Sep 10 2006

Democrats Want Saddam Back?

Published by at 6:30 am under All General Discussions

What in the world are the Dems trying to prove? Yesterday Ohio Dem Senate cadidate Sherrod Brown made the claim that Iraq had become infested with Al Qaeda and become a training ground for them (supporting the ‘flypaper’ theory many of us said would be the result of US boots on the ground in Mesapotamia), Brown said the situation within Iraq, with all these terrorists, meant only one thing could be done – runaway. In showing EXACTLY how Democrats will run from the specter of Islamo-fascists, Sherrod Brown and other dems have decided to embrace their national security weaknesses, hoping all Americans are closet cowards.

Case in point, Sen Jay Rockefeller has come out and admitted the Democrats really prefer viscious, blood thirsty dictators to democratic governments in the ME.

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.”

“Naive” doesn’t do enough to explain this ridiculous mindset. Hussein was not contained – as the Oil For Food bribery program illustrated. And the intelligence in the Senate report, which ignored all the intelligence gathered from documents found in Iraq, clearly shows Saddam planning to attack the US through a program involving UAVs. Do I expect journalism majors to comprehend this threat? Not really. But they should have asked what is possible with UAVs.

Let me use an analogy to paint the picture. UAVs can be quite small and cheap – maybe a coulple thousand dollars to carry aloft 1 pound of payload. In a similar manner, BB’s are small and cheap metal objects that, when shot from a BB-gun using pumped up air, do very little damage.

Now we know BB’s are used in shotgun shells to do serious damage. When shot en masse with a lot of power behind them, the lowly BB becomes a horrible weapon. And so with UAVs. Simply imagine what 100’s of UAVs could do if loaded with a single pound of dynamite or C-4? With that capability all you need is a mass concentration of potential victims. On this eve of the NFL season it is not hard to put two and two together. What is irresponsible is a US Senator lying about the contents of his own report! Did Rockefeller READ the report?

Saddam Hussein was a serious threat because he had limitless revenues, had bribed enough people to acquire what he wanted, his emissaries had gone to Niger twice to discuss trade with a country that trades in only one product – uranium. And at a time the world’s leading nuclear weapons black marketeer, AQ Khan, was also in Niger (which doesn’t want a nukes, they have the uranium needed for Khan’s bombs). This is the world Rockefeller prefers over a democratic Iraq who is now our ally and whose military is now working with us to track down and kill terrorists (supposedly training in Iraq). The Dems are absolutely nuts right now. They are so incoherent it is staggering.

13 responses so far

13 Responses to “Democrats Want Saddam Back?”

  1. Terrye says:

    What about Afhganistan, should we leave there too? Doesn’t that make terrorists?

    The thing is it is easy for this moron to say something like this now knowing it is not going to happen but when push came to shove he voted for the war and what is more he voted for the Iraqi Liberation Act too if I remember correctly.

    They can put that on a bumper sticker. The Dictator Party. Vote for us, we will put monsters in power because they know how to settle down the rabble. And if you kiss their ass and do as you are told then maybe they will let you live.

  2. DaleinAtlanta says:

    AJ: Hi, look at this:

    Very little happens by mistake, or coincidence with the Jihadis!

    “Ghamen” is a family name will known to Bin Laden; it’s his mother’s Maiden name; and also the Maiden name of his First wife, since he married his First cousin, named Alia Ghanem, when he was 17 years old.

    Granted, his mother’s family was supposedly from Syria, and bin Laden is supposedly a “Saudi”, and this guy, is supposedly a “Yemeni”; but we know that Bin Laden is really of Yemeni/Hadramuti Blood, and I wouldn’t at all be surprised, if his mother’s and first wife’s family, though “Syrian”, originated either in Yemen, or in the Asir Province of Saudi, right north of Yemen, and for all intents and purposes, is a Yemeni “colony” within Saudi Arabia!

    I’m sure that DHS/FBI are looking into it, especially since the guy had a ONE WAY ticket to Yemen; but AJ, if you still have Active FBI contacts, point out the family name thing to them please!

    I recognized the “name” immediately; I hope they do!

  3. DaleinAtlanta says:

    AJ: Sorry, Alia Ghanem was Bin Laden’s mother, her neice, Najwa Ghanem was Bin Laden’s first wife!

  4. Terrye says:

    Well you know, Saddam ain’t dead yet, they can always lobby for his return to power. the morons.

  5. Ken says:

    Rockefeller is right. Saddam had the jihadists in check. Strata
    conveniently distorts Brown’s point,as do all the neocons,
    that US occupation in Iraq increases jihad ranks worldwide,exponentially, enough to have enough recruits to fight us both “there” and “here.” An exit would retard the growth
    markedly, leaked CIA reports have it.

