Posted on 12/20/2005 6:30:32 AM PST by The_Victor
WASHINGTON - Some Democrats say they never approved a domestic wiretapping program, undermining suggestions by President Bush and his senior advisers that the plan was fully vetted in a series of congressional briefings.
"I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities," West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, said in a handwritten letter to Vice President Dick Cheney in July 2003. "As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney."
Rockefeller is among a small group of congressional leaders who have received briefings on the administration's four-year-old program to eavesdrop — without warrants — on international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the United States with suspected ties to al-Qaida.
The government still would seek court approval to snoop on purely domestic communications, such as calls between New York and Los Angeles.
Some legal experts described the program as groundbreaking. And until the highly classified program was disclosed last week, those in Congress with concerns about the National Security Agency spying on Americans raised them only privately.
Bush, accused of acting above the law, on Monday issued a forceful defense of the program he first authorized shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. His senior aides have stressed the program was narrowly targeted at individuals with a suspected link to al-Qaida or affiliated extremist groups. And Bush said it was "a shameful act" for someone to have leaked details to the media.
He bristled at the suggestion at a White House news conference that he was assuming unlimited powers.
"To say 'unchecked power' basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the president, which I strongly reject," he said angrily. "I am doing what you expect me to do, and at the same time, safeguarding the civil liberties of the country."
Despite the defense, there was a growing storm of criticism in Congress and calls for investigations, from Democrats and Republicans alike. Until the past several days, the White House had only informed Congress' top political and intelligence committee leadership about the program that Bush has reauthorized more than three dozen times.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said he and other top aides were just now educating the American people and Congress. "The president has not authorized ... blanket surveillance of communications here in the United States," he said.
The spying uproar was the latest controversy about Bush's handling of the war on terror. It follows allegations of secret prisons in Eastern Europe and of torture and other mistreatment of detainees, and an American death toll in Iraq that has exceeded 2,150.
The eavesdropping program was operated out of the NSA, the nation's largest and perhaps most secretive spy operation. Employees there appreciate their nicknames: No Such Agency or Never Say Anything.
Decisions on what conversations to monitor are made at the Fort Meade, Md., headquarters, approved by an NSA shift supervisor and carefully recorded, said Gen. Michael Hayden, the principal deputy director of intelligence.
"The reason I emphasize that this is done at the operational level is to remove any question in your mind that this is in any way politically influenced," said Hayden, who was NSA director when the program began.
Since the program was disclosed last week by The New York Times, current and former Congress members have been liberated to weigh in.
Former Sen. Bob Graham (news, bio, voting record), D-Fla., who was part of the Intelligence Committee's leadership after the 9/11 attacks, recalled a briefing about changes in international electronic surveillance, but does not remember being told of a program snooping on individuals in the United States.
"It seemed fairly mechanical," Graham said. "It was not a major shift in policy."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., received several briefings and raised concerns, including in a classified letter, her spokeswoman Jennifer Crider said.
Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle said he, too, was briefed by the White House between 2002 and 2004 but was not told key details about the scope of the program.
Daschle's successor, Sen. Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., said he received a single briefing earlier this year and that important details were withheld. "We need to investigate this program and the president's legal authority to carry it out," Reid said.
Republicans, too, were skeptical.
Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has promised hearings next year and said he would ask Bush's Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito, his views of the president's authority for spying without a warrant.
Bush said the electronic eavesdropping program lets the government move faster than the standard practice of seeking a court-authorized warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. "We've got to be fast on our feet, quick to detect and prevent," the president said.
And he was cool toward investigations. "An open debate would say to the enemy, `Here is what we're going to do.' And this is an enemy which adjusts," he said.
___
"I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities,"
Trust your feelings, Jay.
At least Rockefeller is right about that.
Since when does Arlen Spector count as Republicans plural? He shouldn't even count as a single-tense Republican.
Such media bias.
There's your leaker.
I think that was Bob Graham of Florida.
Doesn't sound like the Jaybird is qualified to sit on the intelligence committee
He is, in addition, a New York carpet-bagging parasite who has cynically used the good people of West Virginia as no more than a power base - thanks to the West Virginia Democratic machine.
His mug, with its beak, is thoroughly repugnant and eerily reminiscent of Ichabod Crane - may the Headless Horseman return posthaste and gallop again through the Sleepy Hollow(s) of the hills.
John D. III's wife was Blanchette Ferry Hooker (1909-1992), so you could say that Jay Rockefeller is the son of a Hooker.
Such media bias.
MSM template:
One "Republican" agreeing with majority of democRATs = bipartisan support.
