Posted on 11/15/2005 7:01:34 AM PST by SirLinksalot
Rockefeller’s Confession What was the West Virginia Democrat doing as a freelancing prewar diplomat?
By William J. Bennett
Yesterday, on Fox News Sunday, the following exchange took place between Chris Wallace and U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:
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?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The — 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.
While Democrats in Washington are berating the White House for having prewar intelligence wrong, a high-profile U.S. senator, member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, who has a name more internationally recognizable than Richard Cheney's, tells two putative allies (Saudi Arabia and Jordan) and an enemy who is allied with Saddam Hussein (Syria) that the United States was going to war with Iraq. This is not a prewar intelligence mistake, it is a prewar intelligence giveaway.
Syria is not only on the list of state sponsors of terrorism and the country many speculate is where Hussein has secreted weapons, it is also the country from which terrorists are flowing into Iraq to fight our troops and allies. Jordan and Saudi Arabia have had, over the years, conflicted loyalties. What was Senator Rockefeller doing? What was he thinking? And all this before President Bush even made a public speech about Iraq — to the U.N. or anyone else.
We can have our umpteenth investigation into what the White House knew and when it knew it about Iraqi weapons — we will find the same answer: It knew what President Clinton, Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright, and William Cohen knew when they made speeches about the dangers of Iraq in the late 1990s and when President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. How about an investigation, now, into what exactly Senator Jay Rockefeller told Syria and just what Syria might have done with the information made available to them presumably before it was made available to the U.N., the Senate, or the American people.
Senators and congressmen don't have to agree with their president's policies, and they should make the president robustly defend his policies — but they should not be acting as if they are the president or secretary of state; they should not be tipping off sometimes friends and definitive enemies about war plans that not even the president has yet made as policy. This is the true mockery of prewar intelligence, and Senator Rockefeller should fully explain his actions.
If Syria — or elements in Saudi Arabia — began acting on this information before we even went to war in Iraq (more than a year later), then Senator Rockefeller may have seriously harmed, impeded, and hindered our war efforts, our troops, and the entire operation in the Middle East. This should be investigated immediately; and perhaps Senator Rockefeller should step down from the Intelligence Committee until an investigation is complete.
The least is he should be dismissed from the Senate Intelligence Committee in disgrace.
One hour trial----hang him at dawn.
Bump!
That lousy loudmouth.
Get a rope!
Let's hang him high.
IMPEACH ROCKEFELLER!
Unbelievable! Whatever happened to traitors being tried in this country?
Last year, he leaked information about our satellite system, part of SDI, for the benefit of the Chinese. He wasn't skewered for that, either. This new information will go nowhere. After all, he is Rockefeller.
Let's see houw far this will go. Probably won't even make the evening news or any newspaper.
And I bet this is where the WMD went too-- Syria. With all the stalling at he UN and the headsup from Rockafeller it all now makes sense.
These bastards, or some of them at least, have been in on this since before the war started. Sorry call me moonbat if you will, but at this point of dem-insanity ,it's not that far out of the rhelm.
"...U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:"
How can the 'vice chairman of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence' get in that position with so little intelligence?
Yeah, and he talks about this like it's no big deal. WTF! DIE you commie scum!!
Rockefeller's statement is an obvious trap, and it is sad that so few of your recognize it as such. For Rockefeller to have done anything wrong, his statement about Bush planning early to invade Iraq would have to have been true. If not true, then Rockefeller did nothing wrong, but only stupid and unpatriotic.
By attacking Rockefeller's, you folks are inadvertently calling Bush a liar.
Anyone ready to WAKE THE HELL UP?
A rich boy who knows no laws. It is time to put him in jail (for a short time).
Kick him off the Intel Committee. Send him some diapers.
Who needs the Washington Post when we have Rockefeller.
Investigating a Democrat or a Dem institution?
Not in this age.
This traitor should pay for what he has done along with the other traitors we don't yet know about.
IMO, the President should have been planning early to invade Iraq.
<<<<
For Rockefeller to have done anything wrong, his statement about Bush planning early to invade Iraq would have to have been true. If not true, then Rockefeller did nothing wrong, but only stupid and unpatriotic.
By attacking Rockefeller's, you folks are inadvertently calling Bush a liar.
>>>>
I don't see that at all. Any President worth his salt WOULD PLAN FOR WAR IN ANY CASE. Do you think we do not have a plan to go to war with Iran or North Korea IN EXISTENCE NOW ? I highly doubt it and I am THANKFUL that such plans exist.
In other words, it would be irresponsible for Bush not to PRE-EMPTIVELY plan for war IN CASE WMDs WERE INDEED FOUND and there was a smoking gun.
Rockefeller is READING IN to Bush's plans and concluding that HE WANTS TO GO TO WAR SO BADLY THAT HE WILL IGNORE ALL EVIDENCE OF COOPERATION ( which of course we know to be non-existent ). Had there been evidence of cooperation, there would be no need to go to war ( BUT THE WAR PLAN WOULD STILL BE IN PLACE ).
Bush DOES NOT TRUST SADDAM ( and neither did Clinton ), nr should we blame them for their distrust. He had 12 years to comply and countless resolutions and he simply thumbed his nose at them, kicked the inspectors out and then started to BRIBE the very sherrifs ( the UN ) who were supposed to make sure he complied with the resolutions.
Therefore, given 911, given the fact that an Iraqi agent was involved in the first WTC attacks, I see no reason why a responsible president SHOULD NOT PLAN AHEAD for war.
That this plan was leaked to Syria is inexcusable.
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.