Condoleezza Rice Takes Lying Liberal Lawrence O'Donnell To The Cleaners On Saddam Hussein And Iraq

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I mean, did O'Donnell really think he could get away his normal leftist, bully tactics on a woman of high magnitude like Condi Rice? Did he and leftist minions at MSNBC not do their research? I mean the woman's not only the former Secretary of State, but a university professor and Hoover fellow. Not since George Pataki (who's really good at taking down lefties in public debates) have I seen a liberal get taken down like this by a conservative. Rice called out O'Donnell on his lies, schooled him on just how much of a threat Saddam Hussein really was and finally, for good measure, basically told him what a hypocrite he is in comparing liberal support for Libya vs. Iraq. This interview is must-see viewing for any Republican seriously trying to get elected President in 2012. Really now, this is How To Take Down A Self-Righteous Liberal 101.

Condoleezza Rice Schools Katie Couric on Why U.S. Invaded Iraq

Leftist revisionism gets it card pulled:

On December 3, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave CBS's Katie Couric a much-needed lesson on why America invaded Iraq.


When Couric said to her guest during an "HBO History Makers Series" interview, "Documentaries have been made about how intelligence was incorrectly analyzed and cherry-picked to build an argument for war, and memos from that time do suggest that officials knew there was a small chance of actually finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," Rice stopped the host dead in her tracks:

Wikileaks Documents Show WMD's Found In Iraq

Wired.com:

By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

But for years afterward, WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins, and uncover weapons of mass destruction.

An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMDlargely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents. program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal,

In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base.

It's been the biggest lie created by the Left to malign former President Bush's move to invade Iraq: no WMD's. Now after, of all people, an anti-war organization reveals that Saddam Hussein did indeed have WMD's, will anyone in the MSM have the guts to admit that yeah Saddam was only a really, really bad guy, but he had WMD's, stopped the U.N. from finding them and needed to be killed? Probably not.

Laura Ingraham And Greg Gutfeld Mock Richard Engel’s Saddam ‘Moderation’ Remark

Mediaite.com:

On Today last week, NBC’s Richard Engel argued that, before the US invasion of Iraq, leader Saddam Hussein was on the road to “moderation,” and that his relationships with Eastern Europe, especially, were improving. Needless to say, on Thursday’s O’Reilly Factor, Laura Ingraham and Greg Gutfeld had a field day with the idea that Hussein was a moderate.



Ingraham opened the segment suggesting Engel thought “Saddam was on the verge of having his own reality show” before the Bush administration’s decision to invade. For Gutfeld, the logic behind Engel’s comments hinged upon what the meaning of “moderation” is. “What does he mean by ‘moderate’?” he asked. “Was he talking about his alcohol intake?… Or was he only going to gas half as many Kurds, or tell his sons that they could only rape women every other weekend?”

“He was clearly going green,” Ingraham mocked, and later blamed the commentary on NBC in general: “When NBC is involved, all bets are off.” Gutfeld didn’t understand exactly why Engel was talking about this anyway: “You’ve got a war that you won; enjoy it!” But Ingraham did see the point: “We’re supposed to be America on our knees begging for mercy all the time, you don’t understand that… get used to it.” “I am, believe me, I’m married,” he retorted.

Tony Blair Stands Up To Liberal Terrorism, Has No Regrets About Going After Saddam

FinancialTimes.com:

An unrepentant Tony Blair told the Iraq inquiry yesterday that he would, "frankly, do it all again" as he defended his decision to topple Saddam Hussein and urged world leaders to take "a very hard line" on Iran.

The former prime minister faced heckles of "murderer" as he concluded six hours of defiant testimony in which he expressed "not a regret" for removing a dictator who, in his view, could today have posed a nuclear threat.

After overcoming a rare bout of nerves, which had left his hand shaking, Mr Blair delivered a characteristically assured and unapologetic performance covering five years of British engagement in Iraq.

He offered few concessions to critics apart from accepting that, with hindsight, the public presentation of intelligence could have been improved and the army's nation-building skills strengthened.

Addressing allegations he exaggerated the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he said: "This isn't about a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception, this is a decision." Without the war, he argued, the "psychopathic" dictator Saddam would now be in a dangerous nuclear arms race with Iran.

"What's important is not to ask the March 2003 question but to ask the 2010 question," he said, adding: "With the oil price at $100 a barrel, he would have had the intent and he would have had the means, and we would have lost our nerve."

Iran's support for terrorism and nuclear ambitions would mean that the international community would have to confront the "same judgment on risk" he faced. "I take a very hard line, a tough line on Iran today and many of the same arguments apply," he said.

Mr Blair denied "signing in blood" his commitment to invade Iraq as early as April 2002 at a summit with the US president. But Mr Blair said: "What I said to President [George W.] Bush is that we are going to be with you in confronting and dealing with this threat."

Great job by Mr. Blair. WMD's or no WMD's, Saddam Hussein and his heinous, murderous regime needed to be toppled.

Laura Bush Quote of the Day!

"If Saddam Hussein had been there, the man wouldn't have been released. And he probably, you know, would have been executed. It was an assault. And that's what it is. And it would be an assault to anyone. The President laughed it off. He wasn't hurt. He's very quick. As you know, he's a natural athlete. And that's it. But on the other hand, it is an assault, and I think it should be treated that way, and I think people should think of it that way. [As] bad as the incident is, it is an indication of progress. It is a sign that Iraqis feel a lot freer to express themselves."

- First Lady Laura Bush on the shoe-throwing incident involving President Bush

Politiks As Usual: In The News 7/7/08

NYTimes: The New And Not Improved Barack Obama

Free Speech Rights Not Guaranteed In 'Public' Online Spaces

The Liberal's Agenda - Antichrist Or Just Anti-Christ?

400 Members Of Rainbow Family Surround, Attack Federal Officers

U.S. Removes Uranium From Iraq

Female U.S. Casualties More Common In Iraq War

One Woman's Journey From Pro-Choice Atheist To Pro-Life Catholic

John Kerry: McCain Lacks Judgment To Be President

Freed Columbian Hostage Ingrid Betancourt To Write Play About Ordeal

G8 Summit Opens With Focus On Africa

Rosie O'Donnell: Being On "The View" Like Being Raped In Prison

Half Of America Still Believes That Saddam Had WMD's

From YahooNews:

Do you believe in Iraqi "WMD"? Did Saddam Hussein's government have weapons of mass destruction in 2003?

Half of America apparently still thinks so, a new poll finds, and experts see a raft of reasons why: a drumbeat of voices from talk radio to die-hard bloggers to the Oval Office, a surprise headline here or there, a rallying around a partisan flag, and a growing need for people, in their own minds, to justify the war in Iraq.

People tend to become "independent of reality" in these circumstances, says opinion analyst Steven Kull.

The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900-million-plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.

Despite this, a Harris Poll released July 21 found that a full 50 percent of U.S. respondents — up from 36 percent last year — said they believe Iraq did have the forbidden arms when U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, an attack whose stated purpose was elimination of supposed WMD. Other polls also have found an enduring American faith in the WMD story.

"I'm flabbergasted," said Michael Massing, a media critic whose writings dissected the largely unquestioning U.S. news reporting on the Bush administration's shaky WMD claims in 2002-03.

"This finding just has to cause despair among those of us who hope for an informed public able to draw reasonable conclusions based on evidence," Massing said.

Of course, the shock, bewilderment and skepticism displayed within this news release shouldn't surprise anyone who understands the liberal leanings of our press. After all, you're only a member of the "informed public" if you buy into their liberal propaganda.