Several democRATs agreeing with majority Republicans = "mostly" along party lines.
He's lucky to have become a baby, given his family's enthusiasm for eugenics and "population control."
If I had a little more time on my hands, a little effort with Photoshop could produce all sorts of fun and interesting letters in Jay Rockefeller's own handwriting on US Senate letterhead. For example, perhaps a letter to Osama telling him not to use his cellphone because it is being monitored. Or a memo to Joseph Wilson thanking him for forging the Niger letter. Or a thank you to Saddam with cc: to Kofi for including him in the oil-for-food kickbacks. Where are Dan Rather and Mary Mapes when we need them?
LOL.......go for it!
If you're on a committee, you just sit there?? You don't ask questions? Your cohorts don't ask questions.
Not only that, his letter in no way addresses what his particular issue is.
One would think therefore that there would be several letters to Cheney about the EXACT same thing.
dims want us to be attacked. what a shame.
Note: July 17, 2003 was three days after Novak's article.
Oh, there's an interesting fact.
good catch
"The MSM continues to defend the democRATs. But it is interesting to note that after you finish reading past Rockefeller's lies, most of the democRATs admit they recieved the briefings. But of course the MSM will never put that in the first paragraph."
The only sticking point with that argument is that the breifings the Senators recieved in the Intelligence Committee briefings would have been top secret as well, preventing them from talking to even thier staff about it. I still think that this is a dangerous precedent, especially down the line when/if a dem president is elected.
Based on what I have read, Bush informed them what he was doing; he did not need their approval.
Hillary's latest blooper: "Cheney should go to Iraq"...a statement which caused a "look" from Cheney who was scheduled to leave for Iraq a few hours later.
I'm not absulutely sure if I heard right, but I thought Pelosi said yesterday that he never sent it.
BFD. They don't bacl America either.
Come onnnnnnn 06 elections!
"Jay Rockefeller - Village Idiot
Posted by bulldogpundit on Tuesday, 20 December 2005 (09:50:53) EST
Contributed by bulldogpundit
Looks like the Democrat response/defense to President Bush's claim that Senate Democrats were consulted about domestic surveillance is as follows: "We're Too Stupid To Understand What You Were Consulting Us About".
Click READ MORE to see our analysis of the Democrats latest strategy, and why it's a disaster politically.
We found out today that the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee,Senator Jay Rockefeller wrote a letter to VP Cheney saying:
Quote:
" As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney. Given the security restrictions with this program, and my inability to consult staff or counsel of my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities."
And apparently you are not a person with a double digit IQ either, Senator. In case you didn't know, your job is "oversight", and if you had questions about the tactics or the legality of it, why didn't you simply ask the NSA, the Justice Dept., or the Administration officials about the specifics.
What he's really concerned with, in my opinion, is the inability to talk to staff and his own lawyers he felt confident would promptly leak the information. What other explanation is there? Although it's possible that Rockefeller is such a dolt that he needs people to explain phone taps (and ABC's) to him.
We also learned that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Bob Graham and Tom Daschle were also briefed. Apparently they're upset because they didn't get the names and numbers of all the people under surveillance.
Keep in mind folks, this is a party whose biggest weakness is that voters don't trust them on issues of national security. Now, their ranking member on the Intelligence Committee is claiming he can't give support to a program that keeps us safe from terrorists until he consults staff and lawyers? Add that to the complaints of Democratic leaders about the program itself and one wonders if they really thought through their political strategy in dealing with this issue.
Is this really the image they want to project to voters in wartime? Well, I guess it is, if you have to cater to the Moveon.org's and Daily Kos's of the world.
If I were giving advice to the Democrats, I would suggest that they refrain from making any further comments on this issue. As the saying goes - "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
Thanks though, Jay Rockefeller and company, for speaking and removing all doubt."
source for above:
http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2837
If a DemoRat had been in the White House since 9/11/01 we would have been attacked in the U.S. several more times. The terrorists would have killed thousands more civilians in NY subways, DC, LA, etc. and would have completely wrecked our economy. The DemoRats are The Enemy Within. President Bush has defended the United States. Repeal the 22nd amendment. FOUR MORE YEARS!
Democrats are desperately, desperately trying to find a reason to impeach Bush. The thought of impeaching Bush drives fundraising with the hopes to regaining the House. The Valeria Flame(out) case went nowhere, no WMD went nowhere, so now there are on to this canard.
Just like the others, this will go nowhere. Dems don't care, remember its not the facts of the case, but the seriousness of the charge.
I love this!! Barbra Streisand would be the perfect spokeswoman for that defense.
