you prepared to accept that, even if it means saddam hussein will stay in place?" hesitantly, he said, "yes, i will accept that." so that's why i went forward, so i went out and spent at the cia with the intelligence communities and prepared the document that i would present, and every word in there was approved by the ci it was written by the cia. and so we went, i gave the presentation. it seemed to go well, i was confident that it went well, but then, within a few days or a couple of weeks, it started i was mortified, because even though the president had the same information, congress had used the same information, secretary rumsfeld, condoleezza rice, all of us were using the same information, but i'm the one who made the biggest presentation of it, so it all sort of fell on me. david: well-- powell: that's-- that's show business. huh? david: but todin hindsiy the invasion was a mistake? powell: i'd sanv the execution of theion was not done properly. we abandoned the army without any discussion back in washington, and then we abandoned something worse, the bar

it dealt with threats coming from saddam hussein's iraq. saddam hussein is dead. his government and regime are long gone. this war authorization has no relevance to present day iraq and should be repealed not used to launch more military action. we'll likely hear an argument that repealing the iraq war resolution would undermine our ability to combat terrorism around the world. but let's be clear about something, the iraq war resolution, what we are seeking to repeal today, was never intended to authorize our fight against isis or other associated terrorist groups and it is not needed as authorization for any of these operations. there is another existing authorization for the use of military force, the measure the congress passed after 9/11 to deal with al qaeda. i don't agree with the administration's overly expansive interpretation of the 9/11 aumf, i think they have stretched it well beyond what congress ever intended. but even this administration has said clearly they can continue current counterterrorism operation ing the post devin -- post 9/11 authorizatio

in 2002, the authorization of war with saddam hussein authorizes them to do whatever they want. so they have authorized the killing of soleimani as something that congress gave them permission to do in 2002. that is absurd. that is an insult. let's have the debate and let's have some senators stand up and see if we can truly have a debate over who has the power to declare war. the reason it was put in, and why every founding father said they were taking power from the president, is that they didn't want perpetual war. the way you have less war as having less troops in the middle east and by having a fulsome debate about when we go to war. reporter: [inaudible] that. not prepared to say i'm telling you only this administration was ill-served by this briefing today. >> thank you. [indiscernible voices] tomorrowuse is voting on a war powers resolution introduced by democratic representative elissa slotkin of michigan. it calls for the president to terminate the use of u.s. armed forces to engage in or against iran. follow the floor debate and vote tomorrow starting at noon eastern

i see no in the world you could logically argue that authorization to have war with saddam hussein has anything to do with having war with people currently in iraq. we need to have a debate about separation of powers. i am a supporter of the president and consider myself a friend of the president. the president's instincts on trying to show restraint are good. i think he will not unnecessarily escalate things. however, the debate is bigger than just this debate. the debate is a 70 year long debate that began in 1950 with korea and truman. this is a debate, and many have written that congress has abdicated their duty. senator lee and i are stepping up and saying we are not abdicating our duty. our duty under the constitution is to debate when we go to war, and we are not going to abdicate that duty. we will be happy to take questions. reporter: i know there is little you can say with the details. can you give us a sense of who exactly was saying this to you. was that all of them or a specific cabinet member? sen. lee: before i comment publicly, i would like to have a conversation with t

david: you get the order fr the psident to kick saddam hussein and his troops out. powell: when that decision came down, that we cod not find a diplomatic solution, i received the order and i gave the order to norm and we were ready. david: so there was a famous military maneuver. rather than going directly toward the enemy is david: whose brilliant idea was that? powell: any infantry captain could have figured this out. it didn't take a general, and several generals have made claims-- david: men of worth? ok. powell: it was the only conflict i've ever been in wor ever read history abore i could say to the president "the iraqis have made several horrible mistakes. "they put their line of soldiers right on the border airpower would n let them move. and then they had 4 divisions along the coast, and they were o ry light; alwe had is fix these two forces in place and go around them--the left hook, as it's alsoeferred to-- and that's what we did. but my surprise, the night launche, afe air attacks for several weeks, and i was expecting that the marines, who were right o

saddam hussein said, okay, i can take tehran in a week.except for one country supported saddam hussein's invasion of tehran. so syria is the only arab country that came to iran's side. the only country in the world that came to iran's side. even the russians, the americans were helping saddam hussein. as kissen ger said at the time, he wished both sides would lose. it was a stalemate for eight years. a million people died. iran decided at that time they were never going to let that happen again. so on either side of them, surrounded by what could be perceived as enemies, suni extremists on the left and on the right of iran, to the east and west of iran and in the persian gulf states, again, people that were antagonistic mainly because of its shiaa expansionists ie deologys. they decided they will have influence in those countries, and we helped that by getting rid of the taliban which was one big enemy on your flank and getting rid of saddam hussein. they saw an opportunity to cultivate the shiaa's, which they did. syria is a different sto

the basic fact is that the united states in order to destroy the order that was in iraq under saddam hussein cast the sunni arabs from the top of society down to the bottom and catapulted the shiite arabs who were at the bottom of society previously under saddam hussein 60 percent of the population to the top and gave them the government. and the government is run by shiites today they have a majority in parliament and they voted for america to get out they are sympathetic to slow money they're sympathetic to iran the shiites i am locked in iraq look at ceylon each eliminate as a hero he came in he saved them from isis sweeping in possibly going to take baghdad and in 2014 he organized the shiite militias he armed them he helped iran helped them to turn back isis so did america but many people are grateful to still months away money for that now sunni arabs many of them look at silly money as a criminal in the same way that george that excuse me in the same way that president trumped us but iraq is divided the thing is that the shiites have the majority and they voted and they are sympatheti

i see no way in the world you could logically argue that an authorization to have war with saddam hussein has anything to do with having war with people currently in iraq. >> can you enlighten us on what he's referring to in your view of it? >> well, as i just caught that comment for the first time that argument that dealing with iraq -- and i think he's referring to the 2002 authorization for the use of military force and using that as a justification when it was all about saddam hussein for attacking iran. if i'm extrapolating from what i just heard. rand and i are introducing the democratic lead, republican lead, a resolution that states -- and we just introduced it -- that states that the 2001 and 2002 authorizations, one dealing with afghanistan, one dealing with iraq absolutely do not provide congressional authorization for war with iran. >> and so that is your bipartisan effort to draw a line in the sand early, even if tonight as we've mentioned looks like signs of deescalation that in no way is the congress going to sit that out if the trump administration cites that to do more in

the baath party came to power in the 1970s, saddam hussein became dictator in 1979.was repelled with operation desert storm. years later, fearing he would use weapons of mass destruction in the aftermath of 9/11, president george w. bush sent troops into iraq in 2003. while ousting saddam might it seem like a good idea at the time, it unleashed a string of unintended consequences that empowered iran. the mullahs began to exercise control within the iraqi government, supporting shiite islamic groups and militia groups, nearly 5,000 u.s. soldiers were killed, and we spent in excess of a trillion dollars. the utter incompetence of the last administration only made things worse, despite the military pullbacks, united states personnel are still deeply committed in the region. i want you all to look at this map. there are 5,000 troops in iraq today. not counting the 3,750 additional troops the president has just deployed. in jordan, there are 2,795 troops. 13,000 in kuwait, and 12,000 in afghanistan. lieutenant colonel daniel davis, walid phares, congressman mark green, i

moved into iraq on saddam hussein . talk about what impact this could have on the region in the gulf, and you even saw what happened -- the aftermath of when iran attacked the saudi oil fields. >> yeah, the iranian strike in saudi arabia recently was significant because it showed complexity. it was a multiple drone and rocket strike. so it was sophisticated. and it reduced saudi arabia's oil outpit by over a half. so what they can do in the short-term can be very effective. whether or not the united states would see that coming or its allies would see that sort of strike coming and this time and stop it ints tracks that's unclear. i think the threat falls into two areas here. one is what the proxies will do th they know exactly what's expected of them by tehran and that is attack u.s. forces and interests in syria and on the ground and will be exposed to that in iraq potentially. potentially in the gulf as well. so there will be the threat from proxies what they may choose to do. the throttle point that the regime often

