Sept. 10, 2006
Rice-Cheney Bash Rockefeller Comments
White House Refutes Senator's Claim That Saddam Was Not A Terror Threat
-
Play CBS Video Video Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice talks to "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer about the CIA's secret prisons and the Senate report that found no link between Iraq and al Qaeda.
-
Video Sen. Charles Schumer Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., discusses the situation in Iraq as well as the current state of the Department of Homeland Security.
-
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called comments by Sen. John D. Rockefeller, that Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the United States, "odd," Sunday Sept. 10, 2006. (AP Photo/Pedro Ugarte)
-
Interactive Iraq: 4 Years Later The conflict wears on as the nation struggles to rebuild.
-
Who's Who Iraq Insurgency More on the militant groups behind the insurgency in Iraq and their motivations.
"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," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on CBS's Face The Nation, adding, "It's simply ahistorical.
In an exclusive interview with CBS News, Sen. John D. Rockefeller, D-W.Va., not only pointedly questioned the necessity of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, but went a step further in his criticism, telling CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power.
"It's called the war on terror," Rockefeller said. "He 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."Read Sen. Rockefeller's comments in Sharyl Attkisson's CBS Evening News report.
Both Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney questioned Rockefeller's stance that Hussein was boxed in by enemies.
"The notion that, somehow, someone who had caused more than a million deaths in the Iran-Iraq war, someone who had invaded Kuwait, and we believe, was probably on his way to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, somebody who threatened his neighbors every day, who shot at our aircraft, who had broken out of an embargo and was using his oil wealth to build up an arsenal of weapons, that this is not a threat, in the world's most volatile region — I just think it's very, frankly, odd analysis," Rice said.
While admitting that Iraqi insurgents have prolonged the war in ways the United States did not anticipate, Cheney agreed with Rice.
"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," Cheney said on NBC's Meet The Press.
Rockefeller's comments followed the release of recently declassified documents on prewar intelligence by the Senate Intelligence Committee Friday.
The reports provided by Democrats disclosed for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war, Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates."
Rockefeller, who is the committee's top Democrat, said the Bush administration's push for war, "exploited the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, leading a large majority of Americans to believe — contrary to the intelligence assessments at the time — that Iraq had a role in the 9/11 attacks."
Other prominent Democrats said they supported Rockefeller's criticism of the president, but were not quite as strident in their remarks.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, who also appeared on Face The Nation, told Bob Schieffer his stance was "somewhere in the middle" of Rockefeller and Rice's opinions.
"It was a good thing to get rid of him. He was a brutal dictator," the New York Democrat said of Hussein. "But the problem is that once Saddam was gone, this administration had no plan as to what to do next.
"And right now, we're in a quagmire in Iraq because it seems to be devolving into a civil war. We're policing the civil war," Schumer said.
"I mean, look, we're all delighted that Saddam Hussein is gone," Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said on CNN. "But in the larger context of our foreign policy and interests in the region, the fact is that they have made a mess of the policy in Iraq."
©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Michelle Obama tells how her role as the First Lady has changed her perspective.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 27 CommentsA: Incarceration.
Bush "security" policies have turned your favorite neighbor into Bubba, your cellmate. Enjoy your security.
Props to CBS for the quote you picked, that of V.P. Cheney:
"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."
Questions for Cheney:
1. On your watch genocide was happening in Africa, and Osama bin Laden was getting away. Was your sending the US military to Iraq really to make the world a better place?
If so, then why did you pick Iraq when there were far more important regions of Earth that we could have made "better".
2. I have thought of where WE would be if Saddam were still in power.
Would thousands of US service men and women and many more thousands of civilians of Iraq, be alive today?
Would Saddam still be under the close watch of the UN and our various intelligence collecting offices?
Would HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of our tax dollars still available for use in our schools, police, Medicare, social security, roads, and research that could truly "better" our lives?
Shame on *** Cheney for his lack of imagination, his cursory performance as a leader and his willful ignorance when adapting policies that effect the lives of every American.
