite the widespread introduction of elementary and secondary schools and at least a basic education for hundreds of millions of children, the Islamic world at the 21st century is mired in hopelessness and despair..the Muslim powers are not winning wars, the Muslim peoples are not making medical breakthroughs, they are not creating dramatic new technologies, indeed, many Muslims note that their govts are barely able to feed their people or provide enough meaningful jobs..

The big “setback” was the rebirth of the state of Israel in 1948. Three hundred million Muslims in the Middle East expected the Arab armies in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq to strangle the newborn Jewish state in it’s crib…guess what, it didn’t happen. When the relatively tiny Israeli army defeated the combined Arab armies, the growing sense of failure and humiliation Muslims were feeling only intensified.

The 1956 showdown between Israel and Egypt, in which Israel not only survived, but prevailed, further exacerbated Muslim shame and their sense of military impotence.

In June, 1967, came a stunning and cataclysmic defeat for the Muslims known throughout the Arabic speaking world as an-Nak sah “the setback”. In just six days, the Israelis more than tripled their land, regained the strategic Jordan Valley, gained the strategic Golan Heights and reunified Jerusalem, without direct help from America, the British, the French or any other ally. So when assessing why they lost, they determined they had the weapons, but not the “will” (religious will) and that’s what started the so called Jihad or Holy War.”

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 2:32 PM

Gotta run, have a blessed day folks!

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 2:33 PM

For some reason my last post did not go up…so just read this folks…it is all there.

How to Build a New Iraq by edited by Patrick Clawson. Published by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2002.

Paul Wolfowitz was a part of that organization…Democracy was always the number one priority of the Iraq invasion.

William Eaton on June 19, 2014 at 2:44 PM

Del Dolemonte on June 19, 2014 at 1:52 PM

You take out all their nuclear facilities, you destroy their air force, and you hit their military forces close to the Indian border.

William Eaton on June 19, 2014 at 2:02 PM

Much, much easier said than done. The bulk of Paki’s nuclear facilities are in hills and mountains, and according to our former (Democrat) Secretary of State, Paki’s nuclear weapons are dispersed throughout the country in secret locations so they don’t fall into the wrong hands.

And Paki’s air force is far superior to Saddam’s. Not only did we sell them high-tech planes, so did Saab and Mirage.

Del Dolemonte on June 19, 2014 at 2:47 PM

1791 on June 19, 2014 at 12:55 PM

I am well aware that Harry Truman was in charge in the beginning of the Korean War. I also know that Eisenhower was a Republican who ran on ending the war with success not failure. He continued it until he intimidated the North Koreans into a peace agreement. Both parties supported maintaining a presence there since. This bipartisanship and continuity produced good results.

Kennedy started and Johnson expanded the Vietanm war. Nixon, a Republican, said he would end it but with “Honor”. His plan was Vietnamization. He would build ARVN (army of the Republic of Vietnam) to take over with American supplies and air power to hold the South much as we did in South Korea. Unfortunately, the Democratic Congress after Watergate got enough seats to pass restictions on use of force there and they also cut the funding to the ARVN. In the end, the North Vietnamese were getting 3X as much funding from their patrons as South Vietnam got from us. The rest is history. Nyugen Van Thieu felt he needed to consolidate his lines as ammunition was going to be limited and the retreat turned into a rout without American air power to stop it as it had in 1972 when ARVN was pressed.

The lesson here was that the US public does not have the patience to fight for a foreign entity forever. Learning this lesson, Nixon enunciated his “Nixon Doctrine” of supporting people willing to die for freedom themselves but if they will not fight for their own freedom, do not get involved. Some say the outcome in South Vietnam disproved the Nixon Doctrine but in fact it did not.
The lesson was not that the Nixon Doctrine was wrong it is that after you build an allied army you have to continue to support it or your gains may be lost. This also appears to be the lesson of Iraq and, based on how our current policy has been outlined, possibly of Afghanistan as well.

KW64 on June 19, 2014 at 2:58 PM

But since Jan. 20, Mr. Obama has only added to the red ink. He has signed into law a $787 billion stimulus package and a $33 billion expansion of the State Child Health Insurance Program. He’s green lighted spending another $330.4 billion in bank rescue money. And he signed a $410 billion bill to fund discretionary spending for the second half of the current fiscal year, 2009, an increase of 8% on an annual basis. By supporting each spending initiative, he robbed himself of the ability to credibly blame others for the size of the deficit.

