O'Reilly: Iraq invaded "to create a friendly country between Iran & Syria"

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

War on Terror Strategy
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
By Bill O'Reilly

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187059,00.html

Mr. Bush believes the only way to defeat Al Qaeda and other terror groups is to deny them sanctuary, that is limit the places where these people can openly operate. Right now the countries of Iran, Syria, and the out-of-control northern border areas of Pakistan harbor and finance terrorists. These places are, of course, enemies of the USA. Iraq was invaded to create a friendly country between Iran and Syria, thereby pressuring those nations to do a more sensible foreign policy. Unfortunately, the Iraq conflict has proven to be much more difficult than the Bush administration had anticipated. And so the conflict rages on.

The Mideast countries that actively help America are few, but growing. Jordan, Kuwait, the Emirates, Egypt and Afghanistan are all now reliable allies in the War on Terror. We need to keep those people on our side. And that's why the ports debacle involving the Emirates is so serious. Saudi Arabia helps the USA when it feels like it. And the same goes for Pakistan. However, Al Qaeda is a growing threat to the Saudi royal family and so is Iran. So the kingdom is cooperating more with the USA.

Pakistan is a dicey situation. If the military dictator Musharraf is assassinated, you'll see a blood bath, as Islamic fanatics are everywhere. But having two U.S. friendly countries on either side of Pakistan makes it easier for America to help Musharraf survive. The rest of the Middle East nations are basically bystanders. Turkey wants Western assistance, but isn't going to outwardly fight Islamic fascism. The same for Oman, Qatar, and Yemen.

Despite the chaos in Iraq, the Bush administration has been effective in keeping Al Qaeda pinned down on the defensive. Our intelligence is much better than it was pre-9/11. And our military is now battle- hardened. And those are important things. "Talking Points" believes the Bush administration deserves credit for bringing the fight to the terrorists. It is depressing that so few Americans understand what the stakes are. The press continues to quibble over minor matters. And the far left continues to undermine the War on Terror every way it can. So that's what's in play. And we are talking life and death here, not partisan politics. I hope this Memo wises some people up. It's a brutal world, not some theoretical game. Nothing is more important than winning the War on Terror.

MORE: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187059,00.html

[MrBenchley]

1. What's that? War rationale number 463?

[cliss]

12. Exactly my thought.

Bill says, "It is depressing that so few Americans understand what the stakes are." The REAL reason for invading Iraq, apparently, was to create a friendly country to the US.

If Bill thinks it's "depressing that few Americans understand that, he should look no further than his Leader, Bush. WHEN did Bush ever say this? Bush has given hundreds of reasons for going into Iraq....get rid of Saddam, bring democracy to iraq, fight terrorism, 9/11, the war on Terror etc etc.

When did Bush ever give this F* reason?

[MrBenchley]

17. That says it all....

"It is depressing that so few Americans understand" a rationale they've never heard before that Bill O'Reilly pulled out of his ass on the air....

What's hilarious is that the true Faux Noise believers (those whom the president of Fox, Roger Ailes, once boasted would watch a dead raccoon on his network) probably sat there and said, "That's right, Bill. Only you and me get it."

[DainBramaged]

13. I think they are picking reasons out of Chinese cookies now

[MrBenchley]

16. A fortune cookie would make more sense than O'Reilly

How is it the Falafel King speaks for Chimpy?

[ixion]

2. Hey Bill, Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we illegally invaded

thus, basically, inviting them in.

[npincus]

3. let's hear B*sh say that, then we can IMPEACH the WMD-LIAR

[BOSSHOG]

4. Nobody anticipated anybody would fight back

But you are right bill, it is depressing that so few americans understand what the stakes are. The rest of the citizenry believes you are a patriotic american.

[NewJeffCT]

25. just like

nobody anticipated people would use airplanes as weapons & fly them into buildings...

Just like nobody anticipated the breach of the levees...

just like nobody was paying attention.

[tularetom]

5. Every day they come up with a new reason

and they're getting desperate when they trot out a pathetic dimwit like o'reilly to introduce them. This is really just a sneaky way for o'reilly to get his knuckle draggin listeners to support the Ay-rab port deal, now that he's been told what side to come down on.

[BillZBubb]

6. O'Really is such a common dunce.

The once TRUE BELIEVER in and adamant purveyor of the WMD propaganda now sees the "real" reason for the invasion. Anyone who disagrees with his "insight" then or now is enabling our enemies!

Get a clue, O'Really, you are as wrong with this week's excuse as you were pre-invasion on WMDs. You are a dumbass.

[Tin Man]

9. I'd say he's more an intellectual fraud - displays no critical reasoning

O'Lie-ly picks his position first, then searches for arguments to defend it.

[Tin Man]

7. ...well, at least he acknowledges the war wasn't about WMD

...that's one lie laid to rest. Now onward to the next two dozen or so.