"The notion that, somehow, someone who had caused more than a million deaths in the Iran-Iraq war, someone who had invaded Kuwait, ....... who had broken out of an embargo and was using his oil wealth to build up an arsenal of weapons, that this is not a threat, .... I just think it's very, frankly, odd analysis,"
RICE! Hear me out RICE!....millions die in war, especially one where the USA supplies TONS of weapons to BOTH sides. RICE! You don't really think that Saddam thought he could get away with attacking a neighboring country without having to go through another "Desert Storm"? I think you have let politics affect your intelligence. The more foolish analogies I hear from you the less I respect you. QUIT! Get out of there! Don't let your young progressive mind be tainted anymore by the cursory people you are forced to surround yourself with everyday. PLEASE!
The funding of terrorism from Iraq is probably insignificant compared to the money coming from Saoudi Arabia or Dubai.
Why ? Because of the Lewinski mess ...
This among other reasons gave more power to terrorists and they won the 2000 elections (well, sort of). With a democratic president in charge, instead of Bush, 911 would not have happened ... just like when Kennedy stopped Operation Northwoods.
'Despite what they claim, it has already been proved that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11'
But Saddam was supporting international terrorism. He was paying $25,000 to families of people who did suicide bombings in Israel. Abu Abbas,a known terrorist who planned the Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking,was found living in Baghdad after the invasion.
Iraq is part of the Middle East. The Middle East,as a region,has been waging a terror war against the United States since 1979. Which gives the United States the right to wage war on the Middle East.
military's power around the world. That catastrophe
was 9/11! Since Bush and the Bush Baddies stole the
election in 2000, our civil liberties as well as the
world's safety has never been worse. 9/11 needs to
be investigated by an independent commission so the
"real truth" about who murdered 3,000+ people can be
found out. They want nothing but power, and will stop at nothing to achieve it. Murder,lying,treason,
whatever it takes they will do. They need to be stopped and punished for the crimes against the people of America and the rest of the world.
Surrounding countries would have kept him hemmed in...with the UN actions. we would not be facing the national debt and fiscal breakdown of this country, thousands would not be dead or maimed America would still be the good guy to the rest of the world. Recently at a D.C press conference, reporter asked Bu$h what Iraq had to do with 9/11, Bush said, "NOTHING". "dead or alive" has flipflopped to "binLaden...I don't think much about him anymore"...
One of the worst things is he never cleaned up his room. He was a *horrible* dinner guest. He had the worst taste in music, and at the little get-togethers with Cheney and Rumfeld in the '80s he wore this really, really bad suit.
It was a great idea to try to kill him with a bunker buster bomb without a formal declaration of war. That is the kind of smooth, sophisticated, upscale move that Bush-Cheney so famous for. Those guys are great dinner guests, by the way, though I'd recommend going to kill birds for fun *before* the drinks not *after* the drinks, especially when Cheney is a little peeved at you. If he is a lot peeved at you, I recommend you find a really deep bunker, no, deeper than that.
But, you'll never meet a couple of smarter dudes than those, they knew in their hearts that they had to kill Saddam Hussein because the world would be better off for it. That was a genius stroke, well 100 years from now they will be like Lincoln, bigger than Lincoln, like Condi says. The genius plan is he will continue to kill everyone whose death will make "the world a better place" in fact that is everyone but him oddly enough. Like a few billion people, that will make the world less crowded, and therefore he will be "better off" with us all dead, eh. Condi's right, the dude really really is better than Lincoln. Smarter, too.
Why can't we admit to ourselves that we screwed up and need to change course? Why must we continue over the abyss?
When will others be more forceful in telling the king (and his obviously blind and nasty attendants) that he is really and truly naked!
Naked of a brain, naked of a vision.
Truth be told, Madman Hussein was doing a better job running Iraq, HIS COUNTRY!
We've partaken in the killing of far more people than Madman Hussein (including the wasting of American lives and health); we've totally wrecked Iraq, and sowed the seeds of insane islamic vengeance around the globe.
This administration attracts destruction to America and Americans (beginning with 911) like *** attracts flies.