    And Terrye’s “monster in power” indicts US interventionism at large for working with Saddam until he invaded Kuwait. Strata also conceals the fact the US provided Hussein with anthrax when he fought Iran. He might have rationalized it then;US strategy was to
    prolong an indecisive war between two oppoments of Israel.

    Oh, the blowback that probably still is to come for this nastiness!

  6. Terrye says:


    Rockefeller was right when? When he supported the war or now.

    The sanctions would be over now. We would not be flying the no fly zones because the SA base would be closed down. Saddam would be back in business filling mass graves and working on his weapons programs, flush with cash he stole from the UN. He would be bragging about how he faced down the world and nobody, not even George Bush had the guts to stand up to him and his people would not have elections or representatives, they would have the Butcher of Baghdad.

    You must really hate Bush if you want to see him fail so badly that you would wish this on Iraq and the your own country.

  7. Terrye says:


    No my monster in power remark simply points out that you have no new ideas, you belong to the bitch no matter what club. Bitch if we come, bitch if we go, bitch if we stand up for what is right, bitch if we don’t.

  8. pull says:

    We have never learned from the past, so it is no wonder that we are so stupid today.

    Let’s face facts… we, as a country, helped stave off the vicious North Korean attacks on South Korea. This aggressive, ruthless attack was done to instill athiest totalitarianism on a people finally free from decades of ruthless Imperialist Japanese rule. We went in there and helped them.

    We left Korea without winning. This was a bad trend starting.

    Our so-called “peace” movement of the baby boomers… which also brought us rampant adultery, the dissolution of the American family as we knew it, the drug epidemic, the AIDs epidemic, and many other national horrors… devestated Southeast Asia.

    Millions upon millions died when we pulled out and left South Vietnam high and dry to their ruthless invaders. This also allowed for Cambodia to fall, which created the climate for the worst, per capita, genocide to ever happen. And Southeast Asia was corroded in many other ways because of this “peace” movement, including the loss of Laos to Communism. Ever since this withdrawal totalitarianism has left its’ ominous mark on that area of the world.

    Yet, in America this “peace” movement has been seen as a victory for peace and justice.

    We never looked back.

    We never examined what we did as a country. We never challenged the “truth” of the way the hippies saw it.

    We never saw that this country has been deeply corroded from it was since the babyboomers took control.

    We have made some very grievous sins… such as celebrated rampant drug use, adultery, fornication, and other “virtues” which the hippies of the “peace” movement called “free love” and “freedom”. And we have not confronted that sour legacy, either.

    A whore or a thief is always a whore or thief until they admit what they were doing was wrong and they consider the consequences of what they did. We were a nation which did many horrible things… without shame… and we have idolized these horrible things as national “virtues”.

    Our entire moral system is perverted, deeply — for the Left.

    There is no rational debate ongoing. Let us not fool ourselves there.

  9. Ken says:

    Pull is largely correct about the state of our post-Christian nation,which non-interventionist Buchanan” has been indicted by liberals for saying also in the most politically effective way. It is inconceivable then that “Pull” would want us to impose Hollywood/New York immorality on the world through our post-Christian Empire.

    The “peace movement”did not lose Vietnam,the ruling class’
    failed war strategy did. Conservative MacArthur inveighed
    against a land war in Asia.

    Terrye seems to believe if Saddam was called a threat by a
    Democrat in 1999 it offsets what Scott Ritter and Hans Blix
    found and said in 2002-3. Blix in his book says Iraq was
    co-operating and that by the time of his last visit he was all but
    convinced Saddam had no WMDS. Blix indicts Bush for
    a pre-planned war. Conservative ex-Marine Ritter goes further, pointing out the CIA was using inspections to spy–against
    UN edict.

    The above DVD has on-camera responses by Powell and Rice
    THROUGHOUT 2001 (until 9/11) assuring reporters
    and the public that Saddam was contained, ineffectually
    weakend and harmlessly “in a box.” Were they lying
    before or after 9/11?

    If it is “looney” to believe Bush and Cheney lied, well over
    50% of the American public have become loons since the
    Kay report was released, polls consistently show.

    Those who claim “Bush One” was thwarted by Ted Kennedy
    to go in and take Saddam out should recall Bush warning
    of a Baghdad quagmire if he tried,and his buddy Brent
    Scowcroft tried to extricate Bush the second from the
    neocon web he had been lured into, Scowcroft having
    no success with disastrous results.

  10. The Macker says:

    Consistancy is not a virtue when you are consistantly wrong.

  11. Barbara says:

    I haven’t given Rockerfeller a pass on his actions before the start of the Iraq war. He was entirely too cosy with the Mid East powers. He actually betrayed this country and is probably guilty of the NSA leaks. He has long worked overtime to tear down this country. Therefore, I discount anything and everything he has to say. My respect for this man is nil.

  12. Nikolay says:

    Well, Dems only say that it would be better if Iraq was not invaded, (some) Reps what Saddam back now: