Proper Reciprocity For Rockefeller
Sen. Rockefeller has some explaining to do. Below is the excerpt from an interview he had with Chris Wallace of FOX News.
WALLACE: Senator Rockefeller, the President says that Democratic critics, like you, looked at pre-war intelligence and came to the same conclusion that he did. In fact, looking back at the speech that you gave in October of 2002 in which you authorized the use of force, you went further than the President ever did. Let's watch.
SEN. ROCKEFELLER (October 10, 2002): "I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th, that question is increasingly outdated."
WALLACE: Now, the President never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The – I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq – that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11. Now, the intelligence that they had and the intelligence that we had were probably different. We didn't get the Presidential Daily Briefs. We got only a finished product, a finished product, a consensual view of the intelligence community, which does not allow for agencies like in the case of the aluminum tubes, the Department of Energy said these aren't thick enough to handle nuclear power. They left that out and went ahead with they have aluminum tubes and they're going to develop nuclear power.
WALLACE: Senator, you're quite right. You didn't get the Presidential Daily Brief or the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief. You got the National Intelligence Estimate. But the Silberman Commission, a Presidential commission that looked into this, did get copies of those briefs, and they say that they were, if anything, even more alarmist, even less nuanced than the intelligence you saw, and yet you, not the President, said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. ...
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Chris, there's always the same conversation. You know it was not the Congress that sent 135,000 or 150,000 troops.
WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren't you responsible for your vote?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.
WALLACE: You're not?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. I'm responsible for my vote, but I'd appreciate it if you'd get serious about this subject, with all due respect. We authorized him to continue working with the United Nations, and then if that failed, authorized him to use force to enforce the sanctions. We did not send 150,000 troops or 135,000 troops. It was his decision made probably two days after 9/11 that he was going to invade Iraq. That we did not have a part of, and, yes, we had bad intelligence, and when we learned about it, I went down to the floor and said I would never have voted for this thing.
WALLACE: My only point sir, and I am trying to be serious about it, is as I understand Phase Two, the question is based on the intelligence you had, what were the statements you made? You had the National Intelligence Estimate which expressed doubts about Saddam's nuclear program, and yet you said he had a nuclear program. The President did the same thing.
The bolded piece above is what Sen. Rockefeller is catching hell over, and appropriately so. This piece Thomas originally picked up on as it was part of the post on Captain's Quarters when he did his piece earlier this week on McCain's defense of the president. Immediately, a few took notice of Sen. Rockefeller's admission. He told a known terror-sponsoring state what this nation was about to do!
This changes quite a few things about the war. Instead of a six month notice that we were going into Iraq, Saddam had a fourteen month window.That gave him fourteen months to move his WMDs, their relevant technology, and any chem/bio stockpile out of Iraq. We know he did this. France, Germany, and even China can confirm this through satellite imaging. The US and Russia were the first to bring this up just shortly before the start of the Iraq Phase of the war. He was moving our evidence out of the country.
It also gave Syria--again a known terrorist-sponsoring nation--a heads up to what was about to happen. And just like Saddam had a fourteen month window to move his weapons, the Syrians had enough time to prepare the terrorists they were going to send over the border. WE KNOW that Iran and Syria have been dispatching terrorists into Iraq to help al-Zarqawi's forces. This is why every election day, ALL the borders of Iraq are sealed. This is also why during Operation Steel Curtain (in progress as I type this) the borders have been sealed. We don't want those we are hunting to either have an escape route, or gain reinforcements.
Can anyone imagine what could have happened to someone who leaked the invasion on D-Day to someone connected--directly or indirectly--to Adolf Hitler, basically giving him a heads up about how we were about to kick his butt? Whoever would have I am positive that they would have been prosecuted for treason. It was no secret we were getting ready to go in--with about six months prior to the invasion. But, fourteen months before? That is a different story.
Back to Sen. Rockefeller...Why was he discussing such things with Bashir Assad, the head of Syria? This discussion clearly violates the Logan Act (cited below), and could technically be called treason.
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects. --US Code Title 45, Section 953
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.--US Code Title 18, Section 2381
Sen. Rockefeller broke the law in speaking with Assad on such matters. At the very least, he needs to be expelled from the Senate. I would rather see him prosecuted, but it will never happen. But the bloggers need to ratchet up the pressure on Sen. Rockefeller, and the GOP to call for his expulsion for discussing national security secrets with a foreign power that is anything but friendly to us. Syria has been discussed by many as the next possible target in the GWOT.
But to be perfectly frank, this man put our troops in harm's way, in the worst sort of way. The president asked for, and received approval from Congress to effect regime change in Iraq. (This is important because the Senate approved regime change in Iraq back in '98.) This was simply a reinforcement. Pres. Clinton had no intention of invading Iraq, and therefore the threat was an empty one. Pres. Bush followed through with the approval he won. The "harm" that Sen. Rockefeller delivered to our troops came in the form of foreign insurgents--terrorists--coming into Iraq from Syria to engage our men and women. He put them in danger more relevant than the president did.
This man needs to go, and it needs to be done now. This admission should not escape an inquiry in the Senate, and he should be expelled for it. This is not a matter of "bragging" by Sen. Rockefeller. This was a serious slip that implicates him in a crime. At the least, right now, this claim should be investigated.
The Bunny ;)
Sen. Rockefeller has some explaining to do. Below is the excerpt from an interview he had with Chris Wallace of FOX News.
