Jay Rockefeller (D-WV): World Better Off If Saddam Were Running Iraq

[PittsburghAfterDark]

The left just keeps on giving.

Rockefeller: Bush Duped Public On Iraq
Senator Says World Would Be Better Without Iraq Invasion

(CBS News) WASHINGTON When the Senate Intelligence Committee released a declassified version of its findings this past week, the Republican chairman of the committee, Pat Roberts, left town without doing interviews, calling the report a rehash of unfounded partisan allegations.

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.

But after 2 1/2 years of reviewing pre-war intelligence behind closed doors, the lead Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), who voted for the Iraq War, says the Bush administration pulled the wool over everyone's eyes.

"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.'"

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. [Saddam] wasn't going to attack us. He would've been isolated there," Rockefeller 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."

Republicans say there was flawed intelligence to be sure, but they insist there was no attempt to mislead the public.

"In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on," White House Spokesman Tony Snow said.
Link (http://wcbstv.com/topstories/topstories_story_252203351.html)

[lily]

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.

I am going to have to agree with him. Iraq is now a haven for terrorists. Sadaam at least had it under control, and as we are finding out, was??no threat to the US.

It is now one big clusterfuck and the Republicans are doing everything in their power, until elections are over to keep the American public's mind off of just how bad things hav gotten in Iraq.

[AlonzoMourning23]

The world was clearly better off with Saddam in power.

Iraq on the other hand, that depends on the outcome of this whole mess and whether a full blown civil war erupts.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But death is all Arabs friend, in every nation of Islam.
2. If you look at any Islamic nation, you will find this true.
2.a) Death Squads, are normal there.
3. We just need to learn not to be in a vulnerable place when they do the suicides.
4. This whole thing of who knew what and when did they know it, is just politics as usual.
5. Funny thing is, when the libs vote for something, then two face their vote and try to wiggle out of it, lol!!!!!!!!!!!
6. They all are doing the, *Kerry Flip Flop!*
7. This hurt the libs. far more than the Reps.
8. This issue of if Saddam and OBL were linked is a straw man argument, we went in for broken UN Resolutions, as I remember.
9. Saddam and his sons said as I remember, ''You Americans come on in and attack us, we will send you back to USA in a pool of blood, in coffins.
10. That threat didn't work out to well.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[BoogyMan]

The world was clearly better off with Saddam in power.

Iraq on the other hand, that depends on the outcome of this whole mess and whether a full blown civil war erupts.


Zo, how about something to back this claim up? How exactly would the world be better off with Saddam in power?

[dsanthony]

Anyone who thinks Hussein was not a threat to the US is a fool. The UN was losing the ability or will to maintain inspectors in Iraq. If anyone doubts that Hussein would have rebuilt his WMD stores immediately after their departure they are fools. And, as his attempt to assassinate Bush Sr. shows, he was more than capable of exporting terror to other countries. It would have been just a matter of time before Hussein found a way to reach the US directly.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Zo, how about something to back this claim up???How exactly would the world be better off with Saddam in power?


Well, the number 1 recruitment tool for terrorists would be removed for starters. Two, terrorists would not run rampant in Iraq. Three, we would have been free to stabilize afghanistan and not get bogged down in a relatively unrelated conflict.

[BoogyMan]

Zo, how about something to back this claim up???How exactly would the world be better off with Saddam in power?


Well, the number 1 recruitment tool for terrorists would be removed for starters. Two, terrorists would not run rampant in Iraq. Three, we would have been free to stabilize afghanistan and not get bogged down in a relatively unrelated conflict.


Lets consider your response point by point.

1.??The number 1 recruitment tool for terrorists would be removed for starters.

Do you think these people didn't hate us before Iraq???If anything Iraq being a gathering place for terrorists keeps them from working their acts of cowardice in America.??How many of those acts of terror have happened in America or other major countries since the start of Iraq and have been attributed to Iraq???I have to disagree with you completely on this.??It is not a receuitment tool, a gathering place maybe, but I don't see huge numbers of people who were not so inclined before Iraq running there to join up.

2.??Terrorists would not run rampant in Iraq.

No, instead they would be running Iraq and the people of the country would have NO hope to be free of governmental opression.

3.??We would have been free to stabilize afghanistan and not get bogged down in a relatively unrelated conflict.

War isn't pretty, nor is it precise, nor is it compartmental.??This point is a what-if that neither of us could argue as it might or might not have made a dent in what is going on in Afghanistan right now.??It is my belief that this kind of thinking is fueled by the american media and its incessant effort to discredit the war on terror.

You should do some reading on the battles of WWII, the media driven expectation of perfection and wiping out resistance is a pipe-dream.??Today's media would say that the allies in WWII failed in their assigned task because odessa aided numerous Nazis in their flight from justice.

[AlonzoMourning23]

[quote]WASHINGTON -- New investigations by the Saudi Arabian government and an Israeli think tank -- both of which painstakingly analyzed the backgrounds and motivations of hundreds of foreigners entering Iraq to fight the United States -- have found that the vast majority of these foreign fighters are not former terrorists and became radicalized by the war itself.

The studies, which together constitute the most detailed picture available of foreign fighters, cast serious doubt on President Bush's claim that those responsible for some of the worst violence are terrorists who seized on the opportunity to make Iraq the ''central front" in a battle against the United States.

''The terrorists know that the outcome [in Iraq] will leave them emboldened or defeated," Bush said in his nationally televised address on the war at Fort Bragg in North Carolina last month. ''So they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction." The US military is fighting the terrorists in Iraq, he repeated this month, ''so we do not have to face them here at home."

However, interrogations of nearly 300 Saudis captured while trying to sneak into Iraq and case studies of more than three dozen others who blew themselves up in suicide attacks show that most were heeding the calls from clerics and activists to drive infidels out of Arab land, according to a study by Saudi investigator Nawaf Obaid, a US-trained analyst who was commissioned by the Saudi government and given access to Saudi officials and intelligence.

A separate Israeli analysis of 154 foreign fighters compiled by a leading terrorism researcher found that despite the presence of some senior Al Qaeda operatives who are organizing the volunteers, ''the vast majority of [non-Iraqi] Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activity prior to their arrival in Iraq."

''Only a few were involved in past Islamic insurgencies in Afghanistan, Bosnia, or Chechnya," the Israeli study says. Out of the 154 fighters analyzed, only a handful had past associations with terrorism, including six who had fathers who fought the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, said the report, compiled by the Global Research in International Affairs Center in Herzliya, Israel.

American intelligence officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, and terrorism specialists paint a similar portrait of the suicide bombers wreaking havoc in Iraq: Prior to the Iraq war, they were not Islamic extremists seeking to attack the United States, as Al Qaeda did four years ago, but are part of a new generation of terrorists responding to calls to defend their fellow Muslims from ''crusaders" and ''infidels."

''The president is right that Iraq is a main front in the war on terrorism, but this is a front we created," said Peter Bergen, a terrorism specialist at the nonpartisan New America Foundation, a Washington think tank.

Foreign militants make up only a small percentage of the insurgents fighting in Iraq, as little as 10 percent, according to US military and intelligence officials. The top general in Iraq said late last month that about 600 foreign fighters have been captured or killed by coalition forces since the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections. The wider insurgency, numbering in the tens of thousands, is believed to consist of former Iraqi soldiers, Saddam Hussein loyalists, and members of Iraq's Sunni Muslim minority.

But the impact of the foreign fighters has been enormous. They are blamed for the almost daily suicide attacks against US and Iraqi forces and have killed thousands of civilians, mostly members of Iraq's Shia Muslim majority. Their exploits have been responsible for much of the headline-grabbing carnage recently, contributing to the slide in American public support for the war.

There have been nearly 500 car bombings since the US-led coalition handed over sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government one year ago, US military statistics indicate. In the last two months, car bombs and suicide attacks have killed nearly 1,400 people, according to the Associated Press.

Bush has cited foreign fighters as a reason for continued US military operations in Iraq. His argument, repeated often, is that ''the world's terrorists" have chosen to make their stand in Iraq.

''Some may disagree with my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world's terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror," Bush said in a radio address last month.

