Looks like hypocrite Jay Rockefeller is expanding on his political opportunism. And it’s getting even more ridiculous:

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.”

For those of you keeping score at home, here’s Rockefeller’s stance on Iraq from 2002 to present:

“September 11 has forever changed the world. We may not like it, but that is the world in which we live. When there is a grave threat to Americans’ lives, we have a responsibility to take action to prevent it…” and “Saddam poses a significant risk” and “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…”

…BUT:

“The world would be better off with Saddam in power.”

Clear enough for you?

1. Senator Jay Rockefeller: World Would Be Better Off With Saddam

   Sigh… 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…

   Trackback by Say Anything — 2:59 pm
   

2. All about Ultram

   All you need to know about ultram

   Trackback by ultram — 5:36 am
   

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

You must be logged in to post a comment.