Posted on 11/16/2005 7:30:38 AM PST by billorites
PRESIDENT BUSH'S DECISION to finally push back against the "Bush lied!" fable paid off in strange ways this past week. Democrats seemed caught by surprise that the president would attack them so frontally on Veteran's Day; the shock caught them flatfooted all weekend long. Senators from the minority caucus could not explain their own words from 2002 supporting the same intelligence, and the same conclusions, as the Bush administration.
The strangest episode came from an appearance by Senator Jay Rockefeller on Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: OK. 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:
(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believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th that question is increasingly outdated.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. [emphasis added]
What was the second-ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee doing in Syria, a country which perennially finds itself among the top listings of terrorist-sponsoring nations, discussing President Bush's decision-making on the war on terror with Bashar Assad, one of the worst sponsors of terror in the months after 9/11?
So far, no journalist has had an opportunity to ask Rockefeller that question directly, and Rockefeller hasn't elaborated on the point. We do know, however, that Rockefeller didn't lie about the trip itself. Arabic News covered the January 2002 visit in a short report that confirms Rockefeller's meeting with Assad. While the report does not directly quote Rockefeller after the meeting, it describes the senator as "content" and noted his "happiness" in meeting with the terror-enabler (who now faces condemnation even at the United Nations for his involvement in the assassination of a political opponent in Lebanon).
Rockefeller, for his part, neglected to mention the trip at the time, although he did issue press releases about his meeting with Saudi leaders on the same junket (as noted by the blogger Dinocrat).
If Rockefeller discussed war plans with Assad while the United States had begun military operations against global terrorist organizations, which Assad has been known to fund, surely it is a major breach of the senator's duties? The Logan Act, a piece of rarely enforced legislation, may be pertinent:
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.
By Rockefeller's own admission, he went to Syria (as well as Saudi Arabia) to conduct his own foreign policy initiative. He warned Assad that Bush intended to invade Iraq and could not be deterred--giving Assad plenty of opportunity to communicate with Saddam Hussein, and Hussein plenty of opportunity to prepare for war.
Mind you, it took President Bush nine months from time of Rockefeller's trip to even bring the subject of Iraq to Congress, and even though he got the authorization he wanted, he spent five months after that attempting to negotiate with the United Nations for unanimous backing on military action. That hardly seems like an implacably-resolved president determined to go to war.
None of this is to say that our elected representatives can't speak to foreign heads of state, even those unfriendly to the United States. However, by Rockefeller's own reckoning, this incident involves more than just fact-finding. The man who sits in judgment of American intelligence communities went to a known supporter of Islamist terror at a time when the nation had explicitly declared itself in conflict with such groups, and discussed our wartime preparations with a tyrant who could have--and may have--used that information to America's disadvantage. The timetable, and Rockefeller's admitted intervention, allowed the Assad and Hussein enough time to create strategic planning for the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq.
Given the facts we know now, it seems to be an excellent example of why Congress passed the Logan Act in the first place.
Edward Morrissey is a contributing writer to The Daily Standard and a contributor to the blog Captain's Quarters.
goodmorning ping
none dare call it what it is.....
but I'm not PC, so I will call it what it is.....
It's called TREASON
The President should talk about this!
He was giving Assad a heads up so the WMD could be moved so that the Democrats could use that politically down the line.Nah, Rockefeller is not THAT bright. But he was giving aid and comfort to a terrorist state. I suggest we have a congressional hearing look into this. This is far more dangerous for US security than the so called outting of Valerie Plame!
Answer: This is why Sen. Jay Rockefeller talking to Bashar Assad about the president's "plans" for Iraq.
What is, "Because he's a traitor?"
I'll take Famous Poets for $400, Alex.
It might also be the reason we cannot find WMD's. Remember all those trucks reported to be travelling from Iraq to Syria BEFORE the war began?
From Joe Wilsons NYT editorial reprinted HERE
Coincidence in the timing?
"What was the second-ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee doing in Syria, a country which perennially finds itself among the top listings of terrorist-sponsoring nations, discussing President Bush's decision-making on the war on terror with Bashar Assad, one of the worst sponsors of terror in the months after 9/11?"
What's the problem? He was being a traitor and helping the enemies of the US to the utmost of his abilities. Just acting in solidarity with the struggling masses around the globe who oppose oppressive US power. Nothing unusual for a Democrat.
