Today's Situation Room:

Wolf Blitzer delivers the most important breaking news and political, international, and national security stories of the day. Tune to The Situation Room weekdays 5-7pm ET on CNN.

Wolf Blitzer delivers the most important breaking news and political, international, and national security stories of the day. Tune to The Situation Room weekdays 5-7pm ET on CNN.

BLITZER'S BLOG: U.S. spends billions but will Iran win?
Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai gather in Tehran, Iran on Saturday, June 25.
June 27th, 2011
03:03 PM ET

BLITZER'S BLOG: U.S. spends billions but will Iran win?

(CNN) - The story in “The Wall Street Journal” is disturbing. The headline: “Iran Woos U.S. Allies as Troops Withdraw.”

It notes that Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is aggressively moving to cement ties with the leaders of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq and clearly scoring points – at the expense of the U.S.

In recent days, Hamid Karzai, Asif Ali Zardari and Jalal Talabani went to Tehran as part of a continuing effort to improve their respective ties with the Iranian regime.

Many senior U.S. diplomatic and military officials have been worried for a long time that despite the enormous human and financial sacrifices the U.S. has made in liberating Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade, Iran eventually could emerge as the big strategic winner in the region.

With the U.S. set to withdraw its remaining 46,000 troops from Iraq by the end of this year, there’s serious concern Iran’s supporters in Iraq will become re-energized. It’s not just President Talabani who has made the journey to Tehran; Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki over the years has made no secret of wanting to improve ties with his fellow Shi’ites in Iran.

Bush administration officials earlier – and now Obama administration officials – say it’s only natural that Iraq will want to have good relations with its big neighbor to the east. Publicly, they downplay their private worries.

By the way, I’m a bit more surprised that Presidents Karzai and Zardari are so openly cozying up to Ahmadinejad. Then again, they are probably trying to hedge their long-term bets.

Bottom line in all of this: I hope the enormous and very painful U.S. effort since 9/11 is not going to wind up for naught.

Post by:
Filed under: Iran • Mahmoud Ahmadinejad • Wolf Blitzer
soundoff (73 Responses)
  1. Andre Baksh

    The aim of every Islamic Extremist is to subject every other Nations and Cultures under Islam and eliminate all who will not convert. If President Bush did not invade Iraq and Afganistan he would have still been criticiszed by the American people for not caring about them. U need to understand that if President Bush didn't invade them the rest of the world and America as well would have been living in siege. Americans does deny deny deny until tragedy strikes and then blame their leader. After Ahmadinejad has strengthened ties with these countries with his support from Russia they will and I repeat they will attack Israel and America, that is their passion. That is the only way they can bring their Mahdi out of hiding. President Bush will be given the note of praise he deserves long after he would have been able to receive it.

    June 29, 2011 at 9:06 am |
  2. John Smith

    Every time Wolf Blitzer opens his mouth, he outs himself as the shameless and flagrant Israeli spy that he is and always has been. Keep exposing yourself, Wolf. Those of us who have been onto you for some time are loving it. Finally enough of us are sick of paying for the wars pushed through by rhetoric such as yours. We don't feel like pulling our checkbooks out anymore. It may be time for you to go find yourself a nice little plot of land owned by a Palestinian family, kick them out and settle in their place yourself. Come on, you know you're itching to do it.

    June 28, 2011 at 12:56 am |
  3. paul

    when any nation enters and engages in military conflict in country's such as afghanistan,lybia, and iraq, to give the money to them to handle is a lost war effort, the only option anyone has is to drive the enemy out and take over the nation useing your own administration and goverment, Iran was shakeing in thier boots when the americans were in iraq and now after all that money spent, the loss of american service personal the americans are loseingg that territory to thier enemy, very bad politics,

    June 27, 2011 at 8:09 pm |
  4. PhilG.

    What the heck is a win in this scenario?

    We are a Christian Western society trying to twist a super tough place to live societies people into our way of thinking.

    We've almost spent our country into the exact same bankruptcy that befell the Soviet Union.

    The win here is to get out now.

    No more billions to people that positively can't stand us being in thier country.