something like saddam hussein. is he really gone?e didn't really believe it. >> it is at that level. i woke up this morning and i checked the news and i thought, qasem soleimani? wait. which one? could there be more than one? how could it be qasem soleimani could die in a u.s.-targeted strike? really incredible news this morning as it spread across the region, as people woke up to this news trying to really take stock of what it meant and what was going to happen next and, yes, the comparison with saddam hussein is an interesting one, of course, because saddam hussein was a sunni, qasem soleimani is a shia and they both played the sectarian cart very often. after saddam hussein fell, you know, or rather when he was in power people felt there was never going to be an end to this man's hold on power yet one day it was shown he was also fallible. today we've seen qasem soleimani thought to be invincible, all-powerful was in the end also mortal. >> from beirut, kim, thank you. >>> moments ago president trump speaking for the first time a

what i'm saying is - [ laughter ] saddam hussein is stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. [ laughterlause remember when we thought we could never elect a dumber president than george w. bush? and then, yesterday, our current president tweeted about impeachment and said, "hose republicans -- [ laughter ] voted 195-0 against it." well, i mean, i guess we can't expect the real estate developer to be able to spell the word house. [ laughter ] also, he lives in the most famous house in the world. and because none of his aides will ever tell him he's wrong, they're gonna have to change all of the signs now [ laughter ] and then at his rally last week, trump could barely get through the standard end of his stump speech without standing like he downed a bottle of novocain. >> we will make america wealthy again. we will make america strong again. [ laughter ] >> seth: did he just do a keg stand? [ laughter ] if your friend started talking like that, you'd rush them to the hospital to have their stomach pumped [ laughter ] he sounds like he just got knocked out in the first round by ronda rous

the basic fact is that the united states in order to destroy the order that was in iraq under saddam hussein cast the sunni arabs from the top of society down to the bottom and catapulted the shiite arabs who are at the bottom of society previously under saddam hussein 60 percent of the population to the top and gave them the government. and the government is run by shiites today they have a majority in parliament and they voted for america to get out they are sympathetic to slow money they're sympathetic to iran the shiites i am long in iraq look at ceylon each eliminate as a hero he came in he saved them from isis sweeping in possibly going to take baghdad and in 2014 he organized the shiite militias he armed them he helped iran helped them to turn back isis so did america but many people are grateful to so muscly money for that now sunni arabs many of them look at silly money as a criminal in the same way that george that excuse me in the same way that president trumped us but iraq is divided the thing is that the shiites have the majority and they voted and they are sympathetic to by and

the united states has spent $2 trillion on this government to replace saddam hussein. a shiite majority in the government that voted to ask the that weretes forces essentially substantially responsible for this government staying power in the face of isis to leave iraq. these would have been i think protectable consequences if someone had asked me to go after soleimani in iraq, what would happen. i would have said many of these things would have happened. what happens now to the force in the arms that they supported in light of the new guest: the soleimani deputy was appointed almost 24 hours after his death. he has been involved in many of the shenanigans. he was actually the person who helped organize the tens of thousands of afghan shiites and sent them to the area. i just saw tate of a very brave afghan woman, member of parliament, who said that soleimani since shiites into battle, 5500 have been killed. he was the commander, the person that organized it, might as well have been him who was defeated. i think they are going to go about their business, the thesess of

it dealt with threats coming from saddam hussein's iraq. saddam hussein is dead. his government and regime are long gone. this war authorization has no relevance to present day iraq and should be repealed not used to launch more military action. we'll likely hear an argument that repealing the iraq war resolution would undermine our ability to combat terrorism around the world. but let's be clear about something, the iraq war resolution, what we are seeking to repeal today, was never intended to authorize our fight against isis or other associated terrorist groups and it is not needed as authorization for any of these operations. there is another existing authorization for the use of military force, the measure the congress passed after 9/11 to deal with al qaeda. i don't agree with the administration's overly expansive interpretation of the 9/11 aumf, i think they have stretched it well beyond what congress ever intended. but even this administration has said clearly they can continue current counterterrorism operation ing the post devin -- post 9/11 authorizatio

to topple saddam hussein without a clear plan of what came afterwards. host: thank you for the call. guest: these are some great questions from the caller. you mentioned the colin powell doctrine. that is a better approach to war making them what we have seen. the issue of congress being a coequal branch of government is an important one. article one of the constitution puts congress in the driver's seat when it comes to warmaking. ,nfortunately, for a long time all the way back to the beginning of the cold war or even earlier, you have seen an erosion of congressional power in this area. you might say this is because of grasping,ive branch but it has also been with complicity of congress. congress has wanted in some ways inabrogate its authority this area. i think it is a real dereliction of duty. congress should be willing to stand up and take votes on whether we go to war. framerse or's vision -- vision was that there would be -- around these decisions. the fact that congress has simply allowed the exact a branch to make all these decisions, and you c

moved on the creation of another reality digital cell or cause to come into the possession of saddam hussein weapons of mass destruction did the united states to him absolutely not. iran iraq was on such a scale that i was on the iranian side and i went down to the bottom i was actually given the gas kit and so let me take the train back right all the way up to tehran and the carriages were crimes with iranian soldiers who'd been gassed some were just coffee rush and one man who was reading the koran yourself and put a handkerchief white blood on his lips. gradually to cargo's became permeated with a sort of $36.00 and i realized it was the smell of the gas they were coughing up from the lungs i was going around the car does open the windows and night is trying to clean the train out of the smell of obviously chemical. bombs to 2003 i was being attacked on radio shows especially from america you know complaining about the american invasion or you pro saddam and i said excuse me i was on the train of iranians gassed by the iraqis and the chemical components came from the united states at the

in 2002 and 2003, in terms of iraq, we were told over and over again that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that he was working with al qaeda, and that we needed to invade iraq unless we wanted to see another 9/11 or even worse, a nuclear attack. those claims were lies. the war in iraq led to the deaths of some 4500 brave american troops and the wounding physical and emotional of tens of thousands of others. it led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of iraqis and the displacement of over 5 million people and the increased destabilization of an already unstable region. the war in iraq cost us trillions of dollars, money that could have been spent to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, provide quality education for our kids, provide healthcare, for the uninsured and underinsured. and after all of that, after all of the pain and suffering and deaths and the expenditure of trillions of dollars, the iraqi parliament voted earlier this week to boot u.s. forces out of their country. and now we have a president who abandoned a nuclear agreement we signed with our allies h

the basic fact is that the united states in order to destroy the order that was in iraq under saddam hussein cast the sunni arabs from the top of society down to the bottom and catapulted the shiite arabs who are at the bottom of society previously under saddam hussein 60 percent of the population to the top and gave them the government . and the government is run by shiites today they have a majority in parliament and they voted for america to get out they are sympathetic to slow money they're sympathetic to iran the shiites i unlocked in iraq look at ceylon each sulaimani as a hero he came in he saved them from isis sweeping in possibly going to take baghdad in 2014 he organized the shiite militias he armed them he helped iran helped them to turn back isis so did america but many people are grateful to so muscly money for that sunni arabs many of them look at silly money as a criminal in the same way that george that excuse me in the same way that president trumped us but iraq is divided the thing is that the shiites have the majority and they voted and they are sympathetic and by and larg

in fact, most people would say that is tied to regime change for saddam hussein's regime. that is why i voted to repeal the 2002 aumf. we have had troops fighting under the 2001 aumf. however, i suggested that that needs to be updated. >> where do you understand this going from here? i mean, the word powers resolution has always existed in a somewhat constitutionally nebulous space. administrations sort of like to say both say it shouldn't exist and they're actually listening to it. it seems to me there is a lot of work, a lot of ways to go to rein in back the power of a single president to engage in war in the era of the war on terror. >> certainly. and i think that's why this vote is so important. congress needs to engage in these debates. congress needs to have all of the intelligence information, understand the strategy going forward. we should certainly not accidentally or without thought get into another war in the middle east, specifically with iran. that needs to be something that is discussed in government, taken very seriously and done in a cool, considered way.