Foreign fighters were found to be like Saud Bin Muhammad Bin Saud Al-Fuhaid, according to Obaid's research, to be published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington this summer. Described as in his early 20s, Fuhaid blew himself up March 24, three days after he entered Iraq from Syria, according to newspaper accounts and interviews with his family.

Obaid found little evidence Fuhaid was an extremist before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Like many of the young men from Saudi Arabia who make up the majority of the foreign fighters, the student at Imam University in western Riyadh was not initially a radical jihadist, according to information gleaned from Saudi newspaper accounts and intelligence operations. In fact, he apparently almost changed his mind.

Fuhaid is believed to have traveled through Syria to fight in Iraq, but once he arrived told his family he would be coming home instead, according to a death notice published in Saudi newspapers and posted on the Internet. ''However, during that time he met some friends of his who were going to Iraq and told him they were going to declare Jihad with their brothers in Iraq," the celebratory announcement said. ''It was at that moment that our martyr changed his mind and told them that he will go back to Iraq with them and called his parents to tell him he won't be going home."

Obaid said in an interview from London that his Saudi study found that ''the largest group is young kids who saw the images [of the war] on TV and are reading the stuff on the Internet. Or they see the name of a cousin on the list or a guy who belongs to their tribe, and they feel a responsibility to go."

Other fighters, who are coming to Iraq from across the Middle East and North Africa, are older, in their late 20s or 30s, and have families, according to the two investigations. ''The vast majority of them had nothing to do with Al Qaeda before Sept. 11th and have nothing to do with Al Qaeda today," said Reuven Paz, author of the Israeli study. ''I am not sure the American public is really aware of the enormous influence of the war in Iraq, not just on Islamists but the entire Arab world."

Case studies of foreign fighters indicated they considered the Iraq war an attack on the Muslim religion and Arab culture, Paz said.

For example, while the unprovoked attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were largely condemned by clerics as violations of Muslim law, many religious leaders in Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations have promulgated fatwas, or religious edicts, saying that waging jihad in Iraq is justified by the Koran because it is defensive in nature. Last October, 26 clerics in Saudi Arabia said it was the duty of every Muslim to go and fight in Iraq.

''These are people who did not get training in Pakistan or Chechnya, [and they] ended up going to Iraq because they considered defending Iraq a must for every Muslim to go and fight," said Rita Katz, director of the Search for International Terrorist Entities Institute in Washington and an Iraq native.

One indication that a heightened degree of Arab solidarity is a leading factor is that they are almost entirely Arabs and not Muslims from other countries, such as those who volunteered to fight in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya. Another motivation, the studies and analysts contend, is the centuries-old struggle between the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam. All the foreign fighters are Sunnis, according to the analyses, and many of their targets are Iraq's majority Shia Muslims, who have gained political power in Baghdad for the first time in hundreds of years.

Ali Alyami, director of the Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia, said he believes the deep-seated Sunni-Shia rift among the world's 1.2 billion Muslims -- about 1 billion of them Sunni -- best explains the foreign-fighter phenomenon. He noted in an interview that US policy makers do not seem to grasp the historic conflicts within Islam that are playing out in the war in Iraq.

''To say we must fight them in Baghdad so we don't have to fight them in Boston implies there is a finite number of people, and if you pen them up in Iraq you can kill them all," said Bergen. ''The truth is we increased the pool by what we did in Iraq."

Intelligence officials worry that some of ''Iraq alumni" will use the relationships they build on the battlefields of Iraq and return to their home countries as hardened Islamic terrorists.

The CIA's National Intelligence Council concluded in a report earlier this year that ''Iraq and other possible conflicts in the future could provide recruitment, training grounds, technical skills, and language proficiency for a new class of terrorists who are 'professionalized' and for whom political violence becomes an end in itself."

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2005/07/17/study_cites_seeds_of_terror_in_iraq/?page=3


2.??Terrorists would not run rampant in Iraq.

No, instead they would be running Iraq and the people of the country would have NO hope to be free of governmental opression.

I did not say Iraq would be better off, read the post that started this.


War isn't pretty, nor is it precise, nor is it compartmental.??This point is a what-if that neither of us could argue as it might or might not have made a dent in what is going on in Afghanistan right now.??It is my belief that this kind of thinking is fueled by the american media and its incessant effort to discredit the war on terror.

I'm glad you weren't running things in the 60's and 70's. We might have invaded thailand during the vietnam war.

You should do some reading on the battles of WWII, the media driven expectation of perfection and wiping out resistance is a pipe-dream.??Today's media would say that the allies in WWII failed in their assigned task because odessa aided numerous Nazis in their flight from justice.


As karl rove said, you have a pre-9/11 world view. You don't understand the difference between nations and stateless enemies. It doesn't make you anti-american, just wrong.

I really love that statement he made.

[BoogyMan]

WASHINGTON -- New investigations by the Saudi Arabian government and an Israeli think tank -- both of which painstakingly analyzed the backgrounds and motivations of hundreds of foreigners entering Iraq to fight the United States -- have found that the vast majority of these foreign fighters are not former terrorists and became radicalized by the war itself.

The studies, which together constitute the most detailed picture available of foreign fighters, cast serious doubt on President Bush's claim that those responsible for some of the worst violence are terrorists who seized on the opportunity to make Iraq the ''central front" in a battle against the United States.

''The terrorists know that the outcome [in Iraq] will leave them emboldened or defeated," Bush said in his nationally televised address on the war at Fort Bragg in North Carolina last month. ''So they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction." The US military is fighting the terrorists in Iraq, he repeated this month, ''so we do not have to face them here at home."

However, interrogations of nearly 300 Saudis captured while trying to sneak into Iraq and case studies of more than three dozen others who blew themselves up in suicide attacks show that most were heeding the calls from clerics and activists to drive infidels out of Arab land, according to a study by Saudi investigator Nawaf Obaid, a US-trained analyst who was commissioned by the Saudi government and given access to Saudi officials and intelligence.

A separate Israeli analysis of 154 foreign fighters compiled by a leading terrorism researcher found that despite the presence of some senior Al Qaeda operatives who are organizing the volunteers, ''the vast majority of [non-Iraqi] Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activity prior to their arrival in Iraq."

''Only a few were involved in past Islamic insurgencies in Afghanistan, Bosnia, or Chechnya," the Israeli study says. Out of the 154 fighters analyzed, only a handful had past associations with terrorism, including six who had fathers who fought the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, said the report, compiled by the Global Research in International Affairs Center in Herzliya, Israel.

American intelligence officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, and terrorism specialists paint a similar portrait of the suicide bombers wreaking havoc in Iraq: Prior to the Iraq war, they were not Islamic extremists seeking to attack the United States, as Al Qaeda did four years ago, but are part of a new generation of terrorists responding to calls to defend their fellow Muslims from ''crusaders" and ''infidels."

''The president is right that Iraq is a main front in the war on terrorism, but this is a front we created," said Peter Bergen, a terrorism specialist at the nonpartisan New America Foundation, a Washington think tank.

Foreign militants make up only a small percentage of the insurgents fighting in Iraq, as little as 10 percent, according to US military and intelligence officials. The top general in Iraq said late last month that about 600 foreign fighters have been captured or killed by coalition forces since the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections. The wider insurgency, numbering in the tens of thousands, is believed to consist of former Iraqi soldiers, Saddam Hussein loyalists, and members of Iraq's Sunni Muslim minority.

But the impact of the foreign fighters has been enormous. They are blamed for the almost daily suicide attacks against US and Iraqi forces and have killed thousands of civilians, mostly members of Iraq's Shia Muslim majority. Their exploits have been responsible for much of the headline-grabbing carnage recently, contributing to the slide in American public support for the war.

There have been nearly 500 car bombings since the US-led coalition handed over sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government one year ago, US military statistics indicate. In the last two months, car bombs and suicide attacks have killed nearly 1,400 people, according to the Associated Press.

Bush has cited foreign fighters as a reason for continued US military operations in Iraq. His argument, repeated often, is that ''the world's terrorists" have chosen to make their stand in Iraq.

''Some may disagree with my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world's terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror," Bush said in a radio address last month.