    June 27, 2011 at 8:03 pm |
  5. TRH

    It WILL come to naught...sadly. Most folks I know new this would happen...years ago...And we're just a bunch of dummies. It seems the "best and the brightest" that we elect do not, for one reason or another, learn anything from history. And who pays for this lack of vision, misguided patriotism and greed? There's a granite wall in DC that will tell you.

    June 27, 2011 at 7:56 pm |
  6. usaf2

    Wolf Blitzer is just another Weiner, Maddof and Strauss Kahn in a Armani Suit. go back to your ols job Blitzer

    June 27, 2011 at 7:51 pm |
  7. Hasan

    Sunnis and Shias friends? Nah, i wish though

    June 27, 2011 at 7:44 pm |
  8. Hasselhoff

    Iran is the problem we should be taking our their nuclear capability yet they're on their way to building nukes just like North Korea.

    June 27, 2011 at 7:41 pm |
    • usaf2

      Blitzer should not be getting involved with reporting on Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan!! he is trying to brain wash people just like he did on Iraq and Afghanistan War, so Blitzer tell us more about your background? where are you coming from? where did you work before CNN?

      June 27, 2011 at 7:48 pm |
  9. Surprise to who?

    If you weren't thinking about this in 2003, or any of the years since, it shows how out-of-touch you are. It was *obvious* this was the likely outcome of destabilizing Iraq. I said then that Bush was handing Iraq to Iran.

    America must have presidents who understand international politics and economics, not just the dissociative disorder masquerading as politics inside America.

    Politicians used to sending bu!!sh!t flying here always seem stunned when bullets start flying where they send the soldiers. Quit electing stupid as president!

    June 27, 2011 at 7:32 pm |
  10. Bob

    I think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could have been won more easily and decisively if the planning and execution hadn't had so many shortcomings.

    June 27, 2011 at 7:32 pm |
  11. CaptainSoul

    Wolf; you don't have any capacity to understand the world outside the US, so I don't know why you try. No Sunni regime like those in Afghanistan or Pakistan can stand being allied with a Shiite one for long. Iraq is different, in being 70% Shia, so they have that affinity with Iran, but are Arab where Iran is Persian historically, not destined for a long-term relation.
    Only a common dislike of the US can bind them. A course of exiting coincident with stopping the anti-Iran rhetoric will go a long way to stabilizing the mid-east area.

    June 27, 2011 at 7:30 pm |
  12. Don

    Mr. Blitzer, Simply put YES Iran will fill the void for the USA....not ideal...but are we adopting other countries now?

    June 27, 2011 at 7:26 pm |
  13. aelarsen

    this is just one more reason to get out now....wake up more dead sons,daughters,husbands and more families torn apart by wars that are only for the profit of corporations....there is no reason to stay...there is no argument about security that makes anything other than a waste of american lives

    June 27, 2011 at 7:25 pm |
  14. eddie francis

    break this down to the facts, "cross" carriers, stick together, so do the other religons (all others). If I do for you, this do not mean you owe me your life or for you to wait on my call. Friend however, if you need me as MJ would say, " i'll be there". Great story, until it became personal.

    June 27, 2011 at 7:25 pm |
  15. flyboy7588

    Iran will prevail ONLY if the used car salesman in the White House let them win. This is the crap we have to worry abotu when the country had its' head up it's ass when it voted for Barack H. Obama.

    June 27, 2011 at 7:23 pm |
  16. showmerancher

    Even in their current state, Iran can exert their influence over Afghanistan as soon as the U.S. leaves. No, Afghanistan isn't Shiite, but Shiite Iran doesn't fight with our Rules of Engagement. Not that they want Afghanistan, for more than a buffer anyway but they want a unified block. As neighbors, Afghanistan will have to cozy up to Iran. Much the same for Iraq. In a 15 year war, Iraq only held its own because we aided them, and because they had and used WMD (Chemical weapons) against Iran (Which Iran hasn't forgotten, by the way). When we leave, Iraq will not be able to truly defend itself. So, we'll be in Afghanistan for a while, and I doubt we'll be out of Iraq at the end of the year... still possible, but not probable; that's a bit of what this meeting was about because Iraq could be in trouble with Iran if we leave, but in trouble with its own people if we don't. All of this is before Iran is a nuclear power, which won't be for much longer unless something else happens.