WALLACE: Senator Rockefeller, the President says that Democratic critics, like you, looked at pre-war intelligence and came to the same conclusion that he did. In fact, looking back at the speech that you gave in October of 2002 in which you authorized the use of force, you went further than the President ever did. Let's watch.
SEN. ROCKEFELLER (October 10, 2002): "I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th, that question is increasingly outdated."
WALLACE: Now, the President never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The – I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq – that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11. Now, the intelligence that they had and the intelligence that we had were probably different. We didn't get the Presidential Daily Briefs. We got only a finished product, a finished product, a consensual view of the intelligence community, which does not allow for agencies like in the case of the aluminum tubes, the Department of Energy said these aren't thick enough to handle nuclear power. They left that out and went ahead with they have aluminum tubes and they're going to develop nuclear power.
WALLACE: Senator, you're quite right. You didn't get the Presidential Daily Brief or the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief. You got the National Intelligence Estimate. But the Silberman Commission, a Presidential commission that looked into this, did get copies of those briefs, and they say that they were, if anything, even more alarmist, even less nuanced than the intelligence you saw, and yet you, not the President, said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. ...
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Chris, there's always the same conversation. You know it was not the Congress that sent 135,000 or 150,000 troops.
WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren't you responsible for your vote?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.
WALLACE: You're not?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. I'm responsible for my vote, but I'd appreciate it if you'd get serious about this subject, with all due respect. We authorized him to continue working with the United Nations, and then if that failed, authorized him to use force to enforce the sanctions. We did not send 150,000 troops or 135,000 troops. It was his decision made probably two days after 9/11 that he was going to invade Iraq. That we did not have a part of, and, yes, we had bad intelligence, and when we learned about it, I went down to the floor and said I would never have voted for this thing.
WALLACE: My only point sir, and I am trying to be serious about it, is as I understand Phase Two, the question is based on the intelligence you had, what were the statements you made? You had the National Intelligence Estimate which expressed doubts about Saddam's nuclear program, and yet you said he had a nuclear program. The President did the same thing.
The bolded piece above is what Sen. Rockefeller is catching hell over, and appropriately so. This piece Thomas originally picked up on as it was part of the post on Captain's Quarters when he did his piece earlier this week on McCain's defense of the president. Immediately, a few took notice of Sen. Rockefeller's admission. He told a known terror-sponsoring state what this nation was about to do!
This changes quite a few things about the war. Instead of a six month notice that we were going into Iraq, Saddam had a fourteen month window.That gave him fourteen months to move his WMDs, their relevant technology, and any chem/bio stockpile out of Iraq. We know he did this. France, Germany, and even China can confirm this through satellite imaging. The US and Russia were the first to bring this up just shortly before the start of the Iraq Phase of the war. He was moving our evidence out of the country.
It also gave Syria--again a known terrorist-sponsoring nation--a heads up to what was about to happen. And just like Saddam had a fourteen month window to move his weapons, the Syrians had enough time to prepare the terrorists they were going to send over the border. WE KNOW that Iran and Syria have been dispatching terrorists into Iraq to help al-Zarqawi's forces. This is why every election day, ALL the borders of Iraq are sealed. This is also why during Operation Steel Curtain (in progress as I type this) the borders have been sealed. We don't want those we are hunting to either have an escape route, or gain reinforcements.
Can anyone imagine what could have happened to someone who leaked the invasion on D-Day to someone connected--directly or indirectly--to Adolf Hitler, basically giving him a heads up about how we were about to kick his butt? Whoever would have I am positive that they would have been prosecuted for treason. It was no secret we were getting ready to go in--with about six months prior to the invasion. But, fourteen months before? That is a different story.
Back to Sen. Rockefeller...Why was he discussing such things with Bashir Assad, the head of Syria? This discussion clearly violates the Logan Act (cited below), and could technically be called treason.
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects. --US Code Title 45, Section 953
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.--US Code Title 18, Section 2381
Sen. Rockefeller broke the law in speaking with Assad on such matters. At the very least, he needs to be expelled from the Senate. I would rather see him prosecuted, but it will never happen. But the bloggers need to ratchet up the pressure on Sen. Rockefeller, and the GOP to call for his expulsion for discussing national security secrets with a foreign power that is anything but friendly to us. Syria has been discussed by many as the next possible target in the GWOT.
But to be perfectly frank, this man put our troops in harm's way, in the worst sort of way. The president asked for, and received approval from Congress to effect regime change in Iraq. (This is important because the Senate approved regime change in Iraq back in '98.) This was simply a reinforcement. Pres. Clinton had no intention of invading Iraq, and therefore the threat was an empty one. Pres. Bush followed through with the approval he won. The "harm" that Sen. Rockefeller delivered to our troops came in the form of foreign insurgents--terrorists--coming into Iraq from Syria to engage our men and women. He put them in danger more relevant than the president did.
This man needs to go, and it needs to be done now. This admission should not escape an inquiry in the Senate, and he should be expelled for it. This is not a matter of "bragging" by Sen. Rockefeller. This was a serious slip that implicates him in a crime. At the least, right now, this claim should be investigated.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 5:53 PM
1 Comments:
Good blog. As I recall this isn't the first time that Senator Rockefeller spoke when he should have kept his mouth shut. He is on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Those he spoke with know this. I also find it interesting when he said, "I took a trip by myself in January 2002..." A sitting member of the Senate Intelligence committee doesn't normally do that. I would like to see him kicked off the committee and articles of impeachment prepared and served. A grand jury indictment would be even better. He should not be able to walk away like Sandy Burger with a slap on his wrist. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home