2008 December: President Obama nominates Hillary Clinton for secretary of state. 2009 Jan. 13: Reports say the clintonemail.com domain was established. Jan. 21: Senate confirms Clinton as secretary of state. March 18: Clinton will later name this as the date she began using a private server for government business. 2012 Sept. 11: Islamic extremists launch […]
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.