Posted on 11/16/2005 7:30:38 AM PST by billorites
PRESIDENT BUSH'S DECISION to finally push back against the "Bush lied!" fable paid off in strange ways this past week. Democrats seemed caught by surprise that the president would attack them so frontally on Veteran's Day; the shock caught them flatfooted all weekend long. Senators from the minority caucus could not explain their own words from 2002 supporting the same intelligence, and the same conclusions, as the Bush administration.
The strangest episode came from an appearance by Senator Jay Rockefeller on Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: OK. Senator Rockefeller, the president says that Democratic critics, like you, looked at pre-war intelligence and came to the same conclusion that he did. In fact, looking back at the speech that you gave 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believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th that question is increasingly outdated.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. [emphasis added]
What was the second-ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee doing in Syria, a country which perennially finds itself among the top listings of terrorist-sponsoring nations, discussing President Bush's decision-making on the war on terror with Bashar Assad, one of the worst sponsors of terror in the months after 9/11?
So far, no journalist has had an opportunity to ask Rockefeller that question directly, and Rockefeller hasn't elaborated on the point. We do know, however, that Rockefeller didn't lie about the trip itself. Arabic News covered the January 2002 visit in a short report that confirms Rockefeller's meeting with Assad. While the report does not directly quote Rockefeller after the meeting, it describes the senator as "content" and noted his "happiness" in meeting with the terror-enabler (who now faces condemnation even at the United Nations for his involvement in the assassination of a political opponent in Lebanon).
Rockefeller, for his part, neglected to mention the trip at the time, although he did issue press releases about his meeting with Saudi leaders on the same junket (as noted by the blogger Dinocrat).
If Rockefeller discussed war plans with Assad while the United States had begun military operations against global terrorist organizations, which Assad has been known to fund, surely it is a major breach of the senator's duties? The Logan Act, a piece of rarely enforced legislation, may be pertinent:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
By Rockefeller's own admission, he went to Syria (as well as Saudi Arabia) to conduct his own foreign policy initiative. He warned Assad that Bush intended to invade Iraq and could not be deterred--giving Assad plenty of opportunity to communicate with Saddam Hussein, and Hussein plenty of opportunity to prepare for war.
Mind you, it took President Bush nine months from time of Rockefeller's trip to even bring the subject of Iraq to Congress, and even though he got the authorization he wanted, he spent five months after that attempting to negotiate with the United Nations for unanimous backing on military action. That hardly seems like an implacably-resolved president determined to go to war.
None of this is to say that our elected representatives can't speak to foreign heads of state, even those unfriendly to the United States. However, by Rockefeller's own reckoning, this incident involves more than just fact-finding. The man who sits in judgment of American intelligence communities went to a known supporter of Islamist terror at a time when the nation had explicitly declared itself in conflict with such groups, and discussed our wartime preparations with a tyrant who could have--and may have--used that information to America's disadvantage. The timetable, and Rockefeller's admitted intervention, allowed the Assad and Hussein enough time to create strategic planning for the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq.
Given the facts we know now, it seems to be an excellent example of why Congress passed the Logan Act in the first place.
Edward Morrissey is a contributing writer to The Daily Standard and a contributor to the blog Captain's Quarters.
goodmorning ping
none dare call it what it is.....
but I'm not PC, so I will call it what it is.....
It's called TREASON
The President should talk about this!
He was giving Assad a heads up so the WMD could be moved so that the Democrats could use that politically down the line.Nah, Rockefeller is not THAT bright. But he was giving aid and comfort to a terrorist state. I suggest we have a congressional hearing look into this. This is far more dangerous for US security than the so called outting of Valerie Plame!
Answer: This is why Sen. Jay Rockefeller talking to Bashar Assad about the president's "plans" for Iraq.
What is, "Because he's a traitor?"
I'll take Famous Poets for $400, Alex.
It might also be the reason we cannot find WMD's. Remember all those trucks reported to be travelling from Iraq to Syria BEFORE the war began?
From Joe Wilsons NYT editorial reprinted HERE
Coincidence in the timing?
"What was the second-ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee doing in Syria, a country which perennially finds itself among the top listings of terrorist-sponsoring nations, discussing President Bush's decision-making on the war on terror with Bashar Assad, one of the worst sponsors of terror in the months after 9/11?"
What's the problem? He was being a traitor and helping the enemies of the US to the utmost of his abilities. Just acting in solidarity with the struggling masses around the globe who oppose oppressive US power. Nothing unusual for a Democrat.
If the story was newsworthy, it could be a problem. But it is not. The MSM is very busy and has too many other more important things to cover.
Unless Senate Republicans started talking about it...
Yes, but will the Administration keep this up. Just one or two frontal attacks and the dems are knocked completely off balance. Just imagine what would happen if the attacks came on a regular basis.
In my opinion, when the subject is national security, even the Iraq War, the dems lose everytime, well, at least when they are actively engaged on the issue. The President, understandably, concluded that since Iraq was THE issue during election 2004, it was settled. Thus, he thought he could turn the topic to something else. He was wrong and the only reason, the sole reason the dems have gained any traction to bash Bush over Iraq is because the Administration stopped fighting the issue.
Now the dems put themselves out on the national security limb. It is high time the President sawed it off.
There are those who say Rockefeller should face censure....I say a firing squad is more like it. Lets call what he does by the right name as has been said here....TREASON!
BUSTED!!! These arrogant sacks of puke! I want to know when charges are going to be brought against Rockefeller for this malfeasance in office. No member or head of any committee in congress has the authority to deal directly with foreign governments - unless authorized by the country's administration - as in a delegation.
If this isn't TREASON - then what is it ..??
Traitor
This is outrageous. Who will ask Rockefeller that question besides Chris Wallace? Who wants to know the truth behind the Dems' strategy to retake the White House by stooping so low as to align themselves with known terrorists?
In a sane world that would happen, but since the GOP has no spine, it won't. The lefties say or do what they want because the jellyfish who are the majority let them. They just gotta keep getting along. Pathetic, all of them.
I've come to believe most Democrats are sado-masochists......they will do whatever they like and screw the consequences!!
Before anyone uses the excuse that Rocky was just talking about something everyone else was talking about, there's a big difference between two people discussing the possibility of war over a couple of beers and a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee talking about the same thing with a sworn enemy of the United States.
I wonder if it just has to do with his oil interests? Does anybody know if he has any oil stocks?
ah, but per the demonrats there are no enemies
of the US, only misguilded friends who given time
and understanding of why they hate us, will eventually
love us.
or some sort of crap like that.....
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.