Posted on 09/09/2006 3:35:56 PM PDT by Armedanddangerous
Edited on 09/09/2006 4:55:19 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Funniest shit I have read in months on FR...God that was awesome!
I'm sorry he's from my state ):
lol!
He could be right. We should replace Rockefeller with Saddam and see who does a worse job as a senator. My guess is Rockefeller would.
Take a look at this website that has Rockefeller's statement. He has damned himself quite well with his flip-flopping:
http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html
Interesting parts to note...
"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."
He says here Saddam is a threat to our citizens and TO THE WORLD!
"It is clear that none of the options that confront us is easy or risk free." Hmmm...I think Americans and the liberal Democrats need to remember this line...
"For all of us, the upcoming vote on this critical issue will reflect our best judgment on which path will minimize the risk to our fellow Americans -- " He speaks about using HIS best judgement..and now he says his BEST JUDGEMENT was WRONG??
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
When Saddam Hussein obtains nuclear capabilities, the constraints he feels will diminish dramatically, and the risk to America’s homeland, as well as to America’s allies, will increase even more dramatically. Our existing policies to contain or counter Saddam will become irrelevant."
Wow....just read that..over and over...and then read what he says NOW....just...amazing. Does he even realize what he said then??
"But this isn’t just a future threat. Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East."
He justifies the use of force against Saddam here. He clearly calls out Saddam as a THREAT to the United States and her interests!
"And he could make those weapons available to many terrorist groups which have contact with his government, and those groups could bring those weapons into the U.S. and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly."
BINGO Cheesehead!! Someone, PLEASE, send this to the man. Let him read what he said in Congress before voting.
I can't go on, someone else can and should point out this man's egregious statement and stupidity. Too bad too many people can't stomach the consequences of their choices and actions.
oIw
Rick
NWAVirginia.com
watching
There is no longer any middle ground. If Bush is guilty of what Rockefeller and others are alleging, then there is no doubt but that he has committed impeachable offenses. If Rockefeller's allegations are untrue, then he is a traitor to his country. Moreover, the charge is being leveled so often and with such unambiguous clarity by so many Democrats that the whole lot of them must be traitors. The whole lot of them. What honest person could remain in that party's elected ranks and let these charges go unchallenged -- unless they believe them?
Here is what I think this means for the elections in two months. When push comes to shove, and swing voters are confronted with the reality of pulling the lever and putting these Dems in power, even in the House, they will vote Republican. These Democrats at the end of the day are breathtakingly irresponsible, they do irreparable damage to our country, and undecided voters will figure this out.
I believe that the November elections will prove to be a profound disappointment for the Democrats, and that President Bush will maintain enough of political capital to get done what needs doing in these last two years.
Thereafter, I believe there is an outside chance that the Dems will so overplay their hand that the President's lame duck status could actually help him -- OMG, do you mean that he has only two years left to get the job done before someone like Hillary Clinton takes the reins?
Statements like Rockefeller's, to repeat, do terrible harm to our country. Even as Republicans we suffer when the opposition is this stupid, opportunistic, and irresponsible. But there is no doubt in my mind that statements like these also serve to increase Republican chances in November and beyond.
Another reason why you can't trust Democrats with National Security.
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.
Jay Rockefeller is living proof of the danger of when Billionaires inbreed.
This man is showing that the lust for political power has totally blinded them from the reality of the last 30 years. Saddam had been a major backer of terrorists since the early 1980s. And he had the capablity and intent of creating WMD once the UN stopped monitoring him, just look at the captured documents being posted in translation on FR for that. Of course Rockefeller, Kerry, Kennedy, Dean and their ilk will turn a blind eye to that because it doesn't agree with the lies they are spreading.
There is one point worth considering, and that is Iran. Saddam was able to maintain the balance of power with Iran, and people seem to forget that he fought a war against Iran - essentially doing our bidding - in the 80's.
It sure would be nice if someone in Iraq was capable of running the country and establishing a credible military. Saddam did maintain a credible (at least against Iran, Kuwait) military force. It will be a long time before Iraq is able to act as a deterrent to Iran, if it ever will be again, leaving us to do the job - if the UN says it's ok.
Removing Saddam left a power vacuum which Iran is now starting to fill.
That wasn't the senators point, though.
"Uncle or daddy died screwing secretaty??"
Actually I heard it is more embarrassing than that.
I believe he suffered from ED and, in the time before viagra, had a pump installed in his unit......
My understanding is that he died, and his secretary did her best to prop him up in a chair as if he were reading the newspaper....unfortunately she did not know how to let the air out of his "unit".....so he was found with his body limp, reading the newspaper, in full salute.
Of course I have no link for this......but it's a funny story either way....
Is that why he warned Syria and others that we were going to attack, allowing Saddam to move the WMDs?
Can he deny Saddam's support for terror? His payment of suicide bombers, the fact that Zarqawi and Abu Nidal were living in Baghdad?
No wonder the jackass is the symbol of the Democratic Party.
That was great, thanks for the post.
People like Senator Rockefeller prefer to ignore the whole picture. And they don't want other people to see the whole picture.
The whole picture does not suit their political purpose.
"The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.
But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.
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 President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks -- and we should not minimize the risks -- we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat."
Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia)
Also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html
I guess money can't buy you a brain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.