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believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th that question is increasingly outdated.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.
It's just like 1964 when that book came out, only this time the Democrats are sleeping with the Muslims instead of the communists. Someday the Democrats, Columbus-like, will "discover" America and become patriots. Someday, maybe, but until then we'll need to keep some rope on hand.
Why won't the Senate republicans stand up and do SOMETHING about this?? I just do not get it.....!!
I have long thought Rockefeller is the most dangerous man in America*, alternating with McLame who has so many people fooled as to his true nature.
*Now that beelzebubba is no longer in position to give away nuclear secrets etc.
"The members of the Senate have way too much class and dignity to slam members of the opposition.....except for the Dimocrats, of course!"
Setting their pretenses (and your probable sarcasm) aside, the Republicans are, in fact, afraid to speak in this manner, and, as you point out, the Democrats are not.
To be fair, the reason is that if a Republican spoke out like this, he or she would be subjected to a 360° attack by the media. Traditionally, politicians have tried to avoid such attacks as a matter of course in the process of conducting politics, because such attacks cost votes.
As I see it, two things are needed. First, we need more Republican Senators with thicker skins. Second, we need some conservative media.
"Now the dems put themselves out on the national security
limb. It is high time the President sawed it off."
There is an element of truth in what you are saying. However, there's another side to it. In fact, the president's current strategy in Iraq is not moving fast enough toward control by the Iraqi military of most Iraqi cities.
The goal of getting Iraq to be "relatively quiet" before the Iraqi army takes over is, in my opinion, a false one. Equally false is the goal of bringing the Iraqi army into the relatively same functionality as the American army.
Rather, what we need to do is push the media out of Iraq, provide heavier armament to the Iraqi army (M1 tanks, artillery, A-10s), and let the Iraqi army start to take over significant areas of Iraq---handling it anyway, they need to do it. I realize this is unrealistic, because it would result in civilian casualties. However, it would solve the problem, and the Iraqis would not be doing anything worse than what any of the other Arab governments do.
Once the US forces got out of the central part of the country, away from most of the Iraqi civilians, and away from almost all sources of US casualties, I believe the US forces would be able to stay indefinitely on the periphery of Iraq sealing the borders and preventing invasion from the outside.
If we drift on this current way, I am afraid that things will be much the same three years from now, Hillary will become president, and the US will pull out of Iraq, completely and abruptly. In that case, I believe, a government hostile to the United States, not democratic at all, and sympathetic to terrorism is sure to take over.
From this perspective, I welcome the recent Senate resolution.
IIRC there is satellite imagery of major movements of ... something ... into Syria, I believe.
Someone with better sources and 'puter skills than I should try to correlate Rockefeller's solo trip with the movement of stuff.
Why would this man, a U.S. Senator, do this? If he is not smart enough to think it up on his own ... who is/was his master?
Hey great post. Never heard of the Logan Act before.
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.