I listened to Senator Jay Rockefeller this morning, thought about it,...

[NNN0LHI]

...slept (napped) on it, and have thought about it some more. I have concluded that the truth will set us free. And I also think Rockefeller is telling the truth as he believes it. As I pointed out before I too was convinced that there were WMDs in Iraq until after the IWR vote. But not after the UN weapons inspectors went in after the vote.

Should Rockefeller and others raised more hell after it became apparent that there were no WMDs but had already voted yes to the IWR. Absolutely they should have. But it wouldn't have made any difference. And they knew that.

I will take the guy who was scammed like I was and who is not ashamed to admit it like Rockefeller over someone else who was also scammed like Rockefeller was and won't admit to it or were actually part of the scam themselves.

Senator Jay Rockefeller is alright by me. Wish we had more like him.

Don


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/06/le.01.html

<snip>BLITZER: Senator Rockefeller, you were among those who voted to give the president the authority to go to war. And you made some very strong statements in advance of the war suggesting that the Iraqis under Saddam Hussein had all sorts of weapons of mass destruction. Let me play this soundbite from what you said on the Senate floor October 10, 2002.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROCKEFELLER: There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons. And will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress that Saddam Hussein has been able to make in the development of weapons of mass destruction.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: You want to revise and amend those words, Senator?

ROCKEFELLER: Of course. I mean, I was dead flat wrong. And as soon as we -- since I'm on the Intelligence Committee, and as soon as we did our report on weapons of mass destruction or before we completed it, I realized that I had just been living off this information, this false information, intelligence.

We blasted the folks who created the intelligence. And I went down to the floor of the Senate and I said, look, I'm wrong. I would never vote for a war knowing what I know now. But the point also is, Blitz, that the Senate of the United States doesn't take us to war. It is the president of the United States that takes us to war. It is the president of the United States that takes us to war. It's the vice president of the United States that takes us to war.

That's where the whole theory that within several days of 9/11 in New York City, that the president, the vice president, and Donald Rumsfeld were already thinking not just about getting into Afghanistan, which was the right thing to do, but also declaring war on Iraq. And that taking place within a week after the end of the happening of 9/11.

BLITZER: Senator Rockefeller, here is how The Wall Street Journal summed it up on Thursday in an editorial. "The scandal here isn't what happened before the war. The scandal is that the same Democrats who saw the same intelligence that Mr. Bush saw, who drew the same conclusion, and who voted to go to war are now using the difficulties we've encountered in that conflict as an excuse to rewrite history." What do you say about that?

ROCKEFELLER: No. We're not trying to rewrite history. We're trying to figure out what history actually was. We did that with the weapons of mass destruction. And Senator Allen knows as well as I do that probably the only weapons of mass destruction left over were those that were used in the ten-year war of Iraq against Iran prior to 1990.

But, the point was that we have waited now 20 months to go into this so-called phase two. Not just the collection of intelligence, but the use or the misuse of intelligence by the executive branch or anybody else. And that is what we have been trying to get at.

We have been denied the opportunity to even conduct a phase two discussion. That is why we shut down the Senate floor, closed it off. And in two hours we have accomplished more than we had in 20 months.

[FloridaPat]

1. There were a lot of things wrong with the whole premise that I would

think a US congress person would ask some questions. Senator Graham of Florida was on the intelligence commision and voted against it.

Red Flags: * never tells the truth. Why would he tell it then.
2. He kept changing the requirements for Sadam to comply to avoid an invasion. If he was really serious, why change the requirement once it was met?
3. There is a chemical group that the head of was trying to get Sadam into the group. It would keep deadly chemicals out of the countries that were in the group. This happened about a year before the run up. The head of this group almost had Sadam signed up when * butted in and got the guy fired.
4. The 9-11 people came from Saudia Arabia. Why was Iraq next on the list?
5. Why did anyone anywhere think things would get better in Iraq than Afghanistan?
6. Very few countries with any clout was behind the invasion.
7. PNAC - the plan was to take over all the oil.

There were red flags everywhere. What do these people in congress do all day? The first Gulf War too 6 months to debate. What was the big rush? It could have waited until after the election. I think the Democrats found out they couldn't discuss anything else with * and were hoping the UN would stop the invasion, so they voted for it just to get it out of the news. And if that was the case, they should be thrown out for treason. The UN was waiting for congress to do the right thing. They didn't.

[NNN0LHI]

6. Senator Graham of Florida voted against it because he thought it...

...would be better to preemptively attack Syria, Lebanon and Iran. Which only goes to prove that even he didn't have too much of a grasp on these matters either.

Don

[FloridaPat]

7. Thanks. Never head that part of his mind.

[NNN0LHI]

10. Yep just plug in Syria+Lebanon+Iran+Bob Graham into Google and...

...you will get a zillion hits. I heard him say it live once and just about fell out of my chair. See you later.

Don

[DeepModem Mom]

2. The thing about Rockefeller to remember is that he doesn't need to do this

and has never needed to do this. He could have done nothing with his life, and lived off his family's wealth anywhere. Instead he moved to West Virginia, and became a liberal Democratic Senator from that state. And gets up early on a Sunday morning to appear on TV.