If the story was newsworthy, it could be a problem. But it is not. The MSM is very busy and has too many other more important things to cover.
Unless Senate Republicans started talking about it...
Yes, but will the Administration keep this up. Just one or two frontal attacks and the dems are knocked completely off balance. Just imagine what would happen if the attacks came on a regular basis.
In my opinion, when the subject is national security, even the Iraq War, the dems lose everytime, well, at least when they are actively engaged on the issue. The President, understandably, concluded that since Iraq was THE issue during election 2004, it was settled. Thus, he thought he could turn the topic to something else. He was wrong and the only reason, the sole reason the dems have gained any traction to bash Bush over Iraq is because the Administration stopped fighting the issue.
Now the dems put themselves out on the national security limb. It is high time the President sawed it off.
There are those who say Rockefeller should face censure....I say a firing squad is more like it. Lets call what he does by the right name as has been said here....TREASON!
BUSTED!!! These arrogant sacks of puke! I want to know when charges are going to be brought against Rockefeller for this malfeasance in office. No member or head of any committee in congress has the authority to deal directly with foreign governments - unless authorized by the country's administration - as in a delegation.
If this isn't TREASON - then what is it ..??
Traitor
This is outrageous. Who will ask Rockefeller that question besides Chris Wallace? Who wants to know the truth behind the Dems' strategy to retake the White House by stooping so low as to align themselves with known terrorists?
In a sane world that would happen, but since the GOP has no spine, it won't. The lefties say or do what they want because the jellyfish who are the majority let them. They just gotta keep getting along. Pathetic, all of them.
I've come to believe most Democrats are sado-masochists......they will do whatever they like and screw the consequences!!
Before anyone uses the excuse that Rocky was just talking about something everyone else was talking about, there's a big difference between two people discussing the possibility of war over a couple of beers and a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee talking about the same thing with a sworn enemy of the United States.
I wonder if it just has to do with his oil interests? Does anybody know if he has any oil stocks?
ah, but per the demonrats there are no enemies
of the US, only misguilded friends who given time
and understanding of why they hate us, will eventually
love us.
or some sort of crap like that.....
Who was the Chariman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2002, I do not think it was a Republican?
And for those who have not read Rockey's leaked memo .....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102206,00.html
http://www.intelmemo.com/
"We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:
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."
The members of the Senate have way too much class and dignity to slam members of the opposition.....except for the Dimocrats, of course!
I'm going back to being apolitical...I had much lower blood pressure then. This stuff is infuriating!
This story just leaves me dumbfounded. Does no one else in the media see that Rockefeller did something wrong? How can the people who get so excited over Wilson and Plame not be all over this? Am I the crazy one?
I'm making an Online Petition...here is what I have so far if anybody would like to give ideas for the final draft.
Whereas U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller(D) has admitted openly and publically to providing information to Syria, a Baathist ally of the former dictator of Iraq (Saddam Hussein) which may have enabled Iraq to prepare against the actions of the United States government to hold Iraq accountable under mulitiple resolutions of the United Nations and for Hussein's personal actions of harboring, aiding and comforting terrorists...(See admissions below)
----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."
Whereas U.S. Senator Jay Rockerfeller had given his opinion to Syria of the impending military actions against Syria's ally, dictator Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq, which he gleaned through his position as a United States Senator WHOM HAVING ACCESS TO NATIONAL SECURITY DOCUMENTS THROUGH WHICH HIS OPINION MAY HAVE BEEN FORMED and through such actions precipitated the creation of a more dangerous situations for our Armed Forces...
Wheras through U.S. Senatory Jay Rockerfeller's actions and the misuse of Nation Security Intelligence, we the People of the United States of America IMPLORE and EMPOWER you, worthy protectors of the Constitution of the United States of America, to disallow U.S. Senator Jay Rockerfeller of the privleges of his seat as a U.S. Senator, bring charges against him for Sedition and Treason and hold formal inquiries to plumb the depths of his actions against the Constitution of the United States
The day after look who showed up according to the following as noted in this post under .....
"Rockefeller, for his part, neglected to mention the trip at the time, although he did issue press releases about his meeting with Saudi leaders on the same junket (as noted by the blogger Dinocrat)."
http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2005/11/14/gun-running-to-the-khmer-rouge-ii-jay-rockefeller-edition/
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/020109/2002010919.html
Al-Assad confers with the US Senate delegation
Syria-USA, Politics, 1/9/2002
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad at the Damascus al-Shaab palace on Tuesday received W Owens and members of the US Senate: Richard Durban, David Price and Jim Dives and members of their accompanying delegation. The meeting was attended by the Deputy Premier and foreign minister Farouk al-Shara and the US ambassador in Damascus Theodore Qattouf.