Saddam kept his neighbors in check. But the illegal Iraq invasion has destabilized the region and pushed Iraq to civil war; it led to the slaughter of thousands of Iraqis, more than were killed by Saddam, but this time under the direction of Bush; it moved Iran, who had been warming to the U.S. before the invasion, to put into power a madman who wants nuclear capability and makes the U.N., the EU, and the U.S. look weak and impotent; it made Russia inch back toward totalitarianism to counter the U.S.' willingness to invade countries without provocation; it emboldened North Korea to proceed with its nuclear arms program that includes developing weapons of mass destruction that can hit the U.S.; and more importantly, it led to the needless deaths of nearly 2,700 precious men and woman who died in the Iraq war, who gave their lives for America's freedom even while Bush and his cronies have made inroads in denying Americans of more and more freedoms. What a disaster. And they have the nerve to say the world is safer with them in power, and then ride on that wave of fear to garner support for their war efforts.
"Yeah, were WOULD we be, let's see now... about 3,000 of our service people would still be ALIVE, untold thousands more would not be sitting home right now missing legs, arms, eyes or disfigured/incapacitated for life. We would not have squandered half a TRILLION dollars"
How do you know all these?
Afterall, Saddam was developing WMD. Can you prove that he never would have used it on American cities? And had he used WMD on American cities, do you think the cost to America would have been limited to half a TRILLION dollars, and 3,000 dead service men?
Think before you express your opinions.
I concur that the world is better off without Saddam in power. Again, think where we would be today with him in power, with his WMD program.
To say that Saddam wasn't a threat, is the same as saying Ahmadinajad is not a threat. That is just plain stupid.
--------------------
<a href="http://www.oasisoflove.com/">oasisoflove.com</a>
The fact is, liberals voted for Bush to invade Iraq. It's not as if the president just woke up one morning and began bombing Iraq. Liberals approved it then.
People often try to confuse everybody by saying Iraq has no ties to 9/11. So what? It doesn't have to. It's called "War on terror", not "war on 9/11 progenitors".
We all remember the battle the world went through with Saddam, where he refused to let weapons inspectors in to do their job. If he never had WMD, why didn't he let the inspectors in? It's the same game that Iran is playing with the world today.
Liberals are so desperate to regain power, that's why they keep holding on to the one lame argument about Iraq war being a mistake. Never mind that they sanctioned it.
----------------------
<a href="http://www.oasisoflove.com">http://www.oasisoflove.com</a>
The Clinton administration would not arrest, detain, torture or prosecute one (Osama bin Laden)who had not violated our laws at that time.
The Bush administration can't find bin Laden now that he has violated our laws and publicly admitted to those acts. However they feel free to Arrest, detain, torture but not prosecute (under our LAWS) anyone that might have even thought about committing such acts.
#5) The Clinton Administration had an anti-terrorist program in effect and functioning extremely well before Bush took over the White House, and it had thwarted numerous terrorist activities---in the United States. Don't any of you people have memories, or have you lost all of it to drug abuse? The first bombers of the WTC (or do you remember that?) are in prison NOW. Plots against the U.N. Building, the Israeli Embassy, Boston and Los Angeles airports (ever heard of the Millenium Plot?) and various tunnels and bridges were scuttled. It wasn't until Bush and his cronies assumed command that the anti-terrorist program was ignored---Bush needed a nine-month vacation after being elected, apparently---and then we got September 11th.
#6) The Cole was bombed in mid-October, 2000, and Bush took over in January. Instead of doing what Bush is without a doubt going to do---namely, hand over a war to the next guy to be elected---Clinton made the plans, and delivered them to Bush for implementation. And Bush, of course, went on vacation.
Facts come first, opinions come second. Stop blindly repeating the lies and gibberish you've been told to believe. Either research or shut up. No, you don't "have a right to an opinion," where is that written? You have, if anything, a right to an INFORMED opinion.
Yawn! Yeah, I know. Clinton sucks! Bush rules! You can't bruise a pillow, can't make much of a dent in a marshmallow. Sorry to disturb you. Go back to sleep, America.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 27 Comments