[Wilber_Stool]

8. Iraq was a friendly country

right up untill we invaded them in the first gulf war.

[Cerebral_Assassin]

10. O'Reilly

-Instead of invading a country that has nothing to do with terrorism to pressure a terrorist nation, why not just INVADE THE TERRORIST NATION!!?? That is a higher form of stupid. Seriously, that's like South of Sane.

-It's real easy for O'Reilly to say "we need to win the War on Terror" when he sacrifices nothing for it.

-Also, it is very easy for him and others to criticize Middle Eastern nations for not joining in our reindeer games when significant portions of their populations are opposed to US policy. Its real easy to sit in the safety of your shower eating falafels and loofa-ing "Little Bill" and say "well, what they ought to do is...." When it's your hoo-hoo dilly on the line, knowing what happened in Iran in 1979, its a little different.

[endarkenment]

11. lets just look at paragraph 1.

Mr. Bush believes the only way to defeat Al Qaeda and other terror groups is to deny them sanctuary, that is limit the places where these people can openly operate.

OK, that was the basis for attacking afghanistan. Reasonable people could agree with that statement, although I wonder what 'other terror groups' means. Al Qaeda attacked us on 9-11, not some ambiguous 'other terror groups'.

Right now the countries of Iran, Syria, and the out-of-control northern border areas of Pakistan harbor and finance terrorists.

Ah - "Al Qaeda" as been replaced with the more general "terrorists". Iran and Syria had and have nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, and Pakistan have a lot to do with Al Qaeda.

Both Iran and Syria and practically every other muslim nation in the region provide some level of support for various Palestinian organizations, some of which we consider to be 'terrorist', none of which have been involved in attacks against the US since the Oslo accords.

These places are, of course, enemies of the USA.

Syria was our ally in Gulf Farce I. Syria provided intelligence support to us after 9-11. Other than the unilateral proclamation by Mr. Bush and his cohorts, Syria is not our enemy. Are we at war with Iran? Are we at war with the 'northern border areas' of our ally Pakistan? Why are 'these places, of course, enemies of the USA'?

Iraq was invaded to create a friendly country between Iran and Syria, thereby pressuring those nations to do a more sensible foreign policy.

Gee I thought Iraq was invaded to rid us of the dangers of WMD in the possession of the mad tyrant Saddam Hussein. Or perhaps it was to bring freedom and democracy to the region. Now it seems that we are killing Iraqis in order to create a friendly country between Iran and Syria. What bullshit.

Iraq served part of the purpose stated above - a more or less friendly nation that functioned to neutralize Iranian domination of the region - throughout the 80's. That was Iraq's role right up until the farcical first Gulf War. That actually continued to be Iraq's role after Gulf Farce I. That is why Bush I left Saddam in power: to keep Iran in check.

As for Syria, Syria is getting massively maligned here. Not that I am a big fan of the odious Syrian regime, but everyone (including us) agreed that the best thing to do with the mess that was Lebanon was for the Syrians to move in and settle the situation, which they did. Their payback for bringing stability to the region, for ending the 10 year civil war, for joining us in Gulf Farce I, for providing aid after 9-11, for more or less being a responsible player in the Palestinian peace process, was to get lumped into the Axis of evil and pronounced ready for regime change.

Unfortunately, the Iraq conflict has proven to be much more difficult than the Bush administration had anticipated. And so the conflict rages on.

They knew exactly what was going to happen. However if Bill wants to argue that the Bush regime is a bunch of incompetent screwups, fine.

Shape shifting suppport for Palestinian organizations into an alliance with Al Qaeda is typical rightwing bullshit and we need to denounce it for the deception it is everytime it is stated.

The theory that we just want a stable peaceful Iraq is also nonsense. The same bunch of vile clowns who put Saddam back in power after Gulf Farce I are in charge now, and they didn' suddenly have amnesia about the political dynamics of Iraq. Peaceful stability implies an Iranian aligned shiite regime in control of all of Iraq that matters. We knew that in '91 and we knew that in '03. 'We just wanted to hand mesopotamia over to the ayatollahs'. Right. I ain't buying it and neither should you.

[AtomicKitten]

14. I hope O'Reilly has health insurance.

He'll need to have his lips surgically removed from BushCo's ass.

Jeez, what a buffoon.

[Mark5]

15. what? haha!

So now we invade to create a "friendly state".

For arguing sake lets pretend he didn't say the war in Iraq was to provide freedom/democracy for Iraqis, or that he later changed his tune and claimed it was a strategy to concentrate the terrorist on one battlefield over there rather than over here.
Lets forget all his inconsistencies and lets just go ahead with this new one of "Bush's' aim is to create a friendly state", ok but uhhmmm, unless Reilly's' definition of "Friendly State" is a bunch of people dying everyday in a country headed toward civil war, then that argument can be refuted and demolished by simply pointing out that, Bush is miserably failing at this "Friendly State" creation bs.