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 11:04 AM

Don’t forget that due to baseline budgeting, the stimulus package became the new baseline of the budget. Literally, we’ve now had SIX $787 billion stimulus packages. The stimulus package was nothing but a tool to drive our country into massive debt while enriching Obama’s cronies.

Actually, no. The Community Reinvestment Act was signed by Carter, but that was not a proximate cause of the subprime bubble or the crash.

What was far more influential was Janet Reno threatening all the banks and large mortgage lenders with massive fair lending lawsuits if they did not significantly ramp up their subprime lending. I was in the meeting when that happened. The other was the institution of the affordable housing goals for Fannie and Freddie, which were championed by Barney Frank and Maxine Waters and then put into regulation by the Clinton Administration.

rockmom on June 19, 2014 at 11:26 AM

Barack H. Obama was one of the lawyer names attached to some of those lawsuits. That makes him directly culpable in the 2008 financial crash.

We all know Obama is responsible for the big energy boom. And everyone has health insurance now. And we’ve recovered from the economic disaster – what is this Recovery Summer VI The Revenge of the Jobs?

gwelf on June 19, 2014 at 11:45 AM

First time I’ve had Baja Blast Mt. Dew come out my nose.

UnstChem on June 19, 2014 at 3:01 PM

1791 on June 19, 2014 at 12:55 PM

BTW Mr. History Buff, Gerald Ford was president not Richard Nixon when Vietnam fell as you assert. His hands were tied by the Democratic Congress’s restriction on his ability to support the South Vietnamese not by a decision by Republicans to abondon an ally.

KW64 on June 19, 2014 at 3:07 PM

“Once the Islamic people were understandably considered the greatest military and economic powers on the planet. Muslim militarizes and merchants spanned the globe and dominated nearly everywhere they went from N Africa and Spain in the West to India, China and ultimately Indonesia, today the most populous Muslim DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 2:32 PM

An overrated military power, lost to a bunch of Franks at Tours in 732, the same Franks who got pasted by the Vikings later on. The height of the Arab power in Islam was really short lived, so that by the time of Crusades they were divided and depended more on Turks, Kurds, Mamelukes (slaves from Eastern Europe/Caucasus who seized power in Egypt) to do the real fighting.

Further it was Muslims who controlled the great trading routes of gold and silver and silk and s laves from Asia to Europe. It was Muslims who led the world in science and medicine and architecture and music and literature and poetry for a thousand years or more……sadly however…..Today, Islamic journalists, academics, and politicians themselves say that the Muslim world is best known for tyranny, abject poverty of all but the elite, rampant corruption, violence and terrorism.

Most of the sciences and mathematics they got from other places and they made very few improvements on them. The Hindus Indians invented the number line, algebra, etc. and the Greeks (and pre-Greek civilizations) invented Geometry. Muslims basically got technology from the people they captured.

By the start of the Renaissance the Islamic world was already well behind the times from a technology perspective. The main reason for Ottoman Turkish success was they were unified militarily and the Europeans were not. However despite this disunity the Ottoman Turks failed to take Vienna twice (1529 and 1683). The got clobbered at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571 mostly by galleasses invented by the Venetians thus beginning the final decline of the Islamic world. It has been all downhill since…from a military and technology perspective.

As for Holy War, Jihad, it is based on the Quran (see Sura 8 and 9) and in the Hadith. Jihad has been a part of Islam since its beginning and did not start with Israel or any other outside force. Muhammad himself practiced it on numerous occasions. Both defensive and offensive jihad is acceptable.

Obviously I cannot recount the entire history of Islamic warfare, technology, and theology in a comment section of a blog, but you must start with the Quran and Hadith if you are to understand the Islamic world. You seem pre-occupied with Israel…considering half of your post was about that tiny country.

William Eaton on June 19, 2014 at 3:10 PM

>affordable housing goals for Fannie and Freddie, which were >championed by Barney Frank and Maxine Waters and then put into >regulation by the Clinton Administration.

Yeah, you had to drag all those investment banks kicking and screaming to create crap mortgage paper.

And then leveraging those proceeds 10:1.

LOL

inklake on June 19, 2014 at 3:16 PM

Meghan Kelly goes for Cheney’s throat yet would kiss Obama’s ass in an interview.

