You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
Sen. Rockefeller: Iraq Better Off with Saddam
2006-09-10
Just in time for 9/10, as if we needed any more confirmation of Fred's article.
(CBS News) WASHINGTON When the Senate Intelligence Committee released a declassified version of its findings this past week, the Republican chairman of the committee, Pat Roberts, left town without doing interviews, calling the report a rehash of unfounded partisan allegations.
He should have stayed and countered this nonsense.
Its statements like this one, made Feb. 5, 2003, by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell that have become so controversial, implying Iraq was linked to terror attacks. "Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an associated collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants," Powell said.

But after 2 1/2 years of reviewing pre-war intelligence behind closed doors, the lead Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.V.), who voted for the Iraq War, says the Bush administration pulled the wool over everyone's eyes. "The absolute cynical manipulation, deliberately cynical manipulation, to shape American public opinion and 69 percent of the people, at that time, it worked, they said 'we want to go to war,'" Rockefeller told CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. "Including me. The difference is after I began to learn about some of that intelligence I went down to the Senate floor and I said 'my vote was wrong.'"

Rockefeller went a step further. He says the world would be better off today if the United States had never invaded Iraq — even if it means Saddam Hussein would still be running Iraq. He said he sees that as a better scenario, and a safer scenario, "because it is called the 'war on terror.'"
Part of the WoT has always gone through Iraq. It's difficult to imagine how we were going to persue the WoT after Afghanistan without dealing with Saddam first.
Does Rockefeller stands by his view, even if it means that Saddam Hussein could still be in power if the United States didn't invade? "Yes. [Saddam] wasn't going to attack us. He would've been isolated there," Rockefeller said. "He would have been in control of that country but we wouldn't have depleted our resources preventing us from prosecuting a war on terror which is what this is all about."
And he would have been working daily to get the sanctions removed, bribing every French, Russian and German politician he could. And he would have been bribing the UN. And he would have been shooting at our pilots in the No-Fly Zones. And, most of all, he would have continued grinding down the Iraqi people. Other than that, Senator ...
Republicans say there was flawed intelligence to be sure, but they insist there was no attempt to mislead the public. "In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on," White House Spokesman Tony Snow said.
Posted by:Steve White

#20  Rockefeller's ties to Syria 2002 need to be investigated.
Posted by: anonymous2u   2006-09-10 23:37  

#19  When your hatred for the opposition, and Bush in particular, is stronger than any other consideration--- including love of country, decency, morality and even common sense, you can say some pretty unbelievable things. Case in point. I used to be shocked, until I came to the conclusion, some 4 years ago, that the dems are the enemy. I take what they say with the same gravitas that I would take a statement from binny or his pals.
Posted by: mcsegeek1   2006-09-10 20:37  

#18  I say "Lefties HEART dictators" then they prove me right.

The left love violence and lust after power, their motivation is envy and jealousy.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles in Blairistan   2006-09-10 18:09  

#17  I'm pretty sure that most Iraqis, all Iranians, and all Kuwaitis would be inclined to disagree with the idiot senator.
Posted by: Darrell   2006-09-10 15:18  

#16  This is one place which I can identify with the Donk concept of hammering big inheritances. If the old man is unwilling to give it over while alive, why should they get any afterward?
Posted by: Hupereck Ebbish7621   2006-09-10 12:53  

#15  The Fords and Rockefellers are two families of idiots who, unfortunately, amassed giant fortunes due to the free democracy which allowed capitalism to fluorish. They have repaid the republic for its largesse by creating and funding foundations in their names which act directly against the best interests of the same republic. This is another big name gasbag, like the Cape Cod Orca, who the voters should send to pasture before any further damage can be done.
Posted by: SOP35/Rat   2006-09-10 12:19  

#14  This reminds me of the press conference in which the capture of Saddam was announced ("We got him!"). All the Iraqi reporters jumped up and cheered. All the western reporters sat there quietly (can't take sides, ya know, except when we can.)
Posted by: Matt   2006-09-10 11:46  

#13  Any bets Rockefeller has never met with any Iraqi? Well, maybe he met with some of Saddam's guys back in the day, but I'm talking about the ones who have visited the US since.
Posted by: Rob Crawford   2006-09-10 11:26  

#12  This probably play well with his disgruntled base when you consider their mindset is: if I give you my lunch money, and don't call attention to myself - you might beat up someone else instead of me.
Posted by: Clereling Cruns6778   2006-09-10 10:40  

#11  Gee Senator, I'm sure the German people in the summer of 1940 thought their leadership had provided for them a better world than the one they'd seen since 1914. Of course if you were jewish, gypsy, or of any group that the state thought was a threat to their power, that was another matter.

Like the usual suspects, praise Cuba, but live in the US; praise the public school system and teachers union but send your own kids to private schools. There's a pattern here.
Posted by: Pholurong Flavilet2357   2006-09-10 10:38  

#10  Must be nice to rely on a family fortune and NOT on your brains/abiliy.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2006-09-10 10:01  

#9  "Copious money."

Actually, Copious Inherited money!
Posted by: Texas Redneck   2006-09-10 09:43  

#8  Get rid of that bastard.
Posted by: newc   2006-09-10 08:47  

#7  Too bad, all the intelligence was in that release, and they didn't have any left over.
Posted by: Perfesser   2006-09-10 04:27  

#6  What do you call someone who votes to send his country's troops to war and then later says he made a mistake? A coward
Posted by: Captain America   2006-09-10 03:36  

#5  #4 Zen - Copious money.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2006-09-10 02:33  

#4  How do morons like Rockefeller survive in a world of sharp objects and moving traffic?
Posted by: Zenster   2006-09-10 02:15  

#3  Rockefeller has been an idiot since day one.
Posted by: 3dc   2006-09-10 02:13  

#2  If he really believes this, he should introduce a bill to return Sad-ass to power.

But only if he agrees to send his wife & daughters to live there under his buddy's "benevolent" rule.

Asshole.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2006-09-10 01:07  

#1  
So, on Monday I will be looking for Rockefeller and the the Dems to put forth a Bill/Resolution that says that the US should release Saddam and be put back and in power.
Posted by: macofromoc   2006-09-10 01:01  

00:00