Sen.: Iraq Would Be Better With Saddam

[ECH1969]

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.

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.V.), 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.'"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/09/eveningnews/main1990644.shtml

[CollegeDUer]

1. OK, your vote was wrong, good you admit that, but you'd better go to jail

Anyone who helped authorize the war had better be imprisoned.

[Renew Deal]

3. Get a grip

Like you have never believed someones lie before.

[ECH1969]

5. Kerry and these guys supported the war because it was popular at the time

I don't at all buy they were mislead, because I in the middle of nowhere was listening to the crap Bush spewed and laughed at it.

[Renew Deal]

6. So they should go to jail?

:shrug:

[ECH1969]

9. I never said that

[Renew Deal]

11. I am asking

Because that's what the poster above is suggesting. Do you agree with him/her?

[Tesha]

39. Actually, bringing War Crimes charges against *A LOT* of our leaders...

Actually, bringing War Crimes charges against *A LOT* of our "leaders"
might clarify for them (the next time) what, exactly, it means to lead
a country into an illegal war.

I don't know if Jay Rockefeller should be on the list or not, but I
think a lot of the Executive branch certainly should be handed over
for trial in the Hague.

Tesha

[CollegeDUer]

12. Yes, criminals deserve punishment

I believe in a thing called personal responsibility. They don't get forgiven because they are politicians.

[Renew Deal]

32. Which laws were broken?

[ronnie624]

34. Perhaps these links will aid you

in determining which laws were broken.

<http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm>

<http://www.globelaw.com/Iraq/Preventive_war_after_iraq.htm>

While imprisoning most of congress is obviously not feasible, those who aided and abetted in the crimes against the Iraqi people deserve just that. To deny it is folly.

And I will not allow them the the luxury of pleading ignorance. I monitored this website regularly throughout 2002 and 2003 with a $75 computer using Windows 95, and I was not even close to being fooled by the propaganda that paved the way to consent for war crimes. Am I to now accept that a U.S. Senator, John Rockefeller no less, a ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was so easily bamboozled? I could not possibly believe it.

Despite the lies we may choose to tell ourselves in order to avoid responsibility for our government's crimes against humanity, sooner or later they must be replaced by honesty if we are to ever even hope of replacing the current neo-fascist regime with one that is based on a concept of genuine democracy. Such honesty, I think, would also go a long way toward mending the rifts between the U.S. and other nations, thus paving the way for the intensive international co-operation that will be required in order to meet the challenges that will face all of humanity in the coming decades.

[unschooler]

19. True, but it was extremely difficult for a politician to say that w/o hard

evidence that Bush was lying. We all knew his "evidence" didn't pass the smell test, but standing on the floor of the Senate and voting against 90% of your West Virginia constituents w/o proof of the lies would have been damned tough.

That's why Congress "authorized" the president to use force if necessary rather than out-and-out declaring war. They were going along w/ the White House AND their constituents while washing their hands of responsibility when the truth came out and in case public opinion changed. The administration said "trust us," and the Congress said "it's your decision - you take the heat."

Gutless, yes. Understandable at the time, somewhat.

[karynnj]

42. The administration at the time was saying it was not a vote for war

The country was NOT taken to war in Oct 2002 with the IWR, the country was taken to war in March 2003, AFTER the inspectors were in Iraq for the first time in 4 years. Placing the blame on the IWR ignores the fact that Bush broke every promise he made to get those votes. It also ignores that the Downing Street Memos make clear that Bush was lying - the decision was already made before the resolution was even written. (It also meant that he changes that he agreed to as compromises - which meant something to those negotiating with him - were not mad in good faith.)

Note that even when Senator Rockefellow is putting this out - he is not mentioning that it does NOT contain all the material promised as part of Phase 2 - the big thing left out is whether the administration manipulated the dats.

[karynnj]

41. Kerry DID NOT SUPPORT THE WAR

He voted to give the President leverage to get the inspectors back into Iraq after 4 years. He said this in his speech in the Senate. Kerry and others negotiated many changes that had Bush followed what he PUBLICLY said he intended to do should have avoided war. The problem the entire Congress faced was the CIC has the power to go to battle if he determines the US is threatened. (Congress has the power to declare war, but recent history shows few of our wars were declared. Clinton successfully participated in wars without going to Congress, adding to the many earlier precedents.)

