It was almost ten years ago that Sen. John Rockefeller, a Democrat from West Virginia, told me the U.S. would have been better off if it had never invaded Iraq in 2003...even if it meant leaving Saddam Hussein in power.
At the time, it was a startling statement. Today, other Democrats and some Republicans have come around to his way of thinking.
Rockefeller had voted in favor of the war. But in light of information that came out later, he told me, "It's called the war on terror. [Hussein] wasn't going to attack us. He would've been isolated there. 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."
The following day, top President Bush advisers responded to the Rockefeller interview.
"There is, in retrospect, an attempt to somehow paint Saddam Hussein as just sitting there calmly in the region. 'Yes, he was a bad guy; people didn't like him, but he wasn't much of a threat.' It's simply ahistorical," said U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on CBS's Face The Nation.
"The fact is, the world is better off today with Saddam Hussein out of power. Think where we'd be if he was still there," Dick Cheney said on NBC's Meet The Press.
Sharyl, after the San Bernadino shooting there were several witnesses who claimed there were three shooters and they were all sizeable men working as a team. Soon after we heard nothing of this, only the radical couple that was blown away. The media was allowed into their house within days. Odd things occurred.
Now, with the Orlando shooting, we have a nutcase lone gunman (according to the authorities). But at least one witness(a survivor) claims there were three shooters.
Thanks
Wasn't Rockefeller one of those in Congress who pushed the most for Bush to take action?
------
From Oct 2002: Rockefeller: "There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!"
Is there a point to your comment? The gist of the article is that five years later, in light of more accurate info, he was able to see that it had been a mistake.
And the idea that Hussein was a global threat is ridiculous. Sure he was a brutal dictator but there definitely wouldn't be Daesh running around.
Nah. Rockefeller was attacking Bush, just being a partisan Democrat then -- and now. Sadaam was a threat to us, to the region and to our allies. He openly threated the U.S. That alone justified an invasion. We were just too nice and then Obama surrendered.
but weren't Iraqi WMDs also rockets with chemical/biological payloads and didn't we find 400 rockets and thousands of shells and warheads in 2004-2006 as the NYT reported? And in the destruction of said missiles shells and warheads didn't we expose hundreds if not thousands of US soldiers who now suffer from the effects? So if Saddam had stayed and sold gave or had those stolen and they were used on an ally like say I don't know Israel, would those who hate Bush Cheney be happy now? Would Rockefeller look aback and say hmmm maybe we should have gone in there?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have-bought-and-destroyed-iraqi-chemical-weapons.html