He's alright by me, too.

[NRaleighLiberal]

3. AND...if we really did believe that there were chemical weapons,

would we have just waltzed in the way we did in very conventional means with respect to the ground assault phase???

I think that Scott Ritter (remember him???) had this thing right from the start.

But the key statement above - Bush has been a liar and a failure his entire life. Why would anyone believe him about anything, ever?!?!?!?!?!

[jobycom]

4. The thing is, for me, there are varying degrees of wrong and right.

There aren't just two categories. Only fascists believe in absolutes (Except that one, you can believe in that one).

People like Byrd and Kennedy opposed the war from the beginning and voted against the IWR. They are the most right.

Next are those Democrats who voted for the IWR because it put some restrictions on Bush, who was at the time claiming he could invade without asking anyone's permission. They tried. They were misled, they were wrong, but the at least forced Bush to go to the UN. They gave peace a chance, but ultimately failed. They were wrong, but they tried.

Next are those Dems who trusted Bush and the Traveling Slaughter Machine Road Tour. They believed that there was some evidence that Hussein had WMDs, and they trusted W to take care of the matter and not abuse their trust. They were duped. They were wrong. Those like Rockefellar and Edwards and Kerry who admit they were wrong can make amends. Those who still claim they were right are very wrong.

I can forgive all of those.

Then, there are those who believed we should invade Iraq, who weren't worried much whether Iraq had WMD. Those were mostly Republicans, but sadly, some Dems. Lieberman, Miller. Hell is not hot enough. I could forgive them if they admitted they were wrong and threw themselves on the mercy of the world court begging for forgiveness and condemning Bush. Maybe. But it will take no less.

The most evil are those who wanted the war, led the effort to deceive to get the war, and still lie to defend their own actions. To them, it's all politics. Life means nothing to them. They are pure evil. I would not forgive them if they converted to Buddhism, sold all their material possession, donated their entire wealth to starving children in Somolia, and spent the rest of their lives wiping the sores of sick children in Mother Theresa's orphanages in Bangladesh. I would think better of them, but not forgive them.

That's my analysis of the subject. I judge politicians by where they fit on that spectrum. I even give some the benefit of the doubt. But it's there.

[KoKo]

5. Understand what you say, NNN0LHI.

And, I've pondered Rockefeller's stand since he sincerely (it seemed to me) tried to protest Roberts first Report.

But, I was a vehemetly ANTI IRAQ INVASION DU'er. And, thank you for reaching out in this post to try to "breach the gap."

I, too, feel Rockefeller and others just didn't maybe get it.

(My personal opinion was that they Ignored ALL CONTRARY INFO.) The Internet was so new when this was all happening ...yet the information from "Search Engines" before Google became predominant STILL SHOWED that their "Intelligence" was FALSE.

But...not everyone could spend 24 hours a day back in the early internet to comb through info...and to Senators the Internet was like (Whoa...what's this crap) and they were preferring snail mail (yet that was all delayed because of Anthrax inspection.)..so they weren't hearing from their constiuents in a timely fashion...only the LOBBYISTS AND BIG DONORS WHO MIGHT HAVE WANTED THIS WAR...FOR THEIR OWN REASONS.

Anyway..as I said...I appreciate your reaching across the aisle here.
I don't know if Rockefeller is the brightest light in the Families Dynasty...that he wasn't up to speed enough to deal with intelligence..but then ...it is what it is. We have to work with supporting our Dems who finally admit...WE WERE LIED TO!!! LIED TO!!!

:-)'s

& Peace!
Koko

[NNN0LHI]

9. Well I think you know that I have also been against the Iraq invasion...

...as well as the Afghanistan invasion. But just the look on Jays face today told me he was just sick about the whole thing. I compared that to the pink faced smiling and lying Repig that was on the show with him today and the difference was stark. That Repig didn't care less about the deaths he has caused. Jay cares a lot. Take care and see you later Koko.

Don

[bluedeminredstate]

8. Another fiction

BLITZER: Senator Rockefeller, here is how The Wall Street Journal summed it up on Thursday in an editorial. "The scandal here isn't what happened before the war. The scandal is that the same Democrats who saw the same intelligence that Mr. Bush saw, who drew the same conclusion, and who voted to go to war are now using the difficulties we've encountered in that conflict as an excuse to rewrite history." What do you say about that?

This is repeated day in and day out by the repigs - that the Senate had the same intelligence as Bush and they gave him the go ahead. That is not exactly true. The white paper presented to the Senate had statements about Saddam's capabilities that were unconditional and way over-exaggerated. The State department's very different take on the same information was "mistakenly" left out. That wasn't "fixed" until after the vote was held. What the Senate got for intelligence was a Bush-Cheney-Condi-Rummy fantasy intel report. Why don't these Democrats ever say this??? It's not difficult to say quickly and with clarity.
:mad:

As for the Senator, he's OK by me. I think he's essentially decent but like many in our party I'd like to see the Wellstone fire now and then.

[NNN0LHI]

11. Congress has no direct oversight of any intelligence agencies

They all answer to Bush. Not to Congress as the Repigs would want us to think. This buck stops with Bush.

Congress gets to see what Bush wants them see. That is all.

Don