Sorry, folks, whoever came up with this particular strategic gem for the Democrats to follow is either crazy or an idiot. Or both.
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."
This is a sure-fired loser. The Democrats, already seen as weak on defense and on terrorists, are now putting spokesmen forward that say they are in favor of thuggish dictators who commit mass murder. There are a lot of ways to criticize a policy you disagree with.
Embracing murderers isn't a smart one.