MCGIRV on June 19, 2014 at 3:22 PM

Much, much easier said than done. The bulk of Paki’s nuclear facilities are in hills and mountains, and according to our former (Democrat) Secretary of State, Paki’s nuclear weapons are dispersed throughout the country in secret locations so they don’t fall into the wrong hands.

And Paki’s air force is far superior to Saddam’s. Not only did we sell them high-tech planes, so did Saab and Mirage.

Del Dolemonte on June 19, 2014 at 2:47 PM

This is a prime example why I have no interests getting back into Iraq. If we are not going to punish the prime people involved in 9-11 then what is the point of having a military.

So your willing to spend upteen billions of dollars and thousands of U.S. troops in places like Iraq, but not willing to spend them teaching a country directly involved in the 9-11 attacks a lesson never to support Jihadists groups fighting against the U.S. again.

If the Soviets had pulled off a stunt like 9-11 in the Cold War through one of their proxies it would have been WWIII, but when Pakistan and Saudi Arabia do it means we must avoid a war with them and instead invade Iraq to chase down some chemical weapons stockpiles?

It is just illogical…bizarre…

William Eaton on June 19, 2014 at 3:28 PM

The Republicans won the college graduate vote in 2012. Your Democrats won the high school dropout vote.

Thanks for playing!

F-

Del Dolemonte on June 19, 2014 at 1:53 PM

and how did that work out, Obama is still in the WH. now send that check into the Cheney’s slush fund, one of their mortgages has to get paid!

burserker on June 19, 2014 at 3:30 PM

also, I’m not a democRAT, but thanks for playing

burserker on June 19, 2014 at 3:30 PM

Cheney was right about Iraq. The congressional authorization of the use of force to remove Saddam was passed by a large bipartisan vote citing 23 reasons for war, including Saddam’s use of nerve gas against the Kurds, use of real torture, harboring terrorist training camps, paying of suicide bombers and WMD that he had and intended to have. People forget how bad Saddam was. Kelly knew enough to posture, but overall I was unimpressed by her. Cheney is still the adult in the room. Obama has blown what was a foreign policy success. Going after Cheney is dumb.

Phil Byler on June 19, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Fox News isn’t out to change the world, they only want more money. They’re fair and balanced, which has nothing to do with truth.

RayBacliff on June 19, 2014 at 12:02 PM

Agree 100%. Stopped watching FNC cold turkey two years ago and have been much happier since.

bw222 on June 19, 2014 at 2:21 PM

Oh, it’s a news network?
I thought it was some kind of beauty pageant channel.
All blonds in minidresses.

itsnotaboutme on June 19, 2014 at 4:27 PM

Cheney was right about Iraq. The congressional authorization of the use of force to remove Saddam was passed by a large bipartisan vote citing 23 reasons for war, including Saddam’s use of nerve gas against the Kurds, use of real torture, harboring terrorist training camps, paying of suicide bombers and WMD that he had and intended to have. People forget how bad Saddam was. Kelly knew enough to posture, but overall I was unimpressed by her. Cheney is still the adult in the room. Obama has blown what was a foreign policy success. Going after Cheney is dumb.

Phil Byler on June 19, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Thank you for this excellent contribution.

itsnotaboutme on June 19, 2014 at 4:29 PM

Oh, it’s a news network?
I thought it was some kind of beauty pageant channel.
All blonds in minidresses.

itsnotaboutme on June 19, 2014 at 4:27 PM

I make my living off the Evening News
Just give me somethin’, somethin’ I can use
People love it when you lose, they love dirty laundry

Well, I could’ve been an actor but I wound up here
I just have to look good, I don’t have to be clear
Come and whisper in my ear, give us dirty laundry

Kick ‘em when they’re up, kick ‘em when they’re down
Kick ‘em when they’re up, kick ‘em when they’re down
Kick ‘em when they’re up, kick ‘em when they’re down
Kick ‘em when they’re up, kick ‘em all around

We got the bubble headed bleach blonde who comes on at five
She can tell you ’bout the plane crash with a gleam in her eye
It’s interesting when people die, give us dirty laundry

Can we film the operation? Is the head dead yet?
You know the boys in the newsroom got a running bet
Get the widow on the set! We need dirty laundry

You don’t really need to find out what’s goin’ on
You don’t really want to know just how far it’s gone
Just leave well enough alone, eat your dirty laundry

