Posted on 11/14/2005 11:13:59 AM PST by Stultis
WALLACE: ...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believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th that question is increasingly outdated.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.
Now, the intelligence that they had and the intelligence that we had were probably different. We didn't get the presidential daily briefs. We got only a finished product, a finished product, a consensual view of the intelligence community, which does not allow for agencies — like in the case of the aluminum tubes, the Department of Energy said these aren't thick enough to handle nuclear power.
They left that out and went ahead with, "They have aluminum tubes and they're going to develop nuclear power."
WALLACE: Senator, you're quite right. You didn't get the presidential daily brief or the senior executive intelligence brief. You got the national intelligence estimate.
But the Silberman commission, a presidential commission that looked into this, did get copies of those briefs, and they say that they were, if anything, even more alarmist, even less nuanced, than the intelligence you saw...
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
How do they make it thru grade school ? By the same method Ted "the swimmer" Kennedy made it thru Harvard - massive alumni donations and the prestige of the family name...
"Rockefeller said he TOLD HEADS OF STATE in Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia that we were coming! THAT IS TREASON! No war plan had yet been announced!"
If he's leaking a classified war plan then that would be a big deal -impeachable underthe circumstanes, I would think.
The only way he could be doing that would be if President Bush had already decided to invade Iraq no matter what. I don't believe that is the case - that would contradict what the President has said. Therefore Rockefeller had to just be stating his opinion that President was determined to invade. Don't get me wrong, I dont think senators should be talking to Syria about anything unles they are sent by the President but I don't see criminal behavior here.
"If the AH comes to my dictatorship and whispers in my dictator ear and I know that this AH is on the Intelligence Committee, I'm gonna conclude two things--1) that I have an ally (AKA treason committing traitor) within the American government and 2) that I better prepare, including protecting the muslim controlled WMDs in a safer place..."
Doesn't it matter that the information wasn't true? The President had not decided to go to invade Iraq. The President has made this clear.
"I am sorry I missed this segment on FOX. Chris Wallace is clearly a lot more intelligent than Rockefeller."
That was the main thing I got from the John Roberts hearings... that we have some senators that aren't that bright - especially compared with the new Chief Justice.
It's true that Rocky told two allies and an enemy--we know that because he told us so himself. (Reeaally stupid!)
Now whether or not President Bush had actually planned from 9/11 on going into Iraq or not doesn't really bother me because there was always good reason to do so IMO.
My guess is that Rocky saw the intel and knew that somewhere down the road it would have to be done so he tipped them off to get ready.
Make that "on camelback" and you got yourself a winner.
Well, lets try to hit the ball out of the park and hold Rockefeller accountable for his comments to Syria... here we go!
One may not hold another accountable as a traitor during time of war when there is no war. War has not been declared so the rules of war are not applicable. Strike one.
We do have the Patriot Act. Unfortunately the Patriot Act ranks right up there with Hitler's SS, designed and created to protect the the STATE from the PEOPLE. Strike two.
Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton (our pitching coaches for this excercise) have a pretty good track record of avoiding convictions and are cut from the same cloth as Mr. Rockefeller...
Next batter please.
Horrific. These folks are not on our side.
But it DOES set him worlds apart from his dad!
Preparing his defense...
bump
Investigate.....
Why isn't Rockefeller under arrest?
Even the supposedly conservative GOP senators and representatives usually come across as being carefully politically correct and ultra polite and non-judgemental. I hate watching any of the GOP weenies as they weakly protest the DimWits outrageous statements. What a bunch of friggin cowards!
Pat Roberts should have absolutely blasted that traitor Jay Rockefeller for his open admission that he warned the heads of Muslim states INCLUDING SYRIA, that Bush was planning on going to war against Iraq. Instead he meekly asserts that "But to give Jay some credit, at least everybody thought up to that point that that was the case. But we did vote for regime change. We did vote to go to war. And we continued to vote on appropriations to conduct that war."
To give Jay some credit? You've got to be a friggin idiot to give Jay credit at all! So far in the interview Jay has not once in the interview affirmed that what he declared in his hawkish statements 3 years ago and prior, were what he actually meant. Pat Roberts should have blasted him on this as well.
Geez, I'm starting to hate intensely dislike our GOP senators and representatives.
Jay "Leaky"feller?
165 Bump
What did they say, if anything?
Bookmark
So I repeated my question. He got the point.
Good job. I might have added, before he got the point, "now do you care to 'revise and extend' your statement, about this being the wrong number?"
"Investigate.....
Why isn't Rockefeller under arrest?"
the only way that this is a crime is if what Rockefeller said was true - that the President was not honest about his plans for Iraq i.e. if he had already decided to go to invade no matter what and the Rockefeller would have had to have known that.
I don't the President had decided to go to invade Iraq no matter what - that's Democratic conspiracy stuff. Calling for an investigation could play right into Democratic hands.
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.