Bush is messing things up so bad, even their best apologists are left with weak ass arguments.

AS funny as it is to see O'Reilly backpedal and struggle to come up with an excuse, its still not funny to see American boys and girls die for this administrations incompetence.

You know that joke, "every time you masturbate god kills a kitten", well there should be a new one."Every time O'Reilly makes up a excuse for Bush's' incompetence another soldier gets killed"

His lies and spins are no longer just fun fodder for political debate, they are an insult and a dis-service to those serving.

[htuttle]

18. Wonder if he thinks we should have fought the Nazis in WWII or not?

After all, his rationale and justification for invading Iraq takes everything we said during the ensuing Nuremberg trials, shits on it, then flushes it down the toilet.

If we were in the RIGHT during the Nuremberg trials, then we must be in the wrong now. Very, very wrong.

[mnmoderatedem]

19. "The press continues to quibble over minor matters."

scores of dead Iraqis, 2500 of our troops killed, and counting, civil war busting out, no WMDs found, no decreased threat of terrorism, etc, etc, etc,...

"minor matters?"



:wtf:

[CAG]

20. Brilliant O'leilly foreign policy: now we only have to invade every OTHER

nation so that two bad guys don't sit next to each other.

I think all of the foreign policy experts around the nation need to subscribe to this brilliant foreign policy analysis.

Just think how easy it will be to teach our youngsters this new strategy of looking at the world; I can just see some Barney episodes coming out of this.

[rman]

21. O'Reilly should interview some people

who supported the war in Iraq because they were led to believe it was responsible for 9-11 - and who are completely pissed off ever since Bush admitted he has no evidence tying Iraq to 9-11.


"Why We Fight"
http://chomskytorrents.org/TorrentDetails.php?TorrentID=689

An analysis of the military industrial complex. will fundamentally alter the way you look at war, as no longer for national but for private corporate interests.
Think of this movie as a better version of fahrenheit 9 11, with more focus on the system than a figure like Bush.

[erpowers]

22. Laugh

Sometimes you just have to laugh. When I read the title of your post I laughed at the idea that Iraq was invaded to form a "friendly country between Iran and Syria". I did not think it could get worse or based on your opinion any better. However, by the seventh and eighth sentences I was slapping my hand on the desk and laughing. The thought that the countries in the mideast that support us is growing is funny. Of the five countries O'Reilly mentioned only one, Jordan, is a real and reliabe ally in the War on Terror. O'Reilly must not watch the news since he does not know that the Emirates have a great history of supporting groups and countries that are a threat to America. In addition, one could ask how Afghanistan is actually be able to help us in the war on terror since the American Special Forces is needed to protect the President of Afghanistan. There are many other problems in Afghanistan like the lack of infastructure and feeding and educating their people. Beyond that Yemem may not be able to be considered as one of the countries that is just sitting on the sidelines in that it provided at least one of the hijackers on 9/11 and a least one of the attackers of the UUS Cole.

The last paragraph is just ridicilous. I think military people may have said that are intelligence capabilities or not better than pre-9/11. I would think that if after 9/11 many intelligence officers in the military and other intelligence workers were kicked out of the military and there is a need for these jobs which is what every official says about the intelligence sphere then the intellignce post-9/11 is worse. What has our post-9/11 intelligence helped us to do so far?

Bush has not been effective in keeping Al Qaeda pinned down. Each year after the War on Terror or the Iraq War was started the number of terrorist attacks in the world has risen. It has gotten so bad that the Bush Administration at least tried to stop reporting the number of attacks each year. In addition, Al Qaeda attacks have not just been launched in a small region of the world they have happened in numerous places around the world. They have taken play in London, India, Paskistan, and Spain just to name a few and excluding Iraq and Afghanistan. I do not see how O'Reilly who does not have a kid in the War on Iraq could say that their are people who do not understand the stakes in War on Terror. I contend that every woman or man who has a kid in the War in Iraq or who has lost a child in this war knows what the stakes are in this war and in America. I do not think the press reporting on the fact that violence is still happening in Iraq three year after the war started even though the Bush Administration said the war would be over in a matter of weeks or months is quibbling over minor matters. From those two statements it seems that it is actually O'Rielly who does not know what the stakes are in this war.

[zulchzulu]

23. Falafel King gets a silver star from the Chickenhawk Brigade

In the ever-changing excuse cycle as to why we are in Iraq, this latest revisionist nonsense is parroted by a sexual predator willing to open his mouth on his knees and suck PNAC's Johnson.

Good monkey, Billy!

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. O'Reilly thinks killing 100,000 people is similar to a game of RISK

What a douchebag.

These are our supposed moralists?

[Minnesota Libra]

26. So what ever happened to Saudi Arabia where they came from?...............

......Let's face it the more "invasions" the more insurgents there will be.