Oh yes, I forgot about Senator Bob Graham and his presidential campaign run upon the platform of "intelligence".
Thank you.
First I would like to know, if we the tax payers paid for Rockefeller's trip? "IF" he flew commercial? Who else was on the flight from the origin, and what European countries did his flight land in? Say like France or Italy, or England.
Where was Joe Wilson during this trip?
Well, he said on Fox, "I took a trip by myself", but in the Arabic News report:
"Syrian President Bashar al-Assad at the Damascus al-Shaab palace on Monday received the US senator J. Rockefeller and members of the accompanying delegation."
Hmmm......
I have to admit I read past her name.
"Well, he said on Fox, "I took a trip by myself", but in the Arabic News report: "
A liberal Senator going to Damascus all by himself does not have a ring of truth. Somebody had to carry his bags.
Rockefellers (Standard Oil) have owned and operated Saudi for a hundred years. It is their ME fiefdom.
He's a traitor....needed Saddam to hide his WMD....this is being investigated by the senate. Wonder if anything will come of this investigation!!!??? Doubt it...
It's important that there be an investigation about this!
And...
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Tuesday at the Damascus al-Shaab palace received the chairman of the democratic minority at the US congress Richard Gephardt and members of the accompanying delegation.
Who else went on that trip, anyone know?
It's just like 1964 when that book came out, only this time the Democrats are sleeping with the Muslims instead of the communists. Someday the Democrats, Columbus-like, will "discover" America and become patriots. Someday, maybe, but until then we'll need to keep some rope on hand.
Why won't the Senate republicans stand up and do SOMETHING about this?? I just do not get it.....!!
I have long thought Rockefeller is the most dangerous man in America*, alternating with McLame who has so many people fooled as to his true nature.
*Now that beelzebubba is no longer in position to give away nuclear secrets etc.
"The members of the Senate have way too much class and dignity to slam members of the opposition.....except for the Dimocrats, of course!"
Setting their pretenses (and your probable sarcasm) aside, the Republicans are, in fact, afraid to speak in this manner, and, as you point out, the Democrats are not.
To be fair, the reason is that if a Republican spoke out like this, he or she would be subjected to a 360° attack by the media. Traditionally, politicians have tried to avoid such attacks as a matter of course in the process of conducting politics, because such attacks cost votes.
As I see it, two things are needed. First, we need more Republican Senators with thicker skins. Second, we need some conservative media.
"Now the dems put themselves out on the national security
limb. It is high time the President sawed it off."
There is an element of truth in what you are saying. However, there's another side to it. In fact, the president's current strategy in Iraq is not moving fast enough toward control by the Iraqi military of most Iraqi cities.
The goal of getting Iraq to be "relatively quiet" before the Iraqi army takes over is, in my opinion, a false one. Equally false is the goal of bringing the Iraqi army into the relatively same functionality as the American army.
Rather, what we need to do is push the media out of Iraq, provide heavier armament to the Iraqi army (M1 tanks, artillery, A-10s), and let the Iraqi army start to take over significant areas of Iraq---handling it anyway, they need to do it. I realize this is unrealistic, because it would result in civilian casualties. However, it would solve the problem, and the Iraqis would not be doing anything worse than what any of the other Arab governments do.
Once the US forces got out of the central part of the country, away from most of the Iraqi civilians, and away from almost all sources of US casualties, I believe the US forces would be able to stay indefinitely on the periphery of Iraq sealing the borders and preventing invasion from the outside.
If we drift on this current way, I am afraid that things will be much the same three years from now, Hillary will become president, and the US will pull out of Iraq, completely and abruptly. In that case, I believe, a government hostile to the United States, not democratic at all, and sympathetic to terrorism is sure to take over.
From this perspective, I welcome the recent Senate resolution.
IIRC there is satellite imagery of major movements of ... something ... into Syria, I believe.
Someone with better sources and 'puter skills than I should try to correlate Rockefeller's solo trip with the movement of stuff.
Why would this man, a U.S. Senator, do this? If he is not smart enough to think it up on his own ... who is/was his master?
Hey great post. Never heard of the Logan Act before.
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.