Looks like the Slimes will get an unending supply of Intelligence leaks.
Posted on 01/26/2007 8:24:23 AM PST by SmithL
Vice President Dick Cheney exerted "constant" pressure on the Republican former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee to stall an investigation into the Bush administration's use of flawed intelligence on Iraq, the panel's Democratic chairman charged Thursday.
In an interview with McClatchy Newspapers, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia also accused President Bush of running an illegal program by ordering eavesdropping on Americans' international e-mails and telephone communications without court-issued warrants.
In the 45-minute interview, Rockefeller said that it was "not hearsay" that Cheney, a leading proponent of invading Iraq, pushed Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., to drag out the probe of the administration's use of prewar intelligence.
"It was just constant," Rockefeller said of Cheney's alleged interference. He added that he knew that the vice president attended regular policy meetings in which he conveyed White House directions to Republican senators.
Republicans "just had to go along with the administration," he said.
In an e-mail response to Rockefeller's comments, Cheney's spokeswoman, Lea McBride, said: "The vice president believes Senator Roberts was a good chairman of the Intelligence Committee."
Roberts' chief of staff, Jackie Cottrell, blamed the Democrats for the investigation remaining incomplete more than two years after it began.
"Senator Rockefeller's allegations are patently untrue,"
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Elections have consequences.
Jay Rockefller.... Intelligence. Those two words should not appear together in any sentence. Old John D must be spinning in his grave.
LOL!!! It wasn't "hearsay?" Yet you were not there and were told about it! Pssssssssssssssttt... that's called "HEARSAY!" Dumbo!
Rockefeller accusing Cheney of interfering?
Pot calling the kettle black, if you ask me.
Wellllllllllll he does have a track record of lying and of treason...so why do we still listen to this ahole?
Jay Rockerfeller should be swinging from the gallows.
Looks like the Slimes will get an unending supply of Intelligence leaks.
bump
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1513709/posts
The Rockefeller Memo
11/6/03 | Demo staffer...
Following is the text of a memo written by a Democrat on the staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that suggests how to make the greatest gain off of intelligence data leading to the war against Iraq. The memo was obtained by Fox News.
Transcript of a memo written by a Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee staff suggesting how to make the greatest gain off of intelligence data leading to the war against Iraq.
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.
You're right. Elections have consequences. Now I'm scared.
is he indicted yet
Gotta get Cheney before you get Bush, eh?
Six years they've been trying. I wonder if they'll even quit it in 2009.
What Jay Rockefeller describes sounds an awful lot like politics to me.
As V.P., is it somehow illegal for Cheney to pursuade and influence other politicians in his own party with words? The pursuadee is oft time more guilty that the pusuader..
The only thing Cheney might have "stalled"
was the delivery of classified intelligence to an extremely leaky Congress during war time;
which is, Constitutionally, always the preorgative of the Executive.
The fact that that requirment might have
extended the time-frame during which questions and answers could be properly vetted,
and sometimes ending in necessary censoring of then currently critical intelligence,
to the point of rendering some questions as presently unanswerable
can only cause the concern of a Congressman who is in actuality working for our defeat.
Rockefeller is chairman, and a liar and a traitor. Elections can have dire consequences.
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.