Carlson: Clinton's message to Iraqis is, "Go ahead and eat each other, we're leaving"
During his "Tucker Op-Ed" segment of the February 12 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson appeared to accuse Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and "[j]ust about every prominent liberal in the Senate" of hypocrisy for urging President Bush to do more in Darfur while opposing the war in Iraq. Carlson claimed: "If the activist left has its way, U.S. troops would soon head to Africa to stop the ongoing genocide in Darfur. ... Putting American lives at risk to avert humanitarian disaster? This is something that Hillary Clinton and her fellow liberals have categorically rejected in Iraq." Continuing, Carlson asserted: "Their message to suffering Iraqis is simple. Go ahead and eat each other, we're leaving."
Clinton has consistently expressed support for establishing a no-fly zone in Darfur, either to be enforced by the United Nations or by the United States "work[ing] with its NATO allies."
From the February 12 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: But first, the most popular war in America hasn't even been waged yet. If the activist left has its way, U.S. troops would soon head to Africa to stop the ongoing genocide in Darfur. Just about every prominent liberal in the Senate has urged the White House to do more about Darfur. Prominent Hollywood celebrities agree, and in virtually every appearance, meanwhile, Hillary Clinton calls for the enforcement of a no-fly zone over Darfur. That's something that would require American pilots, at least.
Putting American lives at risk to avert humanitarian disaster? This is something that Hillary Clinton and her fellow liberals have categorically rejected in Iraq. Their message to suffering Iraqis is simple: Go ahead and eat each other, we're leaving. Yet, when it comes to Darfur, they call for the Bush administration to wade in and call him callous for not doing so. You'd think by now that opponents of the war in Iraq would have learned its most basic lesson, and that lesson is this: U.S. troops should be put at risk only to protect American lives. No other reason is good enough. It's a principle to live by and someone ought to remind them of it.
Actually, at this point I kinda agree with that.
that is, I agree we should leave and let them go at it. Now that we know Iranians are supplying both US backed and anti US groups...
Actually, we don't know that. All the Pentagon and intelligence community has is inference and assumption.
There is absolutely no hard evidence that Iran is supplying anybody with anything.
That's true, there is still a level of speculation involved. my bad.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/12/sciri-iran/
the problem is you can't believe a single thing this administration says. and i agree with leaving. set a date, three months, tell them to get it together. of course, every time you say that, the republicans accuse you of supporting the enemy. there's going to be a bloodbath, unfortunately, when we leave. but people are just dying anyway, ours and theirs. and they are dying because this administration, too stubborn to admit their errors, will not withdraw and paints any proposal to do that as undermining the security of america.
The Republics favor welfare for Iraq - using our troops to support them because the Iraqis won't take personal responsibility for their own destiny.
Exactly we cannot believe a word this administration says. Gump cried wolf. He has zero credibility
YOU AGREE WITH HIM!? let me tell you why this is flawed; and this will be one of the most empassioned comments i will make. There are other reasons to go to war, besides protecting your own citizens, and they are as follows: 1) the value of human life lost in a genocide is worth protecting, and as human beings, it is our duty to respond to it as and before it happens; 2) If your entire family is hunted, raped, and killed, you ought to be defended instead of having the most powerful nation enforce democracy to the mid-east at the barrel of a gun; 3) if what Tuckerson said is true, than why did the allies bother to free the Jews; 4) it improves the popularity and ethos of a nation-state. 5) Saddam posed no immediate threat to the American people, so why spout this kind of non-sense. I cannot stand this hack.
I don't support bow tie boy. But looking at the civil war going on, we'd be better served pulling out. And, I'm gonna make a bold statement here. This idea of dividing Iraq up into three seperate states? Drop it and go directly for border readjustment. Kurds are in the north, Turkey will never allow a kurdish nation on their border because of the # of kurds on their own eastern border. Let Turkey gobble them up and then they can protect them. You get the idea where I am going with this...
Uhhh... a civil war in a NATO country?
I think you misunderstood me. IF the kurds in northern Iraq were to get a country of their own on the Turkish border, THEN it could escalate tensions in Turkey. Scroll down to the bottom of this link:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tu.html
Val,
um, it's possible I misunderstood you!
Turkey fought a internal Kurdish insurgency for a good part of the 1990's to maintain racist policies against the Turkish Kurds. The US supplied the arms.
Plus as we all know , the US gave arms to Saddam.
And if the activist RIGHT had its way, they would send troops where they are NOT NEEDED to be senselessly killed and NOT go to places where they COULD help the helpless...oh, wait....they DO have their way...
Dafur has been happening for YEARS....the U.S. dropped the ball on this one since day one, and Bush has done ZERO to help the victims of genocide...
Yes, if only the Iraqi would kill each other down to the last man, woman and child, then we wouldn't have to invade them and keep an eye on all that Texas Tea. Ignoring and instigating genocide is our number one export.
The US dropped the ball? I thought it was the UN that was supposed to be the savior of the world. Oh, that's right, they've had their hands full with the oil for food ripoff and they're too busy raping children in faraway countries. Darfur? What Darfur?
Wow, it must be so relaxing not to have to do any of your own thinking.
I haven't seen any Democrat, "prominent," "liberal," or otherwise, calling for U.S. troops to be sent to the Sudan. And the no-fly zone legislation was passed unanimously in the Senate! Unanimously! In case Tucker is reading, that means Republics voted for it too.