    The same fears permeate Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and until recently at least, Egypt. Iran using their power to exert its influence to create their "Caliphate" over these Sunni countries. That fear really began in 1995... Obviously Israel is alarmed for their own reasons over Iran's rise as the Middle-East power.

    These were fears expressed to Bill Clinton by Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others in (and since) 1995, and has a GREAT deal to do with what has happened (and hasn't) since.

    June 27, 2011 at 7:18 pm |
  17. baronsternberg

    Ahmadinejad and the mullah-cracy will soon be at each other's throats, and hopefully we'll be rid of both, with a moderate secularist regime in Teheran. Even so, Iran's going to become a bigger player in the Persian Gulf region. That's inevitable.

    To hope otherwise is to live on Fantasy Island. "THE PLANES, THE PLANES!"

    June 27, 2011 at 7:14 pm |
  18. Rick

    I wouldn't read too much into it. They know by appearing to move closer to Iran, they'll get more foreign aid from the US. Especially Iraq, who is just too ideologically different and have centuries of bad blood with Iran to be an ally.

    June 27, 2011 at 7:11 pm |
  19. Joe

    Painful U.S. effort since 9/11 is not going to wind up for naught.

    Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Wolf!! It was the idiot that we killed 2 months ago and his merry crew that like to climb the monkey bars, and play GI Joe in their farm pastures. We're done...Our men and women need to come home, and we need to stop sending money to Pakistan. They hate us and they're robbing us blind. It's time to focus on the USA, and not the World.

    June 27, 2011 at 7:11 pm |
  20. usaf2

    I like how Blitzer likes to brain wash people!! Iran had nothing to do with 9/11, why dont you mention the Saudi's? Blitzer is one sided lier who is connected to Strauss Kahn

    June 27, 2011 at 7:08 pm |
  21. John Q.

    Wolf, your war-mongering pseudo-journalism is nauseating. You obviously want a job with Murdoch, so go take it and leave us sane people with our news and save us your petty, short-sighted, war-drum banging idiocy.


    The American Public

    June 27, 2011 at 6:54 pm |
    • William

      You do not speak for me. You speak for yourself, you have one opinion, one vote. You are not the American Public. I happen to worry about Iran's long term ambitions. I happen to care about the human beings, yes even the schoolgirls, in Afghanistan, and the rest of the region.
      If you want to hide away and pretend that there are no bad people in the world, feel free. Good luck when Iran sells nuclear weapons to terrorists who attack New York with them. Not that you care about New Yorkers right?
      Count yourself lucky that there are others who are willing to do what you are not, and stop complaining about them putting their a$$es on the line for you.

      One American Citizen

      June 27, 2011 at 7:18 pm |
    • William

      You do not speak for me. You speak for yourself, you have one opinion, one vote. You are not the American Public. I happen to worry about Iran's long term ambitions. I happen to care about the human beings, yes even the schoolgirls, in Afghanistan, and the rest of the region.
      If you want to hide away and pretend that there are no bad people in the world, feel free. Good luck when Iran sells nuclear weapons to terrorists who attack New York with them. Not that you care about New Yorkers right?
      Count yourself lucky that there are others who are willing to do what you are not, and stop complaining about them putting their lives on the line for you.

      One American Citizen

      June 27, 2011 at 7:18 pm |
    • wilbur

      Thank you so much for saying the truth. Drumbeats of war, all to keep the fear going everywhere. Consider how each of you can be easily looked up on google....find YOUR church, school, social groups. Use email to send fake photos....take over identity....teenagers do it now for kicks. Parent uses cellphone tracking, kid gets an app to over-ride it. Dad one day gets a video of what mom does on Wednesday. Employee with an iphone real-time video of their boss, common theme music: rammstein. Get a is HORRIBLE happens all the time, people just sort of disappear...

      June 27, 2011 at 7:35 pm |
  22. Cyrus Arya

    Hopefully the Iranian Terrorist Regime will fall under its own weight very soon and will be replaced with a democratic and civilized regime that will be friendly with its neighbors and of the west. In fact I think the best and only viable solution to the regions problems is regime change in Iran and this must be accomplished by the Iranian people.

