Posted on 01/05/2006 8:10:26 PM PST by grey_whiskers
Much of the political news in the US for the past couple of weeks has focused on the controversy (*) over the program to allow the use of the NSA to intercept cell phone calls between the continental US and suspected Al Qaeda and their supporters overseas. First came the revelation – on the eve of the Congressional vote to renew the Patriot Act – that the program existed. Shortly after this, it was revealed that the NY Times employee pushing the story was going to be releasing a book about the program. After that, more information came to light – the fact that the President had a habit of routinely bypassing the FISA Court specifically set up to review such cases; stories “floated” by Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy (Drinker – MA) that “Homeland Security” agents had harassed a college student for seeking to check out a library copy of “Mao’s Little Red Book”; announcements from Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer (Grandstander – NY) that he wants hearings because “we need to know the leaker’s motivation”; and most recently, stories in the Washington Times by Bill Gertz that the leaker – now suddenly a “whistleblower” motivated by only the purest of motives – wants to testify about the program.
At first glance, this might appear to be nothing more than what Rush Limbaugh has christened a “journalistic front” after the “cold fronts” which appear on weather maps. Just like the cold fronts, once a “journalistic front” appears on the radar, it progresses to cover more and more of the country – and the journalists. But it does seem odd, doesn’t it, that the more these stories progress, the more they get hostile (not to say grim) for the administration? What doesn’t make sense, is that there is no undercurrent of national feeling to propel these stories. In fact, the Rasmussen poll showed almost 2/3 of the respondents approved of the NSA program (2/3 is bona fide landslide territory). So if it isn’t grass roots momentum behind these stories, what is it?
While I was pondering this, my mind recalled the speculation that Senator Nelson Rockefeller (Twit – WV) had been behind the leaks. It certainly seemed reasonable. He had gotten in trouble before by telegraphing to foreign leaders (including Syria) that Bush probably intended to invade Iraq under Hussein. And he had publicized his own “secret memo” in which he had recorded his misgivings about the program. But then the name Rockefeller brought something else to mind. Namely, this little screed:
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.
Given the above, the NSA story, like the “Plame-gate” investigation which was supposed to get Karl Rove “frog-marched” out of the White House, begins to look engineered.
Engineered? Did I say that? Why yes. Does anyone else recall the story which came out last month about the remark by (who else?) Democratic Senator John Kerry (Wuss – MA) that “"If we take back the House, there's a case to bring articles of impeachment against this president." ?
It all adds up. The Liars, who have the Itch to attack President Bush, and who drone on and on and on about the war in Iraq. The Liars, the Itch, and the War Drone.
Either that, or they are trying to use the fabled Bush / Karl Rove tactic of the “Rope-a-Dope”. But with their usual sense for the true feelings of the electorate, they are managing to do nothing more than garrote their own political futures: the Dope-a-Rope.
.
Either way, it’s time to break out the popcorn. It’s going to be quite a show.
(*) I use the word ‘controversy’ as a courtesy to the MSM and the moonbats; nobody else seems to mind; in fact, recent polls show that about two-thirds of all Americans approve of this program.)
Cheers!
ping
Oh, barf. Just skimmed it. For one, the student and Mao book example was proven to be FAKE. For goodness sake, you think the twit would at least research the validity of his claims.
Please give due credit to Sen. Jay Rockefeller (Twit-WV) for "The Memo."
The VP under Gerald Ford was Nelson (Dead-NY).
I love the title!
Thanks, how do I recall a thread so I can correct it?
Wuss ping.
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.