This little gem was dropped last Friday during Michele Bachmann's interview with Wolf Blitzer. I understand that politics involves a war of words, but Bachmann went too far on this. Way too far.
Here's the snippet that made me want to reach through the screen and rip her face off, via CNN Transcripts:
BACHMANN: Well, my main challenger right now is Barack Obama. That's who I'm focused on.
His economic policies are a disaster and his foreign policy is even worse. Under Barack Obama's watch, we have expended $805 billion to liberate the people of Iraq and, more importantly, 4,400 American lives.
President Obama just had his hat handed to him by the Iraqis, who have essentially kicked him out and our people out of Iraq while Iran is waiting in the wings. So Iraq is essentially kowtowing to Iran. Iran is seeking to have a nuclear weapon.
I have a big bone to pick with CNN and also with Bachmann over this, beginning with her nonsensical, magical thought that it was Barack Obama who spent billions to "liberate Iraqis" and was responsible for over 4,000 American lives lost.
For the record, clearly spoken by Barack Obama in 2002, when he was still a State Senator:
I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Michele Bachmann's little stinkbomb dropped in the middle of that interview is beyond despicable, it was intentional, and there are people stupid enough to actually believe such a thing. Especially people who are predisposed to magical, ignorant thinking.
Wolf Blitzer isn't off the hook either. He's a neocon of the highest order who worships at the altar of Wolfowitz and Perle. But as a "journalist", he had a duty to be more forceful than this:
BLITZER: But as far as Iraq is concerned, the Iraq War, which started in March, 2003, that was President Bush and the Republicans who launched that war that went on for years. This current president is now withdrawing all of those troops from Iraq.
Don't you give him credit for that?
No, no, Wolf. That wasn't good enough. You had a duty to say without any equivocation that what Bachmann had just said was factually incorrect. You should have used those terms. The right way to respond to her nonsense was simply to say "Michele, that's simply not true. Facts matter. Barack Obama has consistently opposed this war and has worked to end it. The spending and the lives lost are Republican responsibilities; specifically, Cheney and Bush." That was what he needed to say, not that mealy mouthed "But Michele...." nonsense.
For heaven's sake, Blitzer knows this. He even did a special, documenting all of the Bush lies he was told about Iraq. And yet, he just sat there and let her go on and on about it. Here, she continues with her nonsense saber-rattling blame game:
BACHMANN: Wolf, the current president is being kicked out of Iraq. The president of the United States has gotten nothing.
BLITZER: You want those troops to stay there?
BACHMANN: This is a bipartisan effort --
BLITZER: Do you want those troops to stay in Iraq?
BACHMANN: Wolf, this was a bipartisan effort when the decision was made regarding Iraq. I wasn't in Congress at that time, but this was a bipartisan effort. This was not just a Republican effort.
What President Obama has failed to do is secure the gains that America paid for with an extremely dear cost -- 4,400 American lives, nearly a trillion dollars in expenditures, and we have nothing to show for it. And we may look at a Maliki government which has admitted they cannot secure the peace.
They've said themselves they need eight more years to secure the peace. But, of course, Iran is putting the pressure on. They don't want any American presence, because Iran wants to come in and be the dominant hegemon in that region and exercise influence.
That's the problem. And this is a country who not only wants to dominate Middle East politics, but they also are hell-bent on making sure that they can build and deliver a nuclear weapon sufficient to wipe Israel off the map, and also to use it against the United States.
That's why President Obama has made a tremendous tactical error when he chose to put daylight between the United States and Israel. He sent a signal to Israel's hostile enemies that they can go ahead and be aggressive, and Iran certainly is.
BLITZER: Congresswoman, we'll continue this conversation down the road. Thanks very much for joining us.
Ok, we get it. Bachmann, like McCain before her, wants a 100-year occupation of Iraq. Boo hoo. She not only forgets who put us in Iraq in the first place by passing it off as a 'bipartisan' thing without even blinking her eyes about the lies that were told to convince Congress to approve it, but then she has the nerve to suggest that a deal negotiated by the Republican President George W. Bush for troop withdrawal is somehow Barack Obama giving up.
This goes beyond being batsh*t crazy. It's evil, and worse, it plays on stupid people who actually believe whatever comes out of that stupid woman's mouth. The only reason she's still worthy of any attention is because she's serving her neocon dominionist masters by going on shows like Blitzer's and lying through her tiny little razor-sharp ratlike teeth about who is responsible for what.
She really owes this President an apology. It's not ok to go on national television and defame people. She should be forced to admit that she was flat-out wrong and speak the real truth about Iraq as a beginning to repair the damage done. Even if CNN has almost no viewers, I'm guessing the ones who watched it either nodded in ignorant, uneducated approval or turned back and mouthed the letters WTF?