    June 27, 2011 at 6:54 pm |
    • Nick San Diego

      I'm sorry to say that we're the ones who will fall under our own weight in the Middle East. All that we have achieved over there is make more enemies.
      They have more in common with each other than with us. And thats what we get for allowing our Representatives to take orders from the likes of AIPAC .

      June 27, 2011 at 7:41 pm |
  23. brown

    This is the worst possible outcome for the U.S.A

    Keep on re-electing your Congress! hahaha! Americans are spectators as their country is being destroyed from within!

    June 27, 2011 at 6:51 pm |
  24. Billy the Kid

    Our leaders(USA) are morons – they need to get out of the middle east as they have no clue what they are
    doing. Come home , build a strong military with thousands of Seal teams and crush any aggressor and take
    no prisoners... My 2 cents – Vietnam Vet!!!

    June 27, 2011 at 6:45 pm |
    • wilbur

      How about giving them a little space to call their own and live as they want. Is that not what you expect?

      June 27, 2011 at 6:59 pm |
  25. Bob

    Wow Rich, you seem to know more then everyone about everythinh. To be able to post on the same page as you gives me chills down my spine...

    June 27, 2011 at 6:44 pm |
  26. baronsternberg

    Considering all the blowback that ISI (and by extension, Pakistan) is receiving from its jihad-supporting activities, Pakistan is probably going to fall, and the US, in an extreme re-adjustment to reality, will probably feel forced to call on Iran for help in securing Pakistani nukes and preventing them from falling into jihadist hands.

    Iraq, in a goodwill gesture, will probably send along a token contingent to assist.

    June 27, 2011 at 6:39 pm |
  27. Cruchot

    Bush and the GOP made a major mistake when they eliminated Saddam Hussein (under false pretenses) because Saddam was the best defense the West had against Iran.

    June 27, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
  28. kevin brooks

    'despite the enormous human and financial sacrifices the U.S. has made in liberating Iraq and Afghanistan'

    That whole statement is sickening. Is that what you call over 120,000 civillian deaths? Liberating?

    June 27, 2011 at 6:30 pm |
    • William

      They were killed by the enemy as our troops died trying to save them. Yes a small percentage were killed by friendly fire, no avoiding it, but much more were killed by Hussien and the Taliban before we went in, and much more would have been killed had we never gone in. Our troops sacrified their lives for those people. Your statement is disgusting.

      June 27, 2011 at 7:22 pm |
      • Hasselhoff

        Afghanistan is a joke time to get out of thier wether your a democrat or republican, that shouldn't matter!.

        June 27, 2011 at 7:45 pm |
    • Hasselhoff

      True. not to mention isn't America supposed to rebuild everything we destroyed over there?

      June 27, 2011 at 7:43 pm |
      • thomesley


        Unless you were on the ground in Iraq, I believe you have no business making a statement like that when it is clear from U.N. reports that much torture and murder was committed by Americans. Also, Al-Quaida would have no reason to kill their own people, they aim to secure support and mass murder is not a correct means of doing so. Your statement may not be disgusting, but it is truly inaccurate and deserves examination.


        June 28, 2011 at 12:55 am |
  29. usaf2

    read the last part of Blitzer story!! Iran had nothing to do with 9/11, they were all bunch of fart head Saudi's not Iranians.

    Blitzer is nothing but another Strauss Kahn and Madoff in a Armani Suit

    June 27, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
  30. Dutchman

    Let them have it and build the pipeline Russia wanted to build.. Why do you think they were there? Let us NOT forget that UNOCAL invited the Taliban to Texas in the fall of 1997 about building the pipeline Russia wanted... While "W" was the governator!

    June 27, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
  31. tommy

    its just a ploy for these leader in iraq,afghanistan and pakistan to be with Iran.. with an intent and motivation that the US will have to worry for thier action...and for them to extract some more aid and support from this country in order not to engage with Iran. They were just making the US as a laughing stock on this effort on anti-terrorism...until the US will be drown of too much debt.

