Rockefeller: U.S. needs to be out of three conflicts

sundaygazettemail.com ^ | April 19, 2011 | Paul J. Nyden

[Tailgunner Joe]

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., believes the United States should get out of the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya as soon as possible. ...Rockefeller also criticized the way military appropriations are often approved as part of "supplementary" budget legislation, hiding them from the public.

"The military budget needs to come under new scrutiny. When I voted for the Iraq War, it was one of the worst votes in my life," Rockefeller said.

"Today, I have grave misgivings about being in Iraq for another week. We should be out of Iraq this year altogether," he said. "We are not going to win. It is not in the cards. Many Asian countries have a totally tribal culture.

"It is the same thing in Afghanistan, Libya and Yemen," Rockefeller said.

"I didn't object to four days of bombing in Libya. But now the CIA is on the ground. That makes me nervous. I don't have any patience with the Libyan endeavor," Rockefeller said.

"Libya makes no sense to me. I don't think we should be there at all. We should get out of there and we should get out of Afghanistan. We can't win there. We can't change the country....

"Do you want three failed wars in a row? I don't want to be in those places. And it has a great deal to do with the [federal] budget."

Rockefeller also believes information provided to justify military interventions is often inaccurate.

"As a member of our [Senate] Intelligence Committee, we can investigate the skullduggery and the manipulation of information that is classified."

But Rockefeller vigorously supports doing everything possible to protect our troops stationed in all those countries.

"My nephew has just gone over to Afghanistan, as a Marine. I don't want to do anything to hurt him or other soldiers."

[piasa]

Rockefeller just wants us to stay away from Iran and open trade with them... when being involved in war was good for his buddies in Iran he was for war, such as in toppling Hussein in Iraq; but for Iran to benefit from the fall of Hussein in Iraq the US had to get out so Iranian interests could expand into the vacuum. When it was time for Iran to step in, that’s when Rockefeller wanted to get the US out of Iraq.
If being involved in three other wars helps Iran he’d be all for it; but if getting us out and letting Iran expand its power in those countries where rebellions are in gear will help Iran and open it for business then he’s OK with that, too. I guess now with the rest of the Middle East in turmoil and Iranian influence everywhere, Rockefeller is happy now because Iran looks so much more stable for business than it did before in comparison to its neighbors, oil prices are skyrocketing, and so, there’s a better chance of getting sanctions lifted.

[piasa]

Well, he took it upon himself to play "rogue state department" and went to inform the Syrians just before the US invasion of Iraq of our intention to take out Saddam Hussein.

Mr. "Senate Intelligence" apparently didn't get a tour of Syria's nuclear facility at the time... had to find out about that much later when the North Korean freighter of "cement" sailed into port , leading to the exposure of Syria's efforts when Israeli planes took out the site.

[sargon]

I like your analyses, well stated. I feel the same way about both Iraq and Afghanistan. And of course Libya was ludicrous.