Kerry has said that he was wrong to have trusted Bush and he has said his vote was wrong. I have seen Kerry speak about this war many times - if there is one person who voted for the IWR who I believe 100% is being honest on this it is Kerry. The record is there - look at the floor speech and his 2003 comments.

If it was "political", why did he speak AGAINST going to war in Jan 2003 before the invasion. Why was he one of the few strong voices against the invasion at the point it happened - when he called for regime change at home - at a point where the war was favored by over 70% of the country.

What you are saying may have been true for others, but it isn't for Kerry. Your view is a residual effect of both the LW and the RW distorting his position.

[ronnie624]

28. CollegeDUer is correct.

No one in possession of a healthy skepticism and an interest in reliable sources of information, such as those available at this very website, was fooled by the lies of the Bush administration. A U.S. Senator cannot possibly offer a plausible excuse for believing Bush and his vile minions.

[karynnj]

44. Not true

You could reject something because you thought it unlikely. What if you thought that there was a 1% chance of it being accurate. You could easily go with the 99% chance of being right by rejecting it. Senator Kerry has spoken of having been told there was a chance that Saddam had WMD by Republicans and Democrats who he trusted. The vote was to push Saddam to get the inspectors in. In his Senate speech, he does not state that Saddam definately had WMD, but that the possibility existed and that we needed to insure it was not the case.

My husband, daughters and I marched against the war in January(DC) and February(NYC)in 2003. I do not consider what we did to be more anti-war than Senator Kerry's high profile comments in the same time period. The Clintons were silent at that point.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CollegeDUer]

13. But it does believe in internationl law

Those who approve wars of aggression are criminals. It's not hard to say.

[jaysunb]

15. and you are correct.

n/t

[ronnie624]

29. And you say it well.

We gain nothing by perpetuating the belief that politicians who operate unethically and illegally within our government are somehow entitled to do so with impunity.

Those who supported and enabled the invasion, destruction and pillaging of Iraq are guilty of crimes against humanity. Of course no U.S. Senator will ever pay any price for these crimes, to say nothing of time in prison, but that does not mean the truth should not be spoken at every opportunity.

Regardless of what others may say on this thread, you have my respect for speaking truth.

[SquireJons]

30. It wasn't' sold as a war of aggression

It was sold as a response to an attack on American soil. Members of Congress had a responsibility to make a response. I personally think the response was wrong and thought so at the time, but voting for military action under the post 9-11 circumstances was not criminal, based on the information that the administration gave Congress. The criminal behavior was on the part of Cheney and Bush. They were the ones who lied to Congress and the American people. Congress just voted on an extremely emotional issue based on the information that was at hand.

While I don't think members of Congress acted in a criminal manner, I do think that most of them were cowards. They were afraid to ask hard questions of the administration and just swallowed large amounts of BS without thinking about the consequences. They did this mainly because they were afraid of voter backlash. That's a shame because if they had acted with principles back then, they wouldn't have to play word games now, and would have the firm backing of a solid majority of Americans today. Anyone who voted for a preemptive war should be voted out of office, but not imprisoned. That honor should be reserved for those who planned this disaster.

[951-Riverside]

16. Yes all of those who were full aware of their actions should be jailed

If someone is holding that high position and elects to vote away people lives because its POPULAR is a scum bag and should resign.

[geek tragedy]

33. Shall we imprison everyone who voted for Bush too, comrade? eom

[cali]

36. Oh, please

what a disgusting and sanctimonious remark. I'll always hold a bit of a grudge against those who voted for the IWR but some of them are decent people who made a mistake. Jail? Ridiculous. Just love that purge mentality.

[Jed Dilligan]

43. Oh yeah,

Being a "decent person who made a mistake" goes over really well in criminal court for non-politicians.

:sarcasm:

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. What specific law did he break?

:shrug:

[liberalpragmatist]

2. Yes - Obviously!

I am shedding no tears for Saddam Hussein who was a brutal, militaristic dictator (spawning two disastrous wars - Iran and Kuwait). And yes, in theory the Iraqi people would be better off without him. But the possibility exists that the situation could be WORSE than if Saddam were in power, and frankly, that's exactly what we've got today.

So yes, the U.S. and, I'd argue, the long-suffering Iraqi people, would have been better off with Saddam Hussein in power. Guess I just hate freedom.