The idea that you can't have surveillance of a US citizen who is communicating with suspected terrorists is ludicrous on its face.
I remember....a long time ago....some kind of a discussion that CIA is foreign, FBI is domestic intelligence. I'm guessing there has to be some kind of overlap to make surveillance effective that is not being properly noted.
Regardless....There is a FISA site you can visit. It's very informative.
Schummer and Kyle were very active in this. Shummer=Hillary's Boot licker.
Echelon and Carnivore were designed to 'circumvent' laws or political controversy.
We have 'engines' that search intl phone traffic from Austrialia, England, etc.
We tell them what we found, they have equipment to search our intl calls, and report to us what they found.
Good system. Was started in principle way before Clinton was even a governor.
The only calls they 'monitor' are the ones that Echelon kicks out as suspicious, due to patterns, keywords, etc.
Not much can avoid being intercepted if it is wireless.
No matter where it is at.
Ignorance in the electorate is what the Dims seek...
This MUST be investigated and the leakers prosecuted for the traitors that they are!
Sign the petition here:
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/investigatetheleaks/
Great "column"! Thanks for posting it.
Common sense tells me that neither the courts or Congress can prevent the President from doing what is necessary to protect the country. The President might agree to take some additional steps, but those steps can, in no way, be binding.
Break out the Roll Call of the meetings in which every politician was informed of the NSA Authorization. Blast it on the news stations or hold a press conference to announce them, if the MSM won't carry the news.
"I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities," ...Then WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING ON THIS COMMITTEE?
From FR: Rocky IV's Preview (Jay Rockefeller Warned Syria of Iraq War Intentions)
But they knew what needed to be done.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/719031/posts
Yep, that is who this guy is (the guy mentioned in the article).
>> "Former Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla." <<
Good old nutso Graham. (And they call California the land of the "fruits and nuts".)
Graham on FOX yesterday denied speaking with the Slimes about the subject but I just didn't believe him. His eyes had that guilt look in them.
"Bwa-ha-ha!! Good one Democrats. Bush told you all about it but you lacked the competence to understand it. And you want to be put into power? Now THERE'S a position to run on! Do I see another RNC commercial in future? Hope so!"
My thoughts as well. Rockefeller, as one of the leaders of the Demoncrats...just the man American needs looking out for our security!
He was a real piece of work for sure.
My guess...he's the clown the Democrats use for "comic relief."
No thanks, John Dimwit Rockefeller, IV
Jay's got a miniscule mind.
So he tells us that we should be blind
And not ask smart hackers
To track our attackers.
I don't want advice from his kind.
Maybe he has Hillary disease:
I can't remember. I can't remember.
So I guess we are suppossed to just take his word for things.
Here is a link to Rockefeller's misdeeds with the Senate Intelligence Committe...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1453971/posts
He is always in the middle of the stink!
"Jay Rockefeller's Letter
by Hugh Hewitt
December 20, 2005 07:50 AM EST
The two letters that Jay Rockefeller wrote after being briefed on the NSA program to conduct surveillance of foreign powers communicating with American citizens are a fascinating bit of Washington, D.C. inside baseball.
From the Washington Post:
He sent one to Vice President Cheney and placed the other -- as he pointedly warned Cheney he would -- in a safe in case anyone in the future might challenge his version of what happened. Rockefeller proved prophetic. Yesterday the 21-year Senate veteran from West Virginia released his copy of the letter -- which when written, was so sensitive he dared not allow a staffer to read it, let alone type it.
Here's the letter.
Some preliminary observations.
First, the Administration has had to have known from day one that eventually the program would be revealed, probably by Rockefeller, who had telegraphed his intention to be avle to "prove" his distance from, but not outright disapproval of, the program when the time came.
Second, Rockefeller is a cunning fellow, but not very. This letter is Uriah Heepish, and reveals Rockefeller as a petty man, concerned with how he will look in the future as opposed to either the successful conduct of the war or the maintenance of a higher legal standard for surveillance than the Bush Adminsitration would implement. What does the left think of Rockefeller's CYA letter? Read some of the comments at Josh Marshall's site and DailyKos and you'll get the picture.
Whatever Rockefeller was told (and three other senior Congressional leaders) the fact is clear that the Bush Administration was very candid with them and others, and that because the war was very real to them at the time, the Democratic Congressional leadership did nothing to attempt to end the surveillance. Rockefeller's "feeble" note, as one lefty put it, is a great symbol of the entire Democratic Party's approach to the war. These are not the people you want running it, or even close to the controls. "
http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2005/12/18-week/index.php#a000830
Excellent point and were he a republican, there would be lawsuits going after that diary right now.
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.