September 10, 2006

No Difference Between Democrats and Republicans? Think Again

Hatched by Dafydd

According to CBS News, Democratic Senator John D. "Jay" Rockefeller (D-WV, 100%) -- who has announced to the world that he's a dimwitted "dupe" of the idiot evil genius George W. Bush -- still thinks that we'd be better off if Saddam Hussein were still in charge of Iraq:

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.'" [Say, that's pretty hard to refute!]

Does Rockefeller stands [sic] by his view, even if it means that Saddam Hussein could still be in power if the United States didn't invade?

"Yes. 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."

It's almost as if Karl Rove has been sending his mind-control beam directly into Jay Rockefeller's head, the latter having forgotten to wear his tinfoil hat. Are the Democrats actually trying to lose the election? If so, I certainly don't want to get in their way; but isn't if awfully precipitous for Rockefeller to rip the mask off before November 7th?

And is Rockefeller the only bloke in the Senate who doesn't understand that if we hadn't invaded Iraq in 2003, then today, in 2006, there wouldn't be any sanctions anymore?

Hussein would not be "isolated;" au contraire, he would be more powerful than at any time in the past fifteen years: he would have restarted his nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs; both the Iraq Survey Group and the recent Senate Intelligence Committee report say that was Hussein's intent all along. And European and Latin American representatives would be beetling to Baghdad to genuflect to the great man, hands out for oil allocations.

This is what Rockefeller considers "a better scenario, and a safer scenario" for America. And you want to know the worst part? If the Democrats win the Senate in the upcoming election, Jay Rockefeller will be the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Stick that in your pipe and step on it.

So Jay Rockefeller, nutty as a Froot Loop, would chair the Senate Intelligence Committee -- and spend the next two years investigating Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld... rather than al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Iran. All because some Republicans insist there's "not a dime's worth of difference" between Republicans and Democrats, which means between Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS, 88%) and Chairman Jay Rockefeller.

Yeah, stay home and sulk instead of voting. Better yet, vote for a third-party candidate to "teach the Republicans a lesson." Great idea!

I'm sure hard-core conservative Republicans will be elected in droves in 2008. And their first order of business will be to begin the task of rebuilding half a dozen major American cities that were destroyed by al-Qaeda, while Congress was busy impeaching Bush for intercepting al-Qaeda phone calls.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, September 10, 2006, at the time of 5:11 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/1215

Comments

The following hissed in response by: yetanotherjohn

I guess it all depends on which Sen. Rockefellar is getting to chair the committee. The 2006 senator or the 2002 senator who was able to remember 9/11.


MR. ROCKEFELLER: Mr. President, we are here today to debate one of the most difficult decisions I have had to make in my 18 years in the Senate. There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein is a despicable dictator, a war criminal, a regional menace, and a real and growing threat to the United States. The difficulty of this decision is that while Saddam Hussein represents a threat, each of the options for dealing with him poses serious risks, to America’s servicemembers, to our citizens, and to our role in the world. . . .

As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury.

September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world, including our own.

There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!

The above hissed in response by: yetanotherjohn [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 10, 2006 5:38 PM

The following hissed in response by: Bill Faith

Excerpted and linked at Old War Dogs >> Bill's Bites

The above hissed in response by: Bill Faith [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 10, 2006 8:02 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Considering the fact that American men and women have died removing Saddam from power I would say that Rockeffler's attitude is just a tad cavalier.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 10, 2006 8:04 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

This is what Rockefeller considers "a better scenario, and a safer scenario" for America. And you want to know the worst part? If the Democrats win the Senate in the upcoming election, Jay Rockefeller will be the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

and that is not even takinig into consideration who would end up third in the Presidential succession. GULP

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 11, 2006 8:27 AM

The following hissed in response by: Rovin

Sen. Rockefeller is the "fall-guy" for the democratic party that thinks the only way they can regain power in the House and/or the Senate is to make the war in Iraq their referendum/platform. The "picture" they will try to portray is one that if they are in controll some how all will be resolved in Iraq, our troops will come home, and they can work on more serious problems, like impeaching a president, et all, taxing the rich, while returning to the failed policys of the Clinton Admin.

Meanwhile, Rockefeller will be hearlded as the sacrificial lamb for the good of the party.

If it were possible to get more "sheep-in-the-pen", all at the same time...... ah, some one hold the gate open please.

The above hissed in response by: Rovin [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 11, 2006 8:51 AM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

No Difference Between Democrats and Republicans? Think Again

i don't see much difference between the Politicians of both parties, especially when most Americans gave the Repub's the Senate, the House, and the Presidency...and those Congress members have squandered the opportunity over and over and over again.

They should all be forced to watch the uncut version of The Path to 9/11...at least 1,000 times or until they figure out who Ramzi Yousef is.

Ramzi Yousef and Iraq.

Mohammed A. Salameh and Iraq.

Abdul Rahman Yasin and Iraq.

All three were closely connected to Iraq, and at least Ramzi Yousef had connections to al-Qaeda, but our Congress can't connect the dots that form a Path...so to speak.

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 11, 2006 3:42 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved