Robertson Rewrites His History on Iraq Invasion

Pat Robertson is, of course, a shameless liar, primarily because he knows he can get away with it. He knows that his audience is completely immune to the matter, that he can lie as much as he wants and none of them will ever question him. Thus his complete flip flop on the invasion of Iraq (it wasn’t a war, it was an invasion).

“We don’t really gain anything by looking back at what would you have done and couldn’t have done and so forth,” Robertson said today on “The 700 Club” in response to the recent remarks of GOP presidential candidates on the Iraq war. “The thing is, what are you going to do now? You’ve got an immediate threat and you’ve got to deal with it.”

“But the truth is, going into the Iraq in that war was a big mistake,” he said. “We interviewed on this program, I interviewed Saddam’s bombmaker, he was the man who was supposedly in charge of thermonuclear weapons for Iraq and Saddam Hussein, and he basically said they do not have the technology and ability to bring out a nuclear bomb.

“And I knew it, I hope the CIA knew it, I hope the president knew it. But he was being fed a tissue of lies, and you’re hearing all these reports about yellow cake and all this nonsense. And it was a snow job to try to sell that war, and we shouldn’t have gone into it, it’s cost a trillion or more dollars, it was a big mistake, and going in then, we shouldn’t have, and looking at it in hindsight you shouldn’t have. It was a bad mistake.”

Yeah, he knew it all along. That’s why in 2005 he said that Democrats who were critical of the invasion were committing treason:

ROBERTSON: We’ve won the war already, and for the Democrats to say we can’t win it — what kind of a statement is that? And furthermore, one of the fundamental principles we have in America is that the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces and attempts to undermine the commander in chief during time of war amounts to treason. I know we have an opportunity to express our points of view, but there is a time when we’re engaged in a combat situation that carping criticism against the commander in chief just doesn’t cut it. And I think that yes, we have freedom of speech — of course we do — but this has gone over the top and I think the Republicans are — well, they’ve taken advantage.

It’s only treason, of course, when the president is a Republican.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • StevoR

    Everyone’s too busy rewriting history instead of making it.

    History is history & whilst it ain’t bunk as Ford would have it it is past and what’s past is past.

    Can’t change what’s happened – can change what we choose to do now and in future. (Oh & I am someone who fucking loves reading & learning history and imagining alternative futures and more. )

  • colnago80

    As Jim Rockford once said on the Rockford Files, that’s ancient history and we are now into current events.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    colnago80 “As Jim Rockford once said on the Rockford Files, that’s ancient history and we are now into current events.”

    And if anything’s going to keep us in the moment, it’s a reference from the 1970s.

  • StevoR

    It’s only treason, of course, when the president is a Republican.

    Not sure if that was you or him but I think he’s thinking Democrat there yeah?

    (Not that I don’ t make similar mistakes all the fucken time meself so am not really in a position to talk but still.)

    And I think that yes, we have freedom of speech — of course we do — but this has gone over the top and I think the Republicans are — well, they’ve taken advantage.

    Oh shit, I kinda have to agree with the piece of shit Robertson there.

  • StevoR

    .. his complete flip flop on the invasion of Iraq (it wasn’t a war, it was an invasion).

    Well, one does generally lead to another – unless its unopposed.

    I’d say it was both & could be described as either myself.

    Also that Saddam Hussein could have avoided it just as much as “Dubya’ Bush II could have and both need to be condemned for not avoiding it when they had many better alternatives and options.

  • dingojack

    OK Stevo, since you’re the ‘alternative fiction king’ – how, exactly, could have Saddam Hussein avoided war?

    Dingo

  • StevoR

    @ ^ Dingojack : Saddam Hussein (as noted before in prev threads) was given the option of fleeing into exile and seeking refuge elsewhere before the war which he must have known he couldn’t win – began plus he could’ve been a lot more open and honest and admitted and proven he didn’t have WMDs and complied more fully with the UN beforehand. Among other things like not invading Kuwait or withdrawing when it wa sclear itwas that or war back in 1991 (?) and more ..

  • StevoR

    PS . There was a long time when Saddam’s Iraq was under UN sanctions which it couldv’e decided to comply with and not defy instead too..

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man
    It’s only treason, of course, when the president is a Republican.

    Not sure if that was you or him but I think he’s thinking Democrat there yeah?

    No, he’s referencing Robertson’s claim that “the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces and attempts to undermine the commander in chief during time of war amounts to treason.”

    This was actually a very common refrain during the Bush years: We’re at war (of course we were always at war), and therefore petty things like free speech didn’t count; anyone who criticizes the president is a traitor. Now that Obama is in the White House, not only has that rule been suspended, right-wingers are now fans of committing actual treason by promoting armed conflict with the federal government.

  • llewelly

    StevoR:

    There was a long time when Saddam’s Iraq was under UN sanctions which it couldv’e decided to comply with and not defy instead too..

    This would not have stopped the Bush administration from making up more lies. It might have made a few more people suspicious of the lies, but given all the people who ought to have been highly suspicious of the lies in the first place, it seems unlikely that would have made enough people actually oppose the invasion to prevent it.

    If someone is determined to bully, compliance makes little difference.

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    There was a long time when Saddam’s Iraq was under UN sanctions which it couldv’e decided to comply with and not defy instead too..

    The degree of noncompliance was badly exaggerated. The reality is that Iraq had a highly dysfunctional bureaucracy and poor record-keeping (these things happen when a paranoid dictator keeps killing the people who run things). When inspectors found materials that the Iraqis were supposed to have declared, it wasn’t because the Iraqis were trying to hide them (why hide chemical munitions that don’t even work?), it was because the Iraqis themselves didn’t know about them.

    At any rate, what we should have been concerned about is not whether Iraq followed the letter of the law when it came to compliance, but whether they actually had WMD that constituted such a grave threat that it necessitated invasion (answer: No. Seriously, big-time No).

  • k_machine

    “Treason” is the political correctness of the right.

    @ ^ Dingojack : Saddam Hussein (as noted before in prev threads) was given the option of fleeing into exile and seeking refuge elsewhere before the war which he must have known he couldn’t win – began plus he could’ve been a lot more open and honest and admitted and proven he didn’t have WMDs and complied more fully with the UN beforehand. Among other things like not invading Kuwait or withdrawing when it wa sclear itwas that or war back in 1991 (?) and more ..

    PS . There was a long time when Saddam’s Iraq was under UN sanctions which it couldv’e decided to comply with and not defy instead too..

    ..and the punchline is that he did all these things. As for not invading Kuwait, Saddam grew powerful and arrogant during the Iran-Iraq War, without US support he would not have believed that he could get away with invading Kuwait. Also look up the shifting US rationales for the Gulf War: “Saddam must release the hostages” (Saddam releases the hostages) “next bullshit reason” etc etc.

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    None done making a fool of yourself, StevoR?

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    Not*

  • dingojack

    Stevo – as I’ve said before, you really need to do a little research, especially on the Invasion of Kuwait.

    The invasion was primarily designed to make some cash. The US sanctioned proxy-war against their mutual enemy, Iran, pretty much bankrupted Saddam (and lasted longer than the US attention span and cash-flow) so he had to come up with a plan to recoup the cost.

    The Kuwaitis had been extracting oil from the oil field than runs across the (poorly defined) northern border of Kuwait and into Iraq. When challenged Prince Bandar, the Kuwaiti Minister of the Interior (I believe), admitted that his country had been extracting oil from what is essentially a shared resource but, he noted, ‘he knew exactly how much had been taken’. [note: had this occurred in the West the response would have been ‘Oil? What oil?’ & etc.]

    Under the excuse that Iraq had been fighting the Shite infidels to protect the Sunni majorities in the rest of the Arab world and that he should receive compensation (some hundreds of millions of dollars, chicken-feed for the Arab nations), he invaded, but not until he had, what he believed, was an assurance that the Americans would remain outraged but inactive. Meanwhile the Arab nations, most prominently Saudi Arabia, began the process of negotiating loans and aid deals to Iraq.

