[TomGuy]

The administration is not sure how to proceed. Babbin doesn't think they have the guts to indict a US senator. He said it would cause a battle royal on the Hill, if not a constitutional crisis.

If they don't now, on this, they might as well forget about ever trying to any thing else.

They gave all the Clinton corruption a pass.

Jay Rockerfeller was also the Senator who made a fast trip to Syria and the ME not long before the invasion of Iraq, too.

[maine-iac7]

Jay Rockerfeller was also the Senator who made a fast trip to Syria and the ME not long before the invasion of Iraq, too

and I heard him actually say, on TV, that when the Syrian leader expressed doubts that Bush would really attack, (neither he nor Saddam thought the US had the guts too - and Saddam had his buddies - Russia, France and Germany, all on the take with the oil/food program - who assured him they wouldn't let an attack okay thru' the UN - was strutting and posturing. But Rockefeller proudly said that he, himself, assured Syria that Bush WAS going to attack. This is when Saddam got busy and trucked/flew the WMD into Syria.

So - why isn't what Rockefeller did treason?

[Rembrandt]

"The administration is not sure how to proceed. Babbin doesn't think they have the guts to indict a US senator. He said it would cause a battle royal on the Hill, if not a constitutional crisis.

If they don't now, on this, they might as well forget about ever trying to any thing else.

They gave all the Clinton corruption a pass.

Jay Rockerfeller was also the Senator who made a fast trip to Syria and the ME not long before the invasion of Iraq, too."


I'm a firm believer in a test of: Reverse the facts and the party affiliations. If the Dems were sitting in the Republican's places, would they indict? If the answer is yes, then our answer sure as hell should also be YES! The main reason that the Pubbies lose many times is that we always feel like we must play "by the rules." The Dims have no such compunctions!

[navycdrret]

The clock's not on the administration, it's on the Dems considering whether they can exploit a domestic spying lawbreaking accusation by the midterm elections. The Dem leadership knows who leaked it, and that the identity of the leak card will be played by the administration exactly when they need to accentuate their reason for not obtaining a warrant - leakers will compromise the program and thereby deprive us of valuable intelligence. Exposing Jay would be good if they did it now, but it would be better if they did it just as the Dems are at their most indignant over the administration's assertion that vital programs would be compromised by those who have decided to go to war against our war on terrorism.

[K-oneTexas]

They gave all the Clinton corruption a pass.

Actually they "saved his bacon." Trying him on is sexual peccadillo's did truly saved him. Although disgusting, morally and otherwise, it did not rise to the level of impeachment. As he could never have been convicted, Congress's heart wasn't in it (Republican or Democrat), it wasted time and money.

The House managers and others should have charged and tried him on his national security failures. These instances and circumstances were documented even then. It might even have made adjustments in how government works and possibly forestalled or even diffused 9-11. I read once (in some lawyers book on the impeachment) that this was the initial case but "the powers that be" changed the course of the proceedings. Congress didn't have the stomach for the truth?