This subject needs to be discussed in everyone's blogs and calls need to be made to make this grow legs.
Posted on 11/14/2005 11:13:59 AM PST by Stultis
WALLACE: ...in October of 2002 in which you authorized the use of force, you went further than the president ever did. Let's watch:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROCKEFELLER: I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th that question is increasingly outdated.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
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?
ROCKEFELLER: No. 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...
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
"The rats are scrambling all over the media denying they are intelligent. Oops, I mean, that they saw intelligence."
I'll agree with the first sentence. It's a ridiculous argument to say that they are not responsible for their own votes. Are they then to be trusted with their vote? Are they arguing that they were manipulated by the President they keep calling a simpleton?
This traitorous POS should be facing a firing squad.
Thanks for the ping Granny. It is definitely time to stand up and shout. He used to be my neighbor. lol Too bad I'm not there any more.
i agree.
i'm just saying it probably is not a prosecutable case.
that doesn't mean hell shouldn't be raised over it.
The Historic Background
of the Treason Clause
in the Constitution
IN ITS MOST original aspects, as in the commerce clause, the Constitution of the United States expresses policies the strength of which lies in their capacity to embrace and take new vigor from changed circumstances since 1787. But there are other aspects in which the strength of constitutional policy lies in the definiteness and the distillation of experience given by the invoking of historic concepts. This has been most marked, perhaps, in regard to institutions recognized by the Constitution, or some of the procedural decencies guaranteed to the individual facing the power of the state.
Article III, Section 3, bears the mark of a provision the primary reference of which is to history:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
The framers did not choose to contrive their own definition of the crime of attempting the subversion of the government. "Treason" is itself a term which — to speak only of the Anglo-American background — was familiar to the common law before it was used in the Statute of 25 Edward III, from which the Constitution derives its language concerning the levying of war, and adhering to enemies, giving them aid and comfort.1 The record makes it clear that terms thus weighted with historic significance were deliberately chosen, in order better to deal with a problem the practical dangers of which history was believed to teach.2
Where is the investigation into his leaking? Thanks for the ping!
If he has classified information it makes everything he says something he needs to be responsible for...he should save us the investigation and charges of treason and resign now.
The Rockefeller memo was disclosed in November 2003 - almost 2 years after Rockefeller's January 2002 "official trip" to Saudi Arabia, etc.
I think all these bozos share similar goals. Maybe I need a weaker gauge of tinfoil - perhaps the war was a foregone conclusion in January 2002; and the DEMs started planning impeachment (based on "Iraq lies") then. But I kinda doubt it.
January 14, 2002ROCKEFELLER VISITS WITH HUNTINGTON NATIVE STATIONED IN SAUDI ARABIA
WASHINGTON, D.C. Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) visited with several West Virginia soldiers stationed at the Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia last week during an official diplomatic trip to the region.
So let me see.....you mean if someone say went to Paris around 1971 or so,(and possibly STILL a member of the US military) and met secretly, without permission from the US government, the North Viet Nam delegation to try and undermine the US governments peace talks to end the Viet nam war, wouldn't THAT also qualify as an act of a traitor??
....not that I could imagine any American wanting to lite a fire underneath America's enemies durring a time of war for "political gain" above their country's best interests so that later they could maybe even try to run for POTUS or something....
....or maybe this same person even stand in the well of the US Senate and SLAM the president (durring a time of war AND while he is out of the country to defend himself) to undermine our troops and country just for "political revenge".....
Nah.....nobody could be THAT much of a traitor....
Correct, Kerry is also a traitor. And given the fact that the democrat party keeps electing traitors as representatives that would make the democrat party the party of treason. Just look at the lies they are spouting over the last few months regarding "lying" about intelligence. The only lie about intelligence is that democrat polititicans have any intelligence.
ping
That has been one of the long standing accusations that right after 9/11 President Bush wanted Saddam's head.
I figure the DEMs were honestly as convinced as GWB was that Iraq needed more than a spanking. And today, all they are doing is politicizing a military conflict and playing Monday-moring quarterback. If it wasn't Iraq, it would have been whatever other subject seemed to draw the most attention, or seemed to offer the most convincing political attack against the opposition party.
IOW, this playout of attack wasn't planned that far in advance, for all the DEMs knew, Sadam would capitulate to an adequate weapons inspection regime at some point.
Thought provoking article -> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1518031/posts noting that the current frame of argument relating to justification for military action is making it MORE difficult to undertake preemptive attacks, and ironically, therefore MORE difficult to credibly insist on effective weapons inspection programs.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1521969/posts?page=26
I have to say what a bunch of Communist the Dem's are.
Back stabbing whinny babies!
Great Ping!!
[Mrs]
I believe that Rockefeller's own confessed statment to Syria goes far beyond anything that was even hinted at by the WH until late summer of 2002, so Rockefeller gave Syria (and Saddam) a heads-up of at least 7-8 extra months to prepare, and probably more confidence about where the WH was headed than they would otherwise have had until winter 2002-03. I thought one of the worst aspects of the loooooonggggg run-up to the war (forced by people demanding we cater to the UN crowd) was that it gave Saddam ample time to prepare whatever he wanted to..... including (very likely) hiding and/or removing WMDs to Syria. Also, there may well have been increased training and resource programs such as the "Saddam Fedayeen" and other "irregulars" prepared by Saddam's regime to fight a terror-style campaign against US and coalition forces. So, the great Senator Rockefeller, conducting his own private foreign policy, has a lot to answer for.
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.