    June 27, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
  32. Blayne

    It goes well beyond Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. If you look at the whole region collectively, I'd say Democracy is spreading quite well, in a tough way.

    June 27, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
    • William

      Democracy always spreads tough at first. Looks like too many Americans are losing their stomach for the global fight for democracy. Would you rather have democratic neighbors or dictators? In this century, everyone is our neighbor.

      June 27, 2011 at 7:25 pm |
      • thomesley

        This isn't about Democracy. This is about Capitalism. By moving into Iraq, we were attempting to implement a full-blown capitalist system with little to no restrictions on trade. The result was a 'hit-and-run' by American bankers and companies who made their money and left. The economy has now been left in shambles and Iraq must turn to someone, anyone, for help. I don't think people have lost their stomach for Democracy, rather, I think people are becoming cognizant of the fact that different systems work in different areas, and the people in those areas are the best equipped to implement sustainable and meaningful solutions to their problems – not large and heartless multinational corporations.


        June 28, 2011 at 12:51 am |
  33. Will

    couldn't have said it better myself, Rich

    June 27, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  34. Dennis

    The United States and its allies in the Middle East had Saddam boxed in with our military presence in the area, an imposed no-fly zone and harsh sanctions in place. At the same time, he was a counter-balance to the threat from Iran. When we, ill-advisably, went to war against Iraq the second time and deposed Saddam, it was not at all surprising that the majority Shiite population and Iraqi political leadership would form a bond with the Shiite theocracy of Iran. With that said, it's hard for me to fathom the Sunni majorities of Afghanistan and Pakistan forming a lasting and trusting alliance with Iran.

    June 27, 2011 at 6:24 pm |
  35. Greg

    Iran is the big winner. Ahmadinejad and the mullahs owe George bush a beer and a steak dinner. He neutralized two of Iran's major headaches Iraq and Afghanistan.

    June 27, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
    • mgc6288

      Maybe Obama will have a beer summit with Iran too.

      June 27, 2011 at 6:45 pm |
      • dan

        might as well, Im sure that the republicans would be there waiting for him and the other democrats.

        June 27, 2011 at 6:54 pm |
  36. Bob G.

    Thanks for your insightful and meaningless opinions, Rich. Thankfully you were here to give anyone who was in a coma during the entire Bush II administration the rundown with your first paragraph. One big thing that both you and the author have overlooked so far: Iran will never be a serious partner with any of these countries – especially Pakistan – because they are all Sunni countries while Iran is Shiite. Iran might curry some favor with cash, but they will never fill any vacuum. They will only make allies of convenience for as long as the cash flows and it doesn't become difficult for those taking advantage of Ahmadinejad's publicity stunt or Iran's Revolutionary Council decides that giving money to heretics is a pointless endeavor.

    June 27, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
    • Bob G.

      To edit/clarify: Iran will not have any serious alliances with Pakistan or Afghanistan. Iraq has more than enough of a Shiite population for ties to flourish, though I think it will take some time thanks to many years of animosity. I'm also pretty sure there will be American financial and military aid heading to Iraq if not just for regional security purposes then also because of good ol' fashion American guilt. Saying that we're only leaving the Iraqi's the leftover equipment that we couldn't be bothered to bring home shows an ignorance that seems to be based in bias. We get that you aren't thrilled with the U.S. having gone into Iraq. Pretty sure the majority of Americans aren't happy with how we ended up there. Some of us are smart enough not to allow that to cloud our overall judgement, however.

      June 27, 2011 at 6:36 pm |
    • Rich

      Bob, Iran has no desire to be a partner. They only wish to replace what America was to Iraq. A source for weapons and commerce. By now Iran most probably has nuclear capability or is not far from it. Once they publicly achieve that then they will rule the middle east with impunity. We will never know who they decide to sell that technology to until it is too late. Iran is not far from Israel and it can strategically touch many U.S. assets including those withdrawing. Saudi is highly upset about the U.S. leaving and what may happen to them and their oil reserves and pipe lines. Instead of building stability in the middle east all America has done is kill a whole lot of people most who did nothing to them on 911 as well as it's own economy, .

