Ark. Senator Says "Iraq WOULD BE BETTER OFF WITH SADDAM IN POWER"

[tikky]

nothing new about this...

Rockefeller: Bush Duped Public On Iraq
CBS News Exclusive: Ark. Senator Says Iraq Would Be Better Off With Saddam In Power
Sept. 9, 2006

(CBS) 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.

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 of West Virginia, 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.'"...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/09/eveningnews/main1990644.shtml

[Arlo]

1: I don't see evidence that the Iraqi nation (it's people, to be precise) are truly better off because of the U.S. invasion as of today. There was somewhat of a circumstantial case for such directly after the "mission accomplished" photo op shoot on the carrier deck but things have backslid a lot since then.

2: I know *this* nation was better off before the invasion than now.

*ShruG*

That being said ... we're kinda stuck dealing with this administration's mistakes, aren't we? It'd be nice to have a "way back machine" but unfortunately we don't.

[Debonair]

mr nice big nuke, let him have it!!!1
BTW, i would like to take this opportunity to suggest Castle Bravo for your next handle

[Shuckins]

Yeah, the Iraqi people were a lot better off under Saddam:  here's the proof.

[ujustdied]

proof from CNN lmfao thats a freaking joke. suddam is a freaking Sh** head who needs needs to be hung and stoned. i cant bealive people think iraq would be better off. thats like saying stallin was a peaceful man. but what can i say its arkansas.

[Shuckins]

By the way...Pat Roberts is not a senator from Arkansas.   He's from Kansas.

[bj229r]

Perhaps someone might ask the people from Iraq? There are 4 provinces of 17 with big-time violence (Baghdad among them, obviously) All press accounts center on those 4. You can damn sure bet the Kurds are happier now

[Mini D]

I did not see "Iraq WOULD BE BETTER OFF WITH SADDAM IN POWER" anywhere in that article.

This is getting all too typical these days.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by bj229r
Perhaps someone might ask the people from Iraq? There are 4 provinces of 17 with big-time violence (Baghdad among them, obviously) All press accounts center on those 4. You can damn sure bet the Kurds are happier now

Did you know that a majority of the population lives in those 4 provinces?

[bj229r]

Originally posted by tikky
nothing new about this...

Rockefeller: Bush Duped Public On Iraq
CBS News Exclusive: Ark. Senator Says Iraq Would Be Better Off With Saddam In Power
Sept. 9, 2006



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/09/eveningnews/main1990644.shtml

Interesting exchange from 2005 with Senator Rockefeller:

November 13, 2005
Not Ready for Prime Time

Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller, that is. He tried to parrot the Dems' party line on Iraq intelligence in an interview with Chris Wallace this morning. His inability to answer the most basic questions is embarrassing:

    WALLACE: Senator Rockefeller, the President says that Democratic critics, like you, looked at pre-war intelligence and came to the same conclusion that he did. In fact, looking back at the speech that you gave in October of 2002 in which you authorized the use of force, you went further than the President ever did. Let's watch.

    SEN. ROCKEFELLER (October 10, 2002): "I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th, that question is increasingly outdated."

    WALLACE: Now, the President never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?

    SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The – I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq – that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11. Now, the intelligence that they had and the intelligence that we had were probably different. We didn't get the Presidential Daily Briefs. We got only a finished product, a finished product, a consensual view of the intelligence community, which does not allow for agencies like in the case of the aluminum tubes, the Department of Energy said these aren't thick enough to handle nuclear power. They left that out and went ahead with they have aluminum tubes and they're going to develop nuclear power.

    WALLACE: Senator, you're quite right. You didn't get the Presidential Daily Brief or the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief. You got the National Intelligence Estimate. But the Silberman Commission, a Presidential commission that looked into this, did get copies of those briefs, and they say that they were, if anything, even more alarmist, even less nuanced than the intelligence you saw, and yet you, not the President, said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.

    SEN. ROCKEFELLER: The Silberman Commission was absolutely prohibited by the President in his charge to them – he appointed them – from ever looking at the use of intelligence, whether it was misused, whether it was massaged to influence the American people to go along with a decision which he had long ago already decided to make.

    WALLACE: But didn't they come to that conclusion which I just stated, that the Presidential Daily Brief was in fact more alarmist and less nuanced than the intelligence you saw?

    SEN. ROCKEFELLER: I don't know, because I never get to see, nor does Pat, the Presidential Daily Brief. All I know is that we don't get the intelligence that they do. We are called the Senate Intelligence Committee. We get a lot more than the rest of the Senate, but it was incomplete as to what the President gets, and it was obviously entirely wrong, which raises the question, why was it wrong?

    ...

    WALLACE: Senator Rockefeller, I want to play another clip from your 2002 speech authorizing the use of force, this time specifically on the question of Saddam's nuclear program. Here it is.

    SEN. ROCKEFELLER (October 10, 2002): "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons. And will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years and he could have it earlier."

    WALLACE: Now, by that point, Senator, you had read the National Intelligence Estimate, correct?

    SEN. ROCKEFELLER: In fact, there were only six people in the Senate who did, and I was one of them. I'm sure Pat was another.

    WALLACE: Okay, but you had read that, and now we've read a declassified…

    SEN. ROCKEFELLER: But Chris, let's a...

    WALLACE: Can I just ask my question sir, and then you can answer as you choose. That report indicated there was an agreement – a disagreement among analysts about the nuclear program. The State Department had a lot more doubts than the CIA did about whether he was pursuing a nuclear program. You never mentioned those doubts. You came to the same conclusion the President did.

    SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Because that – first of all, that National Intelligence Estimate was not called for by the Administration. It was called for by former Senator Bob Graham, Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and Dick Durbin. We didn't receive it until just a couple of days before we voted. Then we had to go read it and compare it to everything else that we thought we'd learned about intelligence, and I did make that statement. And I did make that vote. But, Chris, the important thing is that when I started looking at the weapons of mass destruction intelligence along with Pat Roberts, I went down to the floor, and I said I made a mistake. I would have never voted yes if I knew what I know today.

    WALLACE: But a lot of people – that's not the point of the investigation, Senator.

    SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Chris, there's always the same conversation. You know it was not the Congress that sent 135,000 or 150,000 troops.

    WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren't you responsible for your vote?

    SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.

    WALLACE: You're not?

    SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. I'm responsible for my vote, but I'd appreciate it if you'd get serious about this subject, with all due respect. We authorized him to continue working with the United Nations, and then if that failed, authorized him to use force to enforce the sanctions. We did not send 150,000 troops or 135,000 troops. It was his decision made probably two days after 9/11 that he was going to invade Iraq. That we did not have a part of, and, yes, we had bad intelligence, and when we learned about it, I went down to the floor and said I would never have voted for this thing.

    WALLACE: My only point sir, and I am trying to be serious about it, is as I understand Phase Two, the question is based on the intelligence you had, what were the statements you made? You had the National Intelligence Estimate which expressed doubts about Saddam's nuclear program, and yet you said he had a nuclear program. The President did the same thing.

A pathetic performance by Rockefeller, but the fact is that the Dems' theory makes no sense, and can't withstand scrutiny by any well-informed observer.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/012249.php

[FUNKED1]

After the destruction caused by the invasion, the current insurgency, the coming full-scale civil war, and the inevitable rise of a Tehran-controlled mullahocracy, I think history will indeed record that Iraq would have been better off had Saddam remained in control.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by Arlo
Did you know that a majority of the population lives in those 4 provinces?

CC, kinda indicated that with baghdad--that being said, why doesnt anyone ask THEM?

[AquaShrimp]

Iraqis are not a unified people.  The three major groups, Kurds/*****es/Sunnies all hate each other.  Saddam was a monster, but he kept the different groups from fighting each other.

Now that the monster is gone, every fanatic with a gun is out to foward his cause, and kill those who don't support it.

[ujustdied]

ok with saddam that country looked like a POS but when we finnaly get things going i think that country will thank us for what he have done. saddams a stupid Ahole who killed thousands of people. im srry but that guy needs to go. i acually cant bealive what im hearing from you people. youd think now that we have captured him people would be thanking bush. but the stupid liberals half to be duche bags about it. and i swear to god if they let saddam go il will go crazy. . so will a lot more people.

[tikky]

boooooosh should have reviewed Britain's history in Iraq before invading...

Iraqi invasion created more terrorist than actually eliminating!