Kick ‘em when they’re up, kick ‘em when they’re down
Kick ‘em when they’re up, kick ‘em when they’re down
Kick ‘em when they’re up, kick ‘em when they’re down
Kick ‘em when they’re stiff, kick ‘em all around

Kick ‘em when they’re up, kick ‘em when they’re down
Kick ‘em when they’re up, kick ‘em when they’re down
Kick ‘em when they’re up, kick ‘em when they’re down
Kick ‘em when they’re stiff, kick ‘em all around

Dirty little secrets, dirty little lies
We got our dirty little fingers in everybody’s pie
We love to cut you down to size, we love dirty laundry

We can do “The Innuendo,” we can dance and sing
When it’s said and done we haven’t told you a thing
We all know that crap is king, give us dirty laundry

Kick ‘em when they’re up, kick ‘em when they’re down
Kick ‘em when they’re up, kick ‘em when they’re down
Kick ‘em when they’re up, kick ‘em when they’re down

dentarthurdent on June 19, 2014 at 4:46 PM

We weren’t wrong. Its not that simple.

We were wrong to NATION BUILD and politicize it though.

TX-96 on June 19, 2014 at 4:55 PM

Kelly be loving her some Big Dick………….Cheney. Sorry…in advance.
msupertas on June 19, 2014 at 10:08 AM

Well….lets hope Kelly gets all the Big Dick she can handle….but she sure showed herself to be a light-weight when it comes to challenging Cheney in a dismal display of questioning. It is easy to pin blame when you HAVE 20-20 HINDSIGHT !…Kelly almost sounded like an imbecilic liberal..

Cheney fired back in logical fashion as to why the Bush administration did what it did in “real time” as events were unfolding and occurring… with no crystal ball and benefit of future outcomes.

Megan Kelly might have a good future as a Monday morning quarterback…as she sure doesn’t know how put her journalistic questioning in context to events as they occurred. Great game of “gotcha” is what we witnessed out of this FOX prima-dona.

BigSven on June 19, 2014 at 5:11 PM

Over the years I have noticed that Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter have blasted the GOP their successors and I never heard either Bush or do the same. I think they are honorable to keep quiet. Cheney probably figured something had to be said and he may have made wrong decisions in the past but I don’t see where he is wrong on what he said recently.

garydt on June 19, 2014 at 5:44 PM

The lefties keep bringing up their old “no weapons of mass destruction” meme.

Pray tell what it was that ISIS recently siezed in Iraq??? Last time I checked, chemical weapons are “weapons of mass destruction.

Leftists keep trying to change facts by redefining words.

landlines on June 19, 2014 at 6:01 PM

PS: And nobody has proved that nuclear weapons did not exist. We found the precursors and manufacturing facilities, and lots of stuff was hastily exported by Sadaam. Unless we are convinced that all the Iraqui nuclear staff we captured were actively beating uranium into plowshares, the threat has merely been moved and hidden for future use.

We are pretty sure that long-range nuclear delivery vehicles were not included in the stuff sent to Syria, but we may yet discover finished nuclear warheads or other devices the hard way.

And these devices can kill leftists even when their eyes are tightly shut.

landlines on June 19, 2014 at 6:11 PM

Well….lets hope Kelly gets all the Big Dick she can handle….but she sure showed herself to be a light-weight when it comes to challenging Cheney in a dismal display of questioning. It is easy to pin blame when you HAVE 20-20 HINDSIGHT !…Kelly almost sounded like an imbecilic liberal..

Cheney fired back in logical fashion as to why the Bush administration did what it did in “real time” as events were unfolding and occurring… with no crystal ball and benefit of future outcomes.

BigSven on June 19, 2014 at 5:11 PM

Agreed!

Enjoy your show Kelly. You lost two more viewers last night. I’ve known you were a liberal all along, but had given you the benefit of the doubt until now…

stacman on June 19, 2014 at 6:22 PM

questioning Cheney equals liberal? enjoy Rachel Maddow

burserker on June 19, 2014 at 6:26 PM

I just read on Drudge that ISIS is claiming they have captured Saddam’s WMD stockpile.

Since it has been conventional wisdom that no WMD’s were existed in Iraq to be found, (a) is there any truth to this rumor, and (b) if so, what does it say about . . . so much?