like humanity is being saved this is a blockbuster off the role that has to be an apocalypse saddam hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction iran will not get a nuclear weapon and as we came into office around was on a pathway that it provided by the nuclear deal which clearly gave them the opportunity to have those nuclear weapons and all the while he hopes that no one actually are spending think concrete because then he's just a man with a grudge us grumbling to establish a link between iraq and al qaeda is so far frankly unconvincing regime change does not stick out it sounds like a grudge between bush and saddam but we need to know what the evidence is what led the administration to make the president to make this decision but i think this claim that it's his concern was to avoid war i think most people would say this is made war more likely so just to be on the safe side he adds a little something extra something he knows will appeal to the patriotism and emotions of the average voter if we're successful in iraq we will have struck

defense of the united states wherever the united states goes and destroys its all for they helped saddam hussein build his massive army they gave him they gave him chemical weapons just like the europeans to use against his own people and then they destroyed his army then they impose sanctions on iraq where up to a 1000000 people died during the sanctions then they invaded the country saying that iraq was developing nuclear weapons and they have links with al qaida then that when the iraqis resisted the americans and they had to leave they blamed iran they denied the iraqi people agency this is the this is the language of empire this is the language of a racist's euro centric heritage that we've we've been seeing for the last few centuries the same language that we that existed in the 19th the 20th century to justify had germany plundered death and destruction is being used today but in a different way the same western regimes and their media they just big big called the syrians freedom fighters but we all knew that they were funding isis what baiters became isis the evidence is all coming out n

well i think it's more about 9091 war because of the time saddam hussein actually jeopardize american interests now iranian ties american interests there are so many things iraq need to manage at that time on the political and military issues now iran is doing something like that also now iran has sanctions economic sanctions iraq of that time starting with the economic sanctions so there are some sort of a similarities about $991.00 war maybe maybe just maybe i'm not sure that i'm just smelling things is dark at the end there will be 2003 in a way or another the trump if he will win the elections definitely he needs some sort of war because we all know that there is some sort of a financial crisis in the financial system in the international financial system and always war. that's the way of the americans always think is that war can do something about the financial crisis so i think just i said it's similar to $99.00 to $1.00 maybe just maybe the idea is that the iranian is not saddam which is totally different things and they are more pragmatic they know how to deal with the situat

how extends to authorization for strikes in the number two official in iran, the arch enemy of saddam husseinmission, but i don't think probably -- i guess trump acknowledged today that there was this hostility between iran andiz isis. i think in his rhetoric they're one mass. >> that's exactly right. >> one of the things that's also important to recognize about soleimani is other countries have nationalisms too. >> of course. >> and it doesn't seem to enter into the conversation of the united states that this is what will happen when the united states attacks another country. we've seen massive demonstrations against the iranian regime. all of that has been overtaken by this sense of national outrage over this strike. and the united states isn't going to figure out a way out of that until ultimately it comes to terms with what it's been doing for 20 years and much longer in the region but especially after 9/11. >> the other thing that's persistent as journalists by the iraq war is this idea that the same braggadocio, we don't want to start a war, we're still in afghanistan 19 years later. >>

we captured saddam hussein. >> iraq. >> iraq, excuse me. we captured saddam hussein. saddam hussein was killed. chaos. chaos has spread through that region for the past 16 years. the same thing with moammar ga daughtery, turned over his m.a.d.s and the united states went in, killed moammar gadhafi, chaos continues to spread across the region for those actions. do we really believe in 2019 that the killing of one man, i mean, the killing of osama bin laden. what happened after that? well, there was a rise of isis that would have probably happened with our without that killing, but, again, mika, those that are acting as if, as if this is some sort of board game and we knocked the king off the table are just ignorant of history. let us hope for the best, and let us all agree that this guy was a malevolent force. i've always said iran is the epicenter of tear original and has been since 1979, and he was the chief terrorist in that epicenter of terrorism, but he was also attached to a government that's extraordinarily influential. if the iraq war strengthened iran and it m

there are more tools now in a place like iraq under saddam hussein that was dictatorship. there was not much open space for people to produce change. i think the theory that was behind the iraq war in 2003, we don't want to go back a debate that, simply if we topple regimes and eliminate the top, then somehow freedom will spread. and we know that did not happen. and i think white it accelerated in the islamic state's particular that you had a multiple fight going on inside of iraq, civil war first in a system of government that was not responding. that's the main point, those conditions are still there. iraqis are still looking at the national government with the caretaker of government. >> i would challenge the motion that the islam estate was all that too if we go back in history there is any number of millennial movements whether 1979 or go back before that to sudan. what i do want to draw out from what brian was talking about, there's many numbers on issues of governments. beyond monarchy versus republican and so forth. but what does this mean for the nature of america

i still think the world's better off wiout saddam hussein. he was a cancer in the region, and while iraq went through an extraordinarily difficult time-- and the thing i would do differently is how we rebuilt iraq. andi think we mewould a lot of mistakes postwar, but i will say this. i would rather be iraqi than syrian today, and iraq has a chance now to be a stilizing element of the new middle east because they he an accountable government. the iraqi kurds and baghdad are finally finding some way of dealing with one another, and it's a very different place, and the arab spring was going to happen, and think iraq would've made, so you never knowat you. you'll never be able to bring back the lives lost, and you'll never be able to deal with that, ill turn out ok, and i wish we hadn't left in 2011. the one thing that mightave made me think differently about it was to think that we would have not stayed towith a few troops in ira help. rubenstein: president bush is r. you become secretary of state... rice: yes. rice: i loved it. i loved going ou

wait well your strategy your strategy is the ostrich saddam hussein was a saying there and you're right if i could interject here but the but this is because this is not since ordinary hobson's hollow body is a foreigner in iraq he said i think going to war because he is. still an army is not a day while funerals are under way and time. i had it's time to letterheads over to the next step if i could come see you reason and celebrations as well under your screed how do you see we have one point of view that the us is not going to get dragged into a war and another point of view that fears this is very much a reality do you think that there is a risk the u.s. could get bogged down in this region or is it time to cut and run it's like look the there has been a real shaping of u.s. engagement in the region under obama already trump is just continuing this and i think trump is very much since it is say doesn't want to get dragged into another major combat operation when we talk about war we mean major combat operations as i said there is a war going on we are in a conflict that turns violent

which was focused on taking out saddam hussein and fighting iraq. what we did there was kill an iranian on iraqi soil, and an argument can be made that, you know, killing someone on the host country's land is not allowed unless you can establish that they have not the ability to do it or unwilling to do it. and certainly that was not something that was contemplated by the president when he made this decision. >> i know obviously you can only speak for yourself, but having been on the hill and in these briefings, the degree to which the democratic caucus is united in support of the resolution the speaker is going to be moving forward to attach some constraints to what the president can do. >> i think there's going to be a strong vote tomorrow. in the house. and i would not be surprised at all if we do not have republicans voting for this as well. what it is saying is clearly that the president cannot take action against iran without first coming to congress and seeking the authority that the congress has to declare war. >> all right. congresswoman ja

rely authorization wish to been there in the first place, for the use of of course to remove saddam hussein. something that was passed in both. in his past based on lies from the administration. to justify attacks now against iran 20 years later. yesterday, the administration which i missed, then tell you, it just made my we'll have boil. he said it would-be a best day for the senate even have a debate about the president's power. we have constitution, read the constitution. they brent leaders, they were difference in opinion among us. and they saw the democracy, the differences of opinion. including senators insult, it is dangerous and the misunderstanding of the democracy. it is our job, it is our responsibility to debate and vote, especially involves lauren and peace and lives of the men and women in our armed services and their families. i strongly support it. senators bill. we should have this debate and have the courage to stand up and follow the constitution and vote. bobo vote. thank you. >> thank you for your leadership and in stopping floor. let's be very clear, the power of congr

. >> saddam hussein left unfettered will at some point create such a danger to our lives. >> for theld's sake, we must confront saddam hussein. >> we cannot afford to let him be. >> and some of the democratic party's most visible leaders backed the 2003 iraq war. >> any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but i cast it with conviction. >> in the post-september 11th world the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of saddam hussein is unacceptable. >> we say yes, mr. president, you have that power to go to war. >> yes, mr. president. now, when you look through the history row and echos in this iran conflict today many progressive democrats oppose the war from the start. in fact, about 58% of democrats in the senate backed the iraq war but a majority of democrats in the more liberal house opposed it, including nancy pelosi. >> it is far better to exercise your vote on behalf of saving lives. >> our moral authority will be shot. we are leading to international anarchy. any country at anytime for any reason can attack another country. >> this resolution i

but with the evil saddam hussein gone, iran was also empowered and started to build ieds that killed our forces. >> the battle of iraq the united states and our allies have prevailed. the transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time but it's worth every effort. >> laura: we are still waiting for that. in february 2006, when i was broadcasting on my radio show from iraq. the enlisted soldiers, some on their 3rd deployment, told me the place is a disaster. iran is crawling everywhere. they are building weapons that are blowing up by buddies. i didn't want to believe it. two years later obama was elected in part on his promise to pull us out of iraq. obama took a different approach. he made things worse. he thought as long as we ended combat operations in iraq, we could bribe iran to get better behavior this iran. $400 million was delivered on pallets january 17th. that's the same day tehran released 4 american prisons. pallets of cash were delivered in the dark of night to the iraqi regime. one of the most disgusting acts i can recall. secretary of state john kerry insisted

policy the united states destroyed iraq the united states created saddam hussein gave them chemical weapons one day then became his enemy another day they impose sanctions on iraq he has killed a 1000000 people then they invaded the country and destroyed the country then the americans helped create extremism in syria with the saudis and others and that's that the those extremists came into iraq because the iraq no longer had infrastructure the iranians came and helped iraqis say that the dog was on the verge of falling and the united states refused to help the iraqi government this is something that obama himself admitted so the americans have now assassinated they have murdered an e a senior iraq iranian. official they violated international law they outrage the iranian people outrage as we will see the overwhelming majority of the iraqi people and they will have to pay a heavy price for that but. i want to just follow up on iraq the implications for iraq and what we're seeing in iraq today because we've seen months of process of people saying they don't want iranian influence in the count

in the 1st place who gave saddam hussein chemical weapons use against iranians and his own people it was the europeans and the united states who then attacked iraq and destroyed the infrastructure who then imposed sanctions on the country where up to a 1000000 people died under those sanctions who then invaded iraq and destroyed the country it was the the american regime that did that who is continues to act with impunity in iraq and murders iraqi soldiers who are fighting isis it is the regime in washington who created al qaeda in afghanistan who created the menace that brought about $911.00 it is the united states who supported the extremist groups in syria who destroyed syria who is responsible for the rise of isis al qaeda jaiswal a slum and other such terrible evil groups that are wahhabi oriented funded by saudi arabia who the israeli regime allowed to be base alongside their borders with syria alongside they've all occupied golan heights in fact who invaded lebanon hezbollah was created as a result of the israeli invasion of lebanon and the destruction of the country has expel

after our commander-in-chief convinced congress that our nation's degree depended on removing saddam hussein and replacing his regime with a democracy. a decade and half later we have spent trillions of dollars to achieve that goal and hundreds of thousands of iraqi civilians have been killed or displaced and thousands have died for that and tens of thousands more have been wounded and maimed. we did not sacrifice all of that for this president to turn our iraq he partners into adversaries who vote to kick us out of the very democracies we helped to build. i have friends who have done eight, nine, ten tours in iraq who go each time knowing they will probably be back on the same stretch of sand in the next couple of years who probably answer the call and who continue to answer the call fighting for it that patch of desert over and over again because they believe, they believe us when we tell them that will make america safer and more secure. they gain a few feet one tour, lose an intro to the next and watched their buddies lose limbs or lives over that same piece of ground time and time again

