Saturday, September 09, 2006

Would the world be a better place if Saddam Hussein was still in power? This senator says `yes'

Senator John Rockefeller(d-WV) was asked in a CBS News interview if the world would be better off today if the United States had never invaded Iraq — even if it meant that Saddam Hussein would still be running Iraq.

Here's his answer:

"Yes. [Saddam] wasn't going to attack us. He would've been isolated there," Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.V.) 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."

I'm sure Senator Rockefeller made this answer in good faith..and perhaps with an eye towards making some time on the Sunday talk shows and some political milleage out of what I consider to be an amazingly flawed and shortsighted Senate Intelligence Committee report that focuses on one 2005 CIA assesment dealing with the question of Saddam's ties with al Qaeda...and ignores the considerable evidence that's surfaced on Saddam's ties with Islamic terrorism both before and since the 2005 report was issued.

Of course, the giveaway is that the good senator still refers to the conflict we're engaged in as `the war on terror', and that has a lot to do with how one perceives this war.

If, as the senator obviously believes, we're merely facing a few thugs in al Qaeda, then he's correct - invading Iraq was unnecessary.

However, if it truly is the `war on terror' the senator says it is - or as I call it, a war on jihad -then anyone clueless enough to deny Saddam's ties with what President Bush called `Islamic fascism' is guilty of a serious lapse in judgement...or perhaps worse.

You can't have it both ways, Senator.

And the fact that the Bush Administration let this go out without responding and pointing out this little dichotomy is a large part of why people are so disaffected and confused over the Iraq War and the War Against Jihad. Oh, and by the way, Senator...since you mention it, I think that a part of what's preventing the United States from prosecuting what you call a war on terror is the political grandstanding, partisan obstructionism and the denial of the tools necessary for our security services to do the job by your party.

The Bush Administration's errors in dealing with the Iraq war have been astounding, and regular members of Joshua's Army know that I've been quite open about voicing my opinions over what I perceive to be major mistakes in the way the Bush Administration has handled things there.

But to simply ignore Saddam's role in the war against us and to voice the opinion that the basic decision to eliminate his regime as a haven for Islamic terrorism was a mistake...well, that takes an amazing amount of denial.

Remember this when it comes time for you to vote in November.


tm said...

You can't have it both ways, Senator.

He's not. He's saying we should've focused on terrorism; Iraq had little to nothing to do with terrorists. Inasmuch as they did, they were verrrry low on the totem pole.

What part of "Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda" do you not understand?

Freedom Fighter said...

Hello, JPE,
Here's where we differ; you feel that Iraq had nothing to do with `terrorists' or al Qaeda, like the senator.

If we are merely dealing with a few al Qaeda thugs, that's one thing.

It's obvious that we're not.

If you look at the larger picture,it's obvious that al Qaeda are just a bunch of subcontractors who would be unable to function with out the assistance of states that havens for training, financing and cover. This is a war on jihad, a war against Islamic fascism and encompasses much more than merely al Qaeda.

Iraq was one of those places. It had terrorist training camps (like the one at SalPak outside of Baghdad with a mockup of a 747), financed terrorism and Muslim Brotherhood activities, allowed various terrorists free range over the country, including al Qaeda figures like al-Zarqawi and Imad Mugniyeh and included people like Ramzy Youseff,mastermind of the first WTC bombing on it's intelligence payroll.

You would also have to completely discount the Able/Danger reports and the declassified documents and transcripts that show that Saddam Hussein had advance knowledge of 9/11.

Did Iraq have `formal' ties with al Qaeda? No one knows thoughthere are indications, like the ones I've mentioned above.

Was Saddam's Iraq a major force in this war on the side of our enemies? Obviously.

Like I said, the senator can't have it both ways - either we're at war or we're not, and if we are at war, taking out Iraq was legitimate.

Has the Bush Adminstration made a number of serious errors in the way this war has been waged, and the way the `peace' in Iraq has been handled? You betcha.

But for a US senator to try to finesse the invasion of Iraq on the one hand while talking about being at war on the other is well, ridiculous.

Thanks for dropping by. As you've noticed, this site ain't an echo chamber and I welcome sensible an dpolite alternative views.

Anonymous said...

this is typical 9/10 thinking.
saddam would not attack us.
of course not.
iran will not attack israel.
syria will not attack israel.
all those lines in the sand you see on a map only matter to a few state departments in the west.
what are state departments they ask?
who is they you ask?
ok then, we did not attack/invade iraq. as they are not a country, we did not invade a country.
according to them.
who is them?
typical 9/10 thinkging.
now let's all hold hands and sing dhimmi-by-ya.