EdmundBurke247 on June 19, 2014 at 7:56 PM

If one party starts a project and then the other party drops it leading to disaster, do you blame the one that started the project or the one that dropped it.

In Korea both parties supported the project and a stable democracy that both trades and allies with the US resulted. In Vietnam, the same party that started the conflict eventually abondoned it leading to disaster while blaming the party that neither started or abondoned it.

In Iraq, we cannot know what would have resulted if a residual force had been left there. We do know that leaving entirely has not turned out well. Cheney could not presume when this project began that it would follow a course like that in South Vietnam rather than a course like that in South Korea.

KW64 on June 19, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Well said.

tomshup on June 19, 2014 at 11:01 AM

The Korean War was started during the term of Harry S. Truman (Democrat) and ended during the term of Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican).

The Vietnam war was started by JFK (Democrat) and GREATLY expanded by LBJ (Democrat) and ended, arguably badly, by RMN (Republican).

The Iraq war was started by Bush 43 (Republican), an argument could be made it was Bush 41 (Republican), and both parties overwhelmingly supported it at the time. It was ended, WITH NO ARGUMENT VERY BADLY, by Obama (Democrat).

Pretty much the opposite of what you are trying, very poorly, to say. Both of you, KW64 and tomshup, are obviously not history buffs.

1791 on June 19, 2014 at 12:55 PM

That was … interesting. Unfortunately, you completely missed the point of what KW64 had said. Which made your rack about “not history buffs” look a little foolish.

KW64 said, “In Vietnam, the same party that started the conflict eventually abondoned it leading to disaster while blaming the party that neither started or abondoned it.”

You assume he’s wrong because a Democrat started the Vietnam War, and a Republican, Nixon, ended it. Nominally, that’s pretty much true. It was Nixon who finally technically got us out of the war with a treaty.

But the Vietnam War didn’t actually end with the treaty. Our involvement in Vietnam continued even after the treaty, because part of the treaty involved continuing to offer air support and funding to South Vietnam. And that part continued even after Nixon had resigned, and Gerald Ford became president.

The real end of the war for the US was when we stopped offering air support and funding to our ally, South Vietnam. And that was not done by Nixon, or Ford, or by any Republican, or by any president.

That was done when the Democratic Congress in the Ford administration broke our treaty obligations and stabbed South Vietnam in the back by one simple action: they refused to provide any more funding for either air support related to South Vietnam, or funding to help South Vietnam.

Once you understand that, then you see that the Democrats started the Vietnam War, and the Democrats ended it. Saying they ended it badly is just so inadequate. It was a shame and a disgrace to do that to allies who had learned to depend on us, and in violation of our promises to them.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 19, 2014 at 8:05 PM

Kelly can be rude and crude at times and also must a plain bitchy..Not my favorite on Fox..

Bullhead on June 20, 2014 at 12:04 AM

I haven’t watched MK since the first show. Shows poor judgement and not much talent worshipping ‘The Five’ on her opening program.

And she is a mouthpiece for the jihadist supporters like the Wash Post etc.. She is wrong and full of it.

TerryW on June 20, 2014 at 8:11 AM

Clearly Megyn is very emotional about Iraq and Cheney, and that just doesn’t appeal to me to see an interviewer barely able to contain themselves like that. I know Megyn generally does a good job, but I think they should have had someone who could have asked tough questions in a more respectful way.

GinaC on June 20, 2014 at 9:20 AM

Seems to me that if we were going to go to war in the ME, that the target should have been Iran.

kjatexas on June 20, 2014 at 10:05 AM

FAUX News, the lessor of all TV NEWS Evils, but still EVIL ! ! !

Both Murdoch and Ailes DEMAND AMNESTY. How can you trust a company that wishes the destruction of The American Culture.

Nat George on June 20, 2014 at 10:52 AM

FNC and AM talk radio are strong with their target audiences because the entire rest of the media caters to the progressive viewpoint. This is why Air America was a big loser: between NPR and Pacifica, the market was already being served. It’s also why the conservative audience is content with such an awful median quality in their media. Apart from Hewwitt and Medved, talk radio is mostly cranks and Limbaugh wannabes.

eh on June 21, 2014 at 3:50 AM

Noah strokes his other friend that posts here from Daily Kos…..which they are both “steambath mates” with – and they order drinks for Megyn Kelly’s table…..with a side of N2O….

williamg on June 22, 2014 at 1:37 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3