Foreign fighters were found to be like Saud Bin Muhammad Bin Saud Al-Fuhaid, according to Obaid's research, to be published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington this summer. Described as in his early 20s, Fuhaid blew himself up March 24, three days after he entered Iraq from Syria, according to newspaper accounts and interviews with his family.

Obaid found little evidence Fuhaid was an extremist before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Like many of the young men from Saudi Arabia who make up the majority of the foreign fighters, the student at Imam University in western Riyadh was not initially a radical jihadist, according to information gleaned from Saudi newspaper accounts and intelligence operations. In fact, he apparently almost changed his mind.

Fuhaid is believed to have traveled through Syria to fight in Iraq, but once he arrived told his family he would be coming home instead, according to a death notice published in Saudi newspapers and posted on the Internet. ''However, during that time he met some friends of his who were going to Iraq and told him they were going to declare Jihad with their brothers in Iraq," the celebratory announcement said. ''It was at that moment that our martyr changed his mind and told them that he will go back to Iraq with them and called his parents to tell him he won't be going home."

Obaid said in an interview from London that his Saudi study found that ''the largest group is young kids who saw the images [of the war] on TV and are reading the stuff on the Internet. Or they see the name of a cousin on the list or a guy who belongs to their tribe, and they feel a responsibility to go."

Other fighters, who are coming to Iraq from across the Middle East and North Africa, are older, in their late 20s or 30s, and have families, according to the two investigations. ''The vast majority of them had nothing to do with Al Qaeda before Sept. 11th and have nothing to do with Al Qaeda today," said Reuven Paz, author of the Israeli study. ''I am not sure the American public is really aware of the enormous influence of the war in Iraq, not just on Islamists but the entire Arab world."

Case studies of foreign fighters indicated they considered the Iraq war an attack on the Muslim religion and Arab culture, Paz said.

For example, while the unprovoked attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were largely condemned by clerics as violations of Muslim law, many religious leaders in Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations have promulgated fatwas, or religious edicts, saying that waging jihad in Iraq is justified by the Koran because it is defensive in nature. Last October, 26 clerics in Saudi Arabia said it was the duty of every Muslim to go and fight in Iraq.

''These are people who did not get training in Pakistan or Chechnya, [and they] ended up going to Iraq because they considered defending Iraq a must for every Muslim to go and fight," said Rita Katz, director of the Search for International Terrorist Entities Institute in Washington and an Iraq native.

One indication that a heightened degree of Arab solidarity is a leading factor is that they are almost entirely Arabs and not Muslims from other countries, such as those who volunteered to fight in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya. Another motivation, the studies and analysts contend, is the centuries-old struggle between the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam. All the foreign fighters are Sunnis, according to the analyses, and many of their targets are Iraq's majority Shia Muslims, who have gained political power in Baghdad for the first time in hundreds of years.

Ali Alyami, director of the Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia, said he believes the deep-seated Sunni-Shia rift among the world's 1.2 billion Muslims -- about 1 billion of them Sunni -- best explains the foreign-fighter phenomenon. He noted in an interview that US policy makers do not seem to grasp the historic conflicts within Islam that are playing out in the war in Iraq.

''To say we must fight them in Baghdad so we don't have to fight them in Boston implies there is a finite number of people, and if you pen them up in Iraq you can kill them all," said Bergen. ''The truth is we increased the pool by what we did in Iraq."

Intelligence officials worry that some of ''Iraq alumni" will use the relationships they build on the battlefields of Iraq and return to their home countries as hardened Islamic terrorists.

The CIA's National Intelligence Council concluded in a report earlier this year that ''Iraq and other possible conflicts in the future could provide recruitment, training grounds, technical skills, and language proficiency for a new class of terrorists who are 'professionalized' and for whom political violence becomes an end in itself."

I can post articles that cast doubt on this theory just as you could probably post articles that support the theory.??One point I want to query you on is just how do these people know that someone is a radical at heart???How do you do character profiles on foreign fighters???I find this very interesting and would like to see how it was done. Your posting though, assumes that these people didn't hate us before Iraq.


I did not say Iraq would be better off, read the post that started this.