And all this is based on the premise, unsupported AFAIK, that the presence of US troops in Iraq is actually preventing any violence.
Thank You! Well said.
furtermore. the threat in Iraq only became as bad as it is because of invasion, which lead to civil war. There were reasons why intervention did not happen sooner in Iraq and other places. It had nothing to do with humanity.
The bloodbath...
I've read other comments similar to Tucker's to the effect that if we left Iraq there would be a bloodbath. Ever read the daily reports from Iraq where dozens of people are being blown up every day in sectarian fighting? Sounds to me like a bloodbath already exists. The Iraqi leadership (Ha!) needs to know that we're out of there if they can't stop their own fighting.
Now the only good argument I've heard, though, is about the prospect that AlQaeda (which, in reality, is but a very small presence in Iraq now) may establish a base of operations in Iraq when we leave. Well, isn't our invasion of Afghanistan a good example to any nation of what we'll do if they harbor AlQaeda? So, I say set a timetable for the Iraqi factions to come to terms with each other and stop the fighting... and if they don't we're gone. But make clear we won't be far away and we'll be keeping an eye on them (Iraq)... and Iran, too. And if Iraq allows AlQaeda to establish operations there which threaten our security we'll be back with some heavy stuff to take them out... and we aren't going to be as patient and understanding or as generous with the cash to Iraq as we are now.
I know Bush and/or his neocon braintrust (probably under the guidance of Dick Cheney) misled us into this war. I know that Rumsfled and others screwed up big time in the planning of the war. I know that our invading Iraq resulted in the present chaos there now. But we did get rid of Saddam Hussein and his regime for them. Now it's up to Iraq to step up to the plate. We can't keep sacrificing American lives indefinitely over this.
''U.S. troops should be put at risk only to protect American lives. No other reason is good enough. It's a principle to live by and someone ought to remind them of it.''
That sets a hugely concerning precedent. On the one hand, he is supporting interventionist policies without basis, and the other, saying we should only intervene when American lives are at risk. Hardly the military theory of a beacon of democracy, is it. Oil, tick. Black Africans and machetes, no tick.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!!
You'd think by now that opponents of the war in Iraq would have learned its most basic lesson, and that lesson is this: U.S. troops should be put at risk only to protect American lives. No other reason is good enough. It's a principle to live by and someone ought to remind them of it. // Tucker Carlson
Coming from the biggest cheerleader of the worst government in American History, the most failed evalutator of the political reality of our day, the most enept commentator on policy matters in broadcast history, or at least one of them; it makes me feel very reassured of a Democratic Control of Congress and soon the Presidency for atleast 30years!!!
So Tucker, please keep commenting, please keeping spewing your vile on the airways, the margin of our pending victory is growing like a teenager boy at cheerleader's practice!!!
Happy Trails Greenhorn;
Dan Grady
Carlson's message to the Iraqis is "Go ahead and eat each other, we're staying." Carlson doesn't care one bit for the Iraqi people.
I think Carlson's gotten Obama's message confused with Clinton's.
This is all-time dumb by Carlson, on so many levels:
"You'd think by now that opponents of the war in Iraq would have learned its most basic lesson, and that lesson is this: U.S. troops should be put at risk only to protect American lives."
How about "don't go to war on lies", "don't go to war to enrich your buddies", "don't start a war that you'll lose", "don't start another war when a more important one isn't finished yet." D'ya think those might be possible Iraq lessons??
Also, Bush himself believed Carlson's message in 2000. Then he found out that killing soldiers pays well.
Also, Bill Clinton did not believe Carlson's message in Bosnia. And go figure, we aren't still stuck there, a war criminal was brought to justice, and we didn't do a lot of dying.
Fifty years from now when Democrats are evil and Republicans are fighting for justice, I will still hate the Republicans because I'll remember buttheads like this.
US troops are still garrisoned in Bosnia and the war criminals from the Serb side have never been brought to justice. If you were refering to Milosevic, he died in custody during a trial where they could not make any of the charges stick. He wasn't the best of men, but he wasn't a war criminal even close to the level of a US president or secretary of state.
American war criminality is pretty bi-partisan. Clinton committed war crimes while bombing Iraq for no good reason. Both Dems and Repubs support Israeli war crimes against the Palestinian and Lebanese people. Both parties vote pretty consistently to fund and excuse US war crimes in Iraq today and will assuredly join together in committing war crimes against Iran very shortly. I expect the next US president will be a war criminal too. Seems to be the trend.
Clinton's message to Iraq: Go ahead and eat each other, we're leaving.
Bush's message to Iraq: Please continue eating each other and us. We're staying.
Also: "eat each other?" Did Tucker catch "Night of the Living Dead" last night and think it was CNN?
Typical conservative bs. They seem to think the only way you can intervene humanely is by bombing the crap out of people. =)
Maybe we could "plant" a huge amount of oil in Bosnia? That would get the current administration into the "lets go 'save' human lives" mode.
But yeah I agree with the majority here, we should pull out. Set a clear time table, than get the f-blank out of there. My idea would be to establish a secure UN (US, mainly) zone where troops can be stationed and investigations/support can be launched from (if needed in the future). It would say "hey we still care and are invested in your success" but prevent the majoirty of future bloodshead.