O'Reilly Admits Iraq War Was Wrong

[Wilber]

They haven't fully pulled out of Germany. It still has substantial numbers of U.S. forces.

The reason they are there isn't Germany.They only need it as a staging point for the Balkans and the Middle East. They already had bases in Frankfurt and Wiesbaden so why not use them.

[PocketRocket]

I just find it strangely satisfying that after all this time one of the leading right-wing pundits has FINALLY come out and admitted that the reasons for going to war were false.

Will it lead to the next logical step, that Bush kept changing the "name" of the war, and therefore it's premise, simply to cover his tracks and save face???

"War on terror"??? "Operation Iraqi Freedom"???

O'Reilly has basically come out and said (in different words) that it should have been called "Operation Guaranteed Oil Supply"

[Argus]

Does anyone really believe that, at any point in our lifetimes, the U.S. will reach a point where it can pull its troups out and leave a stable country behind?

Germany.

Not really a good example since Germans had already figured out that this democracy thing was a worthwhile project before Hilter came on the scene.

Japan, The Phillipines, Panama? Kuwait?

[BubberMiley]

Japan, The Phillipines, Panama? Kuwait?

Once again, all (for the most part) ethnically homogenous nations with established borders (with the possible exception of Kuwait). Partitioning Iraq is probably essential before there's peace, but that won't happen until there's some real leadership. Probably not until early 2009.

[jdobbin]

Japan, The Phillipines, Panama? Kuwait?

As examples of what?

[Riverwind]

Japan, The Phillipines, Panama? Kuwait?

Japan, like Germany, had already started down the road to a democracy before WW2 started.

The Phillipines and Panama - they are really US colonies and cannot be compared to Iraq.

Kuwait - the use simply restored the gov't that was in place before the very brief invasion. No national building required.

[bradco]

"Finally, I asked David Letterman last night if he wanted the USA to win in Iraq. He wouldn't answer. That's the same thing that happened when I put the same question to Rosie O'Donnell. Talking Points simply cannot figure that out. A stable Iraq helps everyone in the world and badly damages the terrorists and Iraq. That's why the killers are blowing stuff up. They don't want a stable Iraq."

O'Reilly is a simple fool. A hundred or so years ago there was no country called Iraq. It is something the Brits cobbled together to suit themselves. It took a despot to hold it together. No brutal despot, and all the factions that had their own little fiefdoms for centuries start to fly apart again. What does win mean to O'Reilly? The perpetuation of an artifical state? The man's a bad joke.

Figleaf: Faux News. I love it.

Although I completely agree with your assessment I wonder what the consequences of breaking up this "artificial state" would be. Could separate Iraqi states live in peace? Would they be vulnerable to neighbours in the region such as Iran? Would they be vulnerable to strong man leadership that would make Saddam look like a nice guy? Would they provide a haven for terrorist groups attacking the other former Iraqi states and/or the west? Are they not likely to produce even more regional instability and encourage more US intervention?

[GostHacked]

Abramoff knew about war on Iraq a year before it happened: link

How can this be?

Eventhough I believe that they had planned the war long time in advance. I call bullshit on this one. That letter seems fakes. I was with so and so, who is this, when we were at this place. I am sure they would be talking about Iraq at a freakin basketball game. Even if it was in a secured room/box.

[White Doors]

Germany was also a nation with a reasonably homogenous saxon ethnic base. Iraq is just a British creation that is a hodge-podge of Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. These groups have longstanding animosity among each other, which makes it ripe for civil war.

Japan?

[White Doors]

And Oreilly didn't admit the war was wrong, he admitted the intelligence was faulty.

[BubberMiley]

And Oreilly didn't admit the war was wrong, he admitted the intelligence was faulty.

It's pretty tough to parse "If we could go back in a time machine, we wouldn't do it." into a pro-war statement.