Okay, my thoughts, play by play...
The whole idea that the US and the UK are quietly supplying anti-Assad forces in Syria has never been proven except for that obscure NYT blog. Now I'll give you (and others) the benefit of the doubt that it might have been going on, but it doesn't automatically mean that we specifically are or were equipping the ISIS forces. Do you realize just how many weapons caches are in the Middle East, not just particularly Iraq or Syria? And is it perhaps somewhat more plausible to think that Iran might be behind the actions more so than the US?
And when all else fails, always reach back for the 1994 interview with Dick Cheney. So something that was said nine years prior to OIF means that conditions are the same? That something else might have changed his mind along the way? And really, what's wrong with liberating Kurdistan? That we'll piss of Iraq, Iran and Turkey? Eff 'em right in the ear.
I suppose his dates were a little off since the Ba'ath Party didn't even get into power until 1968. And that Saddam didn't even rise to the Presidency until 1979...but what's five or sixteen years give or take?
And the meetings in 1990 between the US Ambassador and Saddam are just a tad inaccurate. The meetings were about a border disagreement in which Saddam claimed Kuwait was drilling under their border and into the Rumaila oil field. As well as the debt they still owed Kuwait for the Iran-Iraq War. And the fact they had beef that OPEC had raised the limits on Kuwaiti oil production which was hurting Iraq. And the fact they claimed Kuwait was actually a State of Iraq...don't let facts get in the way.
Love the whole depleted uranium bit. No, he's not against those munitions at all...
Funny that the US takes the blame for the sanctions in Iraq. When it actually was the UN that put those in place. Again, those pesky facts...
I always love the whole seven countries in five years thing. Especially as Wesley Clark had retired in 2000, well over a year before 9/11. And had a Presidential run in 2004. So can we say he might have been making noise to garner attention? And you think he might have been overstating what actually happened as he refused to read the memo in question?
Seven countries in five years - Salon.com
And I have yet to see how Saudi Arabia ties into this. Perhaps there's another video I should be watching?
I know this channel in particular as I've seen stuff on there before. He tends to overstate a lot of things, reach on a lot of fact and omit others to make sure it doesn't interfere with his synopsis. But if you actually dig into the "facts" you find he's FOS.