      June 27, 2011 at 7:12 pm |
  37. Hesam

    All of this country are free not slave of usa they paid their freedom with death injury and tears of their people so we can dicide anyway that we we want

    June 27, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
  38. nofoldems

    The idea that these Islamic nations are working together may sound disturbing, but that is purely paranoia. There cooperation should be taken as a positive sign of peace and stability in that region. Frankly, what has Iran done in the past that has resulted in direct harm to us?

    June 27, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
    • ODB

      The Mullah’s have taken control of the oil sweetheart. Iran has not done anything to harm the US other than push them out of Iran (with the exception of the religious right, think Middle Eastern tea-baggers and you will get the idea, chanting “death to America” or Amreca as they say it).

      June 27, 2011 at 7:04 pm |
  39. Steve

    All we achieved over there was to make us appear to be more of an enemy and create a power vacuum that Iran is now going to help solidify. All of the aforementioned states in the article are in need of assistance but not our particular brand, so they will turn to those who are capable and support their way of thought.

    While Saddam needed to die, it wasnt necessarily a win-win situation in any case, hell, barely a win-lose.

    June 27, 2011 at 6:18 pm |
  40. MB

    Karzai is the surprise in this picture above. How did he make it to the airport? His effective area of reign is his palace compound, more specifically the walled inside of it. He must have used a green hijab along with the matching burqa he is wearing as a disguise.

    June 27, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
  41. Gregory Pierce

    It obviously will. The issue is one of building long lasting relationships through which the leaders can have a predictable and mutually beneficial position with their strategic allies. The US historically has sucked at building relationships with anything that isn't western europe, strategic NATO ally, or large trading partner. This neglect is what makes it harder for us to operate in the region and will ultimately be the reason why this 'investment' in the middle east fails.

    June 27, 2011 at 6:13 pm |
  42. steve

    why should we care if the shia friendly countries come together to support one another. their ideologies are clearly better aligned. We have NO business there and all we have ever done is screw things up. We should leave and leave NOW. We should also scale down our other bases and "peacekeeping" activities around the world by over 50%.

    June 27, 2011 at 6:06 pm |
  43. teena

    I am not sure what the previous administration was thinking when the US changed the balance of power in the Middle East by taking out the one regime which acted as the lone front against Shiite expansion. Iraq will now become dominated and ruled by the Shiites aka Iran. What were Bush and his cronies thinking? We either stay indefinitely in Iraq or give the country to the Ayatollah and his bunch!

    So, we had better come up with fusion energy quickly or suffer control of the world's largest oil reserves by a bunch of lunatic anti-westerners.

    June 27, 2011 at 5:51 pm |
  44. Samil

    Of course it'll be for naught.

    June 27, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
  45. Stephen Charchuk

    America has to learn that you can't buy friends and 'Enemy of my enemy is my friend' is not always true. The mission is finally accomplished, time to leave.

    June 27, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
  46. Rich

    Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and Iraq had few if any terrorists prior to the Americas invasion. The presence of Americans within striking distance of the Taliban and Al-Qaida in Afghanistan drew them to Iraq. It was cheaper then buying a ticket on an airliner and the terrorists could bring all their weapons with them unchecked and pick the American's and the occasional Iraqi off like flies at their leisure.

    When you invade a country and throw democracy at them when they never asked for it you can expect instability. Iran will fill the vacuum when America leaves along with some terrorists who will attempt to capitalize on a peaceful people with little or no way to protect themselves. All they have to fight with in Iraq is all the old crap left behind by our military that was too expensive and worn out to bring home. America has no right to expect anything from Iraq. Iraq is it's own country and owes America nothing.

    June 27, 2011 at 3:25 pm |
    • let me guess..


      June 27, 2011 at 6:00 pm |
      • let me guess too

        your one of those who believe our politicians are always right republicans or democrats. Which country you want to invade next? just throw a dart at a map on the wall, you can make up a reason later.

        June 27, 2011 at 6:57 pm |
      • Rich

        Nope. Not a liberal. That would make you wrong once again.