[leesa]

8. They never asked us to remove Saddam, just to end the sanctions.

[lumpy]

26. Maybe Saddam was

a prince compared to the lying warmongers running our country. i think Bushco's death toll has probably surpassed Saddam's by now.

[leesa]

7. And now they need to make certain that the guy who lied to Congress to

start a war is punished for that action.

[llmart]

10. Yes, and then he should call for impeachment............

if he's genuinely sincere.

[jaysunb]

14. It would be !

there's no doubt about that.
And don't believe all that shit about "mass graves" popping up every few months. We've been spoon fed and conditioned to believe whatever bullshit we're presented with...over and over til it's true. :evilfrown:

[scarletwoman]

17. This is a courageous man! I saw that broadcast.

He's absolutely right. Plenty of other countries have evolved from within to eventually overthrow their totalitarian governments -- look at Poland and Romania and the collapse of the entire Soviet Union. Look at Argentina and Chile and South Africa. There are plenty of examples of countries whose people eventually freed themselves from dictatorships and oppressive rulers -- sometimes even in SPITE of U.S. interference in their domestic politics (like Chile, for example).

Iraq, for all the totalitarianism of the Saddam regime, was largely a steadily modernizing (at least until the punishing and egregious sanctions imposed by the West) and secular state with a solid professional class, an educated populace, and greater rights for women than any other Middle Eastern country.

Thanks to our invasion, the forces of reactionary fundamentalism have been unleashed. The educated and professional classes are fleeing the chaos, women's rights are being reduced by leaps and bounds -- no women were forced to wear the veil if they didn't want to under Saddam, now they must, for fear of their very lives -- and there was relative stability. As long as a person's activities didn't threaten Saddam's regime, they were free to go about their lives.

I'm not discounting or minimizing the abuses of the regime's police state, but -- just as in the old Soviet Union -- people generally knew what to do to avoid running afoul of it.

Instead of invading and destroying, we could have given monetary support to their universities, encouraged foreign exchange student programs, sent assistance to their medical facilities, and encouraged all manner of cultural exchange.

It was blue jeans and rock'n'roll that contributed the greater part to the Soviet state's weakening hold on its citizens -- much more so than the "weapons race". It was the old America's creativity and cultural freedom that truly won the Cold War.

We have lost that old America, and now we are destroying other countries. Saddam would have eventually faded away, without having EVER posed a threat to the U.S. And the people of Iraq, given exposure over time to the values that we used to exhibit, would have had the opportunity to evolve their country on their own, without hundreds of thousands of them dying for the deluded and evil fantasies of the neocons.

sw

[angryxyouth]

18. Nobody ever approved the US to go to war.

* was given the power to use military force as a last resort if the UN failed to make headway with Iraq."Big stick policy". There has never been a declaration of war. Only Congress can declare war. Every time * opens his mouth about us being at war he is substantiating the fact that he has illegally usurped power from Congress and pissed on the constitution. This administration needs to held accountable. I just pray that there are enough legitimate voting machines in Nov.:rant:

[Phrogman]

21. You're exactly right, the feeling at the time was everyone supported the

Presidents threats in order to show Saddam that America was united, nobody with any sense thought * would actually "invade"

[angryxyouth]

25. nobody with any sense thought * would actually "invade"

Then we should start voting for the senseless. If what these politicians have is sense, I think we could do without it.:banghead:

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. US to Saddam: Do OVER!

[Tom Joad]

22. Bush never fooled me, but i know Senators are mentally handicapped.

and don't know their right hand from their ass. (which makes for embarrassing moments at dinner, btw)

While Rock was voting for the war, many (millions of us) of us were on the streets protesting against it already.
Bush should be incarcerated. anyone who says he is sorry he voted to support Bush's resolution should be allowed to simply resign and not be persecuted.

[teryang]

23. No brains or just cynical?

I can't believe that Kerry or Rockefeller are that stupid. They check the political wind before they make a decision or even a statement on a "patriotic" issue.

I knew WMD was a pile of bs from day one. WMD indeed. The expression itself is madison avenue "framing the issue" crap to begin with. Nobody with any expertise corroborated those reports.

No guts is still the book on most dems. They all spout the same old national security bullcrap, trying to prove their bona fides, "we're strong on defense." But the truth is the patriot act sucks. Homeland security sucks. The war on terror is a fraud. The 911 commision is a fraud. Proving their tough on national defense is the wrong way to go IMHO.

