Senator Jay Rockefeller: World Would Be Better Off With Saddam
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.’”
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.”
Here’s what Rockefeller had to say about Saddam back in 2002:
“September 11 has forever changed the world. We may not like it, but that is the world in which we live. When there is a grave threat to Americans’ lives, we have a responsibility to take action to prevent it…” and “Saddam poses a significant risk” and “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…”
So Rockefeller believed that Saddam was a significant threat, but now he believes that we’d be better off with him in power? I guess Rockefeller has changed his mind.
Maybe some consider that a good thing. Personally I think Rockefeller is being an idiot, but whatever. Either way, here’s a cold, hard fact: Saddam oppressed the millions living in Iraq. He had hundreds of thousands of people mass murdered and tortured/raped/mutilated thousands upon thousands more. He also sponsored suicide bombers attacking Israel and was working to set up his own terror network separate from al Qaeda.
Anyone who thinks that the world would be better off with Saddam still calling the shots in Iraq is a fool. Sadly, Rockefeller’s position seems to be the position (stated or not) of most Democrats in office these days. Which is exactly why the Democrats can’t be taken seriously in the war on terror.