    The Americans, realising that it made ‘bad optics’, decided to cut short the negotiated peace deals by blundering in, in a blaze of patriotic militarism, promising to exterminate the Iraqi Republican Guard (Bandar confused the hell out of “Stormin’ Norman” by saying he didn’t want this ‘because they are my brothers’).

    Essentially the US intervened into a domestic dispute, killed everyone who looked big ‘n scary – and their little dogs too. They only left when, again, the threat of poor TV images, this time of the burnt-out remains of the convoy of Iraqi soldiers fleeing for their lives, scared them off. “Stormin’ Norman” was so busy with the peace he neglected the detail of securing the air-space over southern Iraq, allowing Saddam to get a minor victory by taking vengeance on the Shite minority in the delta (and wrecking the valuable wet-land in the process).

    [More-or-less]

    Dingo

  • Kermit Sansoo

    We fought the war for a good reason:

    Sadaam “tried to kill my dad.”*

    Sadaam was trying to build nukes.**

    Sadaam had Weapons of Mass Destruction.**

    Sadaam wasn’t letting the UN weapons inspectors do their job.**

    Iraq needed a regime change.*

    …and we’re the best way to accomplish that.**

    We’re going to give the Iraqi’s democracy.**

    Sadaam blew up the twin towers.**

    .

    And more. These are just off the top of my head. We had a different reason (which we had always had, once we had it) every few weeks until we went in. None of them were persuasive to me at the time, nor later.

    .

    * Possibly true.

    ** Definitely not true.

  • colnago80

    Re Dingojack @ #15

    Prince Bandar is actually a Saudi national and former Saudi ambassador to the US.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandar_bin_Sultan

    If all Saddam wanted was to obtain the oil that he thought he had coming, he could have marched in and occupied the disputed oil fields. Instead he occupied all of Kuwait and appeared to be threatening to do the same to Saudi Arabia. At first, Bush pere was inclined to do nothing but was persuaded by then British Prime Minister Thatcher, during a meeting in Colorado, that he could not allow the fait accompli to stand and that military force to oppose the occupation or at least the threat of it would be required.

  • StevoR

    @10. llewelly, #11. Area Man & #15. dingojack : Okay. Fair enough.

    @12. k_machine : “..and the punchline is that he (Saddam) did all these things. “

    Not quite all of them! Saddam Hussein didn’t flee into exile before the invasion which could well have avoided the war as well as saving his and his families lives. I don’t understand why he didn’t do that knowing what he was up against really.

    @ sigurd jorsalfar : Your erroneous opinion seems to be that I’m making a fool of myself here by pointing out the pretty indisputable fact that Saddam Hussein was evil and had a lot to do with why the Iraq war happened too. Maybe you just aren’t understanding or are misunderstanding my comments here. Either way, you are entitled to your views but we clearly disagree and calling me names isn’t giving me any reasons to think highly of you or re-evaluate my own views here.

  • StevoR

    @16. Kermit Sansoo :

    “We fought the war for a good reason: (List of eight reasons offered most untrue in your view but at least two possibly true. I’d argue some of your definitley not ture reaosns where inteh posisbly ture catgeory msyelf -ed.) And more. These are just off the top of my head. We had a different reason (which we had always had, once we had it) every few weeks until we went in. None of them were persuasive to me at the time, nor later.”

    Agreed. There were many reasons offered and a case was there to be made but the reasons and evidence for them given weren’t adequate and the war was mistake and should NOT have been fought. I don’t know how much clearer I can make myself here. Yes the war was wrong, but Saddam Hussein was evil and the one aspect at least of getting rid of him was good. Also things could’ve worked out better had there been better planning and management of the aftermath and occupation phase after Saddam had been toppled.

  • dingojack

    SLC – “If all Saddam wanted was to obtain the oil that he thought he had coming, he could have marched in and occupied the disputed oil fields.”

    And if you wanted to collect a debt you were owed, you’d ‘march in and occupy’ the branch of the bank your debtor held an account in, right? (Even if it were a bank you believed you already owned?)

    If you think this was only about oil on Saddam’s part, I’d suggest you re-read mine #15, more carefully this time.

    Dingo