This next election is about war and peace and rebuilding the ruined economy.

Rebuilding the national infrastructure. Bringing industry back to the US. Providing an equitable tax system and balanced budget. If you don't pay federal taxes, you cant sell your goods here. Fix the health care crisis? Stop screwing the middle class. Bring the troops home and stop the stupid sabre rattling for defense contractors and energy companies.

On the other hand, let the repukes start another war. Maybe after millions of dead, Americans will wake up.

[Tom Joad]

24. After the next war, may be no one left.

[lumpy]

27. The damned politicians spend too

much time thinking about the next campaign, hobnobbing, glad handing, partying, 'playing' around, photo oping, cutting deals, feathering their nests, their egos and all that good stuff. Mostly it is not a vocation with them but a way to climb the ladder of 'success'. Brains turn to mush and narcissism takes over.

[cali]

37. Senators are mentally handicapped?

If you'll remember 22 senators voted against the IWR, and many made eloquent and prescient speeches prior to the vote. Try reading what Leahy and Byrd said, and you might change your mind about the blanket statement you made. And it's up to the electorate to decide whether to retain a Senator. I see no reason why Kerry or Rockefeller should resign, angry as I still am about their respective votes.

[FormerOstrich]

31. I agree with those that

aren't willing to give the Senators a free pass.

Before the invasion, the facts were available. If an under-employed Software Engineer in Arizona was able to obtain the information, process it, and recognize that the invasion was based on nothing but lies, then the Senators damn will could have.

The comments about "not being able to prove" they were lies. That is incorrect. There was plenty of hard sources. As someone mentioned above, it was all available on DU.

Plus, our Senators received thousands of letters explaining it to them. I distinctly remember one Senator holding up a huge stack of letters saying these are constituents that oppose. Then they held up what looked like two sheets of paper and said these are the ones that favor.

The distinction between "authorizing" * and voting for war doesn't wash either. It seemed very clear to me, other DU'ers, and other Nations that authorizing * made it a done deal. However, I think he would have proceeded without the vote, but of course we will never know.

Personally, I don't believe it was what was popular with the constituents. It's whatever "hold" that Bush has obviously got on them (be it anthrax threats, youthful indiscretions, or some other fear).

The day they voted to authorize * was the darkest day I have ever known. When I heard the results, I vomited. I remember every detail of that day...much better than 9/11. It was a life altering event for me. A few of them have tried to correct the error of their ways but none of them have came completely clean on it, yet

[sofa king]

35. I guess that's what drove Cheney out from under his rock.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15490349.htm

Cheney: World is better off with Saddam out of power

"The fact is, the world is better off today with Saddam Hussein out of power," Cheney said. "Think where we'd be if he was still there."

Of course, to the reality-based American, this statement is demonstrably untrue. The war in Afghanistan is also still ongoing because the Bush Administration diverted SOCOM troops from there to Iraq. Many Americans at home are suffering from the equivalent of a pay decrease because of the rise in oil costs which have arisen from the virtual shutdown of the Iraqi oil industry. Turkey, Kuwait, Jordan and Saudi Arabia have experienced increases in internal unrest, insurgency, and terrorism. Terrorists and guerrillas worldwide now have an excellent opportunity to train and to develop tactics against the American military in the field in Iraq, and for the first time nations which actually do support terrorists are separated from American troops only by a porous and effectively unguarded border.

We have fewer troops and less force to counter more threats with less oil and less diplomatic support. Within a couple of years, some bright and determined paramilitaries are going to successfully knock out oil facilities in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, demand will immediately outstrip supply, and the world will tailspin into a global recession if we're lucky and a depression if not.

All thanks to the fact that Saddam is out of power.

[moondust]

40. Well, Iraqis wouldn't be killing each other in droves.

About 160,000 or more of them would not have died violent deaths.

Iran would probably not be flexing its muscles and gaining massive new influence in the region or looking forward to its impending merger with Iraq.

Probably few Iraqis would be in trouble with Saddam as long as they didn't openly cross him, something most of them not affiliated with Chalabi could have endured until legitimate change presented itself.

They'd have electricity and air conditioning.

So yeah, I think you could safely say that Iraq would be better off today with Saddam...