Posted on 01/09/2006 12:10:55 PM PST by smoothsailing
U.S. Senator Rockefeller Angry About Mine Miscommunication
1-6-06
Such miscommunication "never should have happened."
Story by The Associated Press
TALLMANSVILLE, W.Va. (AP) - U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller says the miscommunication that led families to believe that 12 miners had survived this week's Upshur County mine explosion is an outrage.
He says the families were really let down and hurt -- and that it never should have happened.
Rockefeller made his comments last night while visiting Sago Baptist Church, which served as a gathering place for the miners' families as they awaited word on the fate of their loved ones.
A little before midnight Tuesday, the families received word that all but one of the 13 miners who had been trapped in the Sago Mine since early Monday were alive. They didn't find out until three hours later that only one had survived.
Both Rockefeller and fellow West Virginia Democratic Senator Robert C. Byrd received the erroneous information from the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration. And both senators say the agency neglected to call them back when the mistake was realized.
Yeah, we all know that it is far, far more dangerous to the safety and well-being of our nation to have a glad-hander, cheerleader [Lott] make vapid [but jovial and kind] remarks to an incredibly aged colleague [Strom Thurmond] on the occasion of his birthdy [or was it retirement?] ... than it is for a member of the Intelligence committee to give our enemies a heads up on our plans of military action.
LOL!
That is strange. Wonder why we didn't hear about it on even FoxNews? Any thoughts on that?
As cheerefully borrowed from Sean Hannity's Website:
actually - this came from The Lunch Box and I was not certain i could post from there --- Mary I wasn't snubbing your request. I did post it in our Daily Thread..
The Democrat Memo Leaked from Senate Intl We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:
1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard. For example, in addition to the president's State of the Union speech, the chairman has agreed to look at the activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department. The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and co-signs our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. (Note: we can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.)
2) Assiduously prepare Democratic "additional views" to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it. In that regard, we have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims and contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry. The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an independent commission (i.e. the Corzine amendment).
3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time-- but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year either: A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report -- thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public: 1) additional views on the interim report; 2) announcement of our independent investigation; and 3) additional views on the final investigation; or B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue. We could attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the "use" of intelligence. In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter foot-dragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman; we have independently submitted written questions to DoD; and we are preparing further independent requests for information.
Summary
Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet, we have an important role to play in the revealing the misleading -- if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives -- of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war. The approach outline above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives and methods.
Because it is about a Democrat and speculative at this point. The Junk Media only runs speculative accsations against Republicans never Democrats. If the speculation turns out wrong, Republicans shrug them off, Democrats file lawsuits.
This was nothin' negative regarding this traitor...you'd think the media whores would be pumping him up big time regarding his state...W VA...and the mine disaster.
I know that sounds counterintuitive, but a new Republican Senator in WV could really peal back a curtain.
BTTT
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.