Sunday, September 10, 2006

Iraq Better Off With Saddam?

I don't think so, but then I'm just a hausfrau in Waupun, Wisconsin, what do I know? Rockefeller: Bush Duped Public On Iraq Senator Says World Would Be Better Without Iraq Invasion
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.
What do they call that training camp for Al Qaeda that was found in... shoot, can't remember the name. I guess that wasn't relevant. Perhaps it wasn't Saddam who was doing the "associating", maybe it was his terrorist offspring? Has anyone looked into that possibility?
"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.'"
I'm none too fond of the way things are going in Iraq right now. Personally, I'd like to see some glass made all over the place over there. I'd love to see less road and school building (which is a good thing, btw), and more ass kicking.
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.
Yeah, you tell that to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi families who lost loved ones thanks to Saddam's benevolence. What a putz!