        June 27, 2011 at 7:01 pm |
    • mgc6288

      The next time a nation claims to have nuclear weapons and refuses the IAEA 15'ish times to confirm the weapons programs, we'll just ask them to point their missiles at your residence. Good luck with that.

      June 27, 2011 at 6:42 pm |
      • Rich

        The WMD lie was an excuse nothing more. No WMD were found. End of story. Good luck with that.

        June 27, 2011 at 6:59 pm |
      • mgc6288

        Rich- Apparently you're a little behind on your history. I understand though, hindsight is always 20/20 and when it is to the advantage of the Liberal to ignore then they do so. Take today's problem with the budget, a huge problem but not to a liberal. They'll just keep on spending. Ignorance is bliss, in both situations...

        June 27, 2011 at 11:30 pm |
      • Rich

        MGC lets get something straight. It was not one party that destroyed our economy it was a combination of factors and bad choices by both parties. The Iraq war was voted on by congress and they gave Bush authority for it and at any time had they thought the war was a bad idea they could have cut off funding and they didn't. This liberal crap is getting old. Not all liberals are morons and not all conservatives are morons but a lot of them certainly are. Both sides have issues and neither has a solution to the problems that they created. People seem to think that by re-electing one party over another that all of a sudden they will sprinkle fairy dust and magically make all the problems go away. That isn't going to happen no mater who is elected. Instead of doing something to create jobs our politicians are playing politics because an election is coming up. Republicans do not want to raise taxes and liberals do. Either way the debt ceiling is going to go up because we are still spending money on wars we had absolutely no business getting involved in. A group of people high jacked planes on 911 and smashed them into buildings and the ground. Those people responsible died with all those aboard. They were terminated on impact. They were through. They were not going to hurt anyone else.

        The ideology lived on while America invaded 3 countries in the middle east attempting to extract a pound of flesh for revenge. Yes Bin laden was killed 10 years and a whole hell of a lot of lives and money later and he was replaced within days. Now Al-Qaeda has moved to countries they never were in before and they are growing in number while we fiddle fart around in Afghanistan looking for a few hundred that may or may not be in the country. They move freely between Pakistan and Afghanistan who harbors them while America sends 3 billion dollars a year to Pakistan in an attempt to buy their loyalty which isn't going to happen. Pakistan is playing America for fools.

        Both parties waste money. Both parties spend money. Neither party can agree on what is best for the country and as long as they continue to spend more money then they take in then we will never recover.

        June 28, 2011 at 11:44 am |
      • mgc6288

        Rich- I'd still rather have the fight there than here. That was a piece of what started the War on Terror after 911. We decided on a preemptive strike. Hussein claimed to have them, hind sight showing it was a bluff to keep the Iranian's in check, but nevertheless he wouldn't allow the IAEA do their job. We all believed he had them, every country. Russian and France wouldn't invade because they at debt that was at stake with the toppling of Hussein. So even though we didn't find the stuff, whether sneaked out prior or just never there, the point is we brought the war to them vs. sitting around here on our hands awaiting again. Now there is still more to do and our defenses still suck but at least we are aware that life here isn't a fairy tale.

        In regards to the debt, if we take 80% of everyone's income (everyone $1+) and apply that towards just our annual deficit it only covers like 2%, i.e. a joke. It is obvious that our spending is unsustainable but instead of bringing it down to a sustainable level the liberals just want more to spend. So yes we're going to be in gridlock and I would rather be there than be forced to pay more for someone else to sit around. I'm all for abolishing the big three, if you want to say 55 and above get to keep the unsustainable program than fine. But they need to go. People whine out of fear and the economic impact but what is not said is that no one is going to allow themselves to starve. The poor aren't dumb, maybe not intellectual, but not dumb. When someone is continuously poor year after year after year then they have figured out how to work the system.

        Helping others is one thing, giving them no reason to help themselves is another.

        June 28, 2011 at 4:17 pm |
    • me

      Also need to realize, Iraq is a country that has been at war for thousands of years, they kill each other for just looking the wrong way.

      June 27, 2011 at 6:58 pm |
      • Rich

        Sure and in America people kill each other every day as well as others all over the world. No country is exempt from violence or stupidity.

        June 27, 2011 at 7:23 pm |

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.