that the classified documents reveal that the united states has been a major contributor to saddam hussein's chemical attack on iran iran that killed several 1000 iranian soldiers and civilians and they have been doing lots of provocations but iran has avoided escalation into a war especially a wall or on a friendly land you know all of the world on means with a void. at home and on friendly lands because like like in iraq because it would have collateral damage or damage the friendly population and it would make the population very much wellner it will to the western media as well as politicians who would try to portray iran as the provocateurs and the one that should be blamed so iran would i believe would not call for action in iraq this doesn't mean that iraq would not take action you know the u.s. has staged bad attacks on the part of the official iraqi armed forces that the that was named and then let's say this part of iraq's official sources and they have killed now the deputy commander of the and this has antagonized humiliated and insulted the iraqis as we saw. a raid at the embass

this is saddam hussein era bunker. >> it is. so we felt it would be somewhat safe in here because it was designed to take, you know, some kind of hit or it was built for, you know, ballistic missiles. >> reporter: at 1:34 a.m. the first ballistic missiles hit. >> every time the missiles would hit the doors would kind of sink in. >> reporter: dozens of troops were still out in the open holding their position tuesday protect the base. there was still the threat of incoming rockets. >> going across the gravel looked out to the eastern sky and i see this orange streak, so started sprinting going in giving everybody a kind of warning and it hit so, yeah. >> reporter: flames swallowed up the drone team living quarters. some 30 something troops would have been sleeping here had they not been ready. some missiles came rushing down looking for anyone who may have been injured, checking on the defenses. young soldiers on their first tour fought the instinct to flee and stayed manning the guard towers. >> it was definitely scary at first,

on saddam hussein, it was a dictatorship. there wasn't as much open space for people to produce change. and i think the theory that was behind the rock worked was that in 2003, and we do want to go back to debate that let the theory behind it was flawed and that simply leap top of the and eliminate or decapitate the top, then somehow freedom will spread and we know that didn't happen. i think wildly accelerated in the islamic state in particular is that you have multiple fights going on inside rock. civil war first. a system of government simply was not responding. those conditions are still there. iraqis are still looking at the national government for the caretaker government. >> i would challenge the notion that wasn't all that new because we go back in history and there's any number of millennials mother was a seizure of the grand mosque 19799 want to go back to centuries before that before that it suzanne. i do want to draw out from what brian is talking about is any numbers of issues on governance, beyond simply this, m

went to war in 2003 to get rid of saddam hussein, iraq could emerge as a city for iran. >> and there's a lot of talk about isis coming back into iraq as iran is kind of opening that capability for them to do so. therefore, if the u.s. leaves iraq, it is opening up this possibility to re-emerge. >> a president who was a private citizen in 2011, speaking about president obama and his bid for re-election. listen to this. >> our president will start a war with iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate. i believe that he will attack iran some time prior to the election, because he thinks that's the only way he can get elected. isn't it pathetic? >> a lot of democrats right now are suggesting maybe the president wants to change the subject from impeachment. that's why he has escalated this crisis. >> absolutely. we've been hearing that accusation coming from particularly in the progressive wing of the party. some of the candidates were running to challenge him in the 2020 election. the timing, obviously, is incredibly volatile. he is an impeached president that we're about to be

iraq.l resolutions on this was the need to counter the hreat of weapons of mass destruction by saddam hussein actually hussein didn't have nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, was driven from 2003 and killed in 2006. the current government in iraq strategic partner of the united states in the struggle against nonstate terror groups and al qaeda and posed no -- poses no threat to our national security. 2002 aumf does not authorize and has never authorized the use force against iran. yet, it was invoked by national advisor robert o'brien as the administration's primary authority to engage in military against iran, including the strike against qassem soleimani. problem with on alute aumfs hanging around decades after they were approved. presidents can treat them like a table picked up at will and used in a completely different context for completely reason.nt the 2002 authorization must be repealed to ensure that no president, now or in the future, can use it as a justification for deploying military force congressional authorization or a formal declaration of war, as called of