No, you stated as proof that the world would be better off that "Terrorists would not run rampant in Iraq," and I simply pointed out that your were right.??They wouldn't be running rampant they would be running the country.??With your commentary on this point I am struggling to get why you even posted it as proof of your original premise that the world would be better off?

I'm glad you weren't running things in the 60's and 70's.??We might have invaded thailand during the vietnam war.

This is relevant to the point made in what way?

As karl rove said, you have a pre-9/11 world view. You don't understand the difference between nations and stateless enemies.??It doesn't make you anti-american, just wrong.

I really love that statement he made.


Once again, this is germain how???You honestly dont see the radical governments of the Middle East as cooperative?

[AlonzoMourning23]

I can post articles that cast doubt on this theory just as you could probably post articles that support the theory.??One point I want to query you on is just how do these people know that someone is a radical at heart???How do you do character profiles on foreign fighters???I find this very interesting and would like to see how it was done.??Your posting though, assumes that these people didn't hate us before Iraq.

I oppose Israel, yet I don't advocate killing Israeli's or attacking Israel. There are degrees to every opinion.

But the Saudi Arabian government, the CIA, and an Israeli think tank seem to support my opinion.

No, you stated as proof that the world would be better off that "Terrorists would not run rampant in Iraq," and I simply pointed out that your were right.??They wouldn't be running rampant they would be running the country.??With your commentary on this point I am struggling to get why you even posted it as proof of your original premise that the world would be better off?

That was a debate point, I don't state my personal view and hold that as proof.


This is relevant to the point made in what way?

About as much as pre-invasion Iraq was to the war on terror.




Once again, this is germain how???You honestly dont see the radical governments of the Middle East as cooperative?


You're trying to suggest that the enemy we fought in WW2 is the same type of enemy, or at least requires the same type of warfare, that we fight today. It makes no sense.

[BoogyMan]

That was a debate point, I don't state my personal view and hold that as proof.
[quote]

This makes no sense whatsoever!

[quote=alonzomourning23]You're trying to suggest that the enemy we fought in WW2 is the same type of enemy, or at least requires the same type of warfare, that we fight today. It makes no sense.


That is not what I am saying, I am saying that warfare doesn't change and was making a point about what would have been said by the todays media about the effectiveness of odessa and how it would affect public opinion.

The rest of that was your reading something into my commentary that isnt there.

[AlonzoMourning23]

This makes no sense whatsoever!

It made sense when you misread your post. I thought you were saying that I ran off a point about iraq and terrorism and claimed it was proof of something.

[BoogyMan]

This makes no sense whatsoever!

It made sense when you misread your post. I thought you were saying that I ran off a point about iraq and terrorism and claimed it was proof of something.




I hate it when that happens. :)

[Rider]

Rockefeller is just carrying out the scorched earth plan. Either Bush hasn't done anything to stop the terrorists, or if he has, he is just making them mad at us. Get it?
Do you suppose that many Republicans excoriated Roosevelt for enraging the arab street when we invaded North Africa during WWII? I am so sick of their traitorous behavior. They have no shame, none at all. They are endangering our troops and know it, but they don't care. All they want is to regain political power. If the US has to lose a war, so be it.

[lily]

They have no shame, none at all. They are endangering our troops and know it, but they don't care. All they want is to regain political power. If the US has to lose a war, so be it.

I have to laugh everytime I read this. Anyone that doesn't walk in lockstep, or agree %100 with the way things are going, or talk about how wrong the intel is, or dare say anything against this administration....right down to how you vote, is endangering our troops and are loosing the war and are traitors.:rolleyes:

[Rider]

Lily wrote- I have to laugh everytime I read this. Anyone that doesn't walk in lockstep, or agree %100 with the way things are going, or talk about how wrong the intel is, or dare say anything against this administration....right down to how you vote, is endangering our troops and are loosing the war and are traitors.
No Lily, everyone has a right to his or her opinion and the right to voice that opinion. But Rockefeller is a part of something much larger and more dangerous. It is a well orchestrated, multi-million dollar campaign to undermine the public's confidence in our leadership and our ability to win this war. That's not free expression, that's sedition.
So go ahead and yuck it up. When the Democrats take control of the government again I think they'll take the smile right off your face, Lily.