Senator Feinstein says Rockefeller would not talk to her about the spying

[kentuck]

How many Senators are on the Intelligence Committee? I am thinking it is either 6 or 8 members - equally divided by Party. Senator Feinstein was on the Committee but the information was withheld from her? Why?

Why have 8 members on a Committee if only one or two are going to receive information? Both Rockefeller and Feinstein could have let this fact out without divulging any secret information. It amazes me that Rockefeller cannot share information with a US Senator on the same Intelligence Committee as he?? It amazes me further that Senator Feinstein could not bring it to people's attention that certain members of the Intelligence Committee were being shut out from receiving the information necessary to make critical decisions. The "Committee" is not two people. It is all eight Senators.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

1. Sen. Rockefeller is my senator

and I'm highly peeved with him.

To be fair, however, can you imagine the fun the wingnuts would've had if Sen. Feinstein would've said "They know something and they're not telling me. I don't know what they know, but they know what they know and I know they're not telling me what they know. And I want to know."

This was smartly done. That's part of the proof that it really *wasn't* Dear Leader's idea, as he claimed yesterday.

[Brundle_Fly]

15. The Letter saved his bacon

I don't fault him for this at all, he made his objections known to the extent he could....with no result.

he may even be the leaker for all we know.

We need Rockefeller and Reid and Durbin... they may not always get it right, but they are at least trying to get it.

[Burried News]

2. And if she had known would it have changed her vote FOR WAR.

http://janfrel.mydd.com/story/2005/6/4/121151/1317

Excerpt
"In January of 2003 Senator Jim Jeffords explained to a group of fellow Vermonters why he voted against the resolution giving President Bush the authority to invade Iraq. Jeffords told them that when Bush first came into office in 2001 the intelligence reports received from the White House national security team and the Pentagon stated that Iraq was at least five years away from developing WMD capabilities.

Six months later, the same officials reported that Iraq was two to three years away. Soon after 9/11, Jeffords was told that Iraq was less than a year away. By the time the Iraq resolution was in motion to approach a vote these same officials told him that Hussein could develop WMD any minute. "What made it all the more unbelievable was that their intelligence didn't change, only the estimate," Jeffords said. "They were obviously lying. And that's why I voted against the resolution."

That was Jeffords' reasoning. Good old-fashioned lie detection. It was the same reasoning that millions of Americans used to conclude that invading Iraq was a really bad idea. It was a conclusion that anyone could have come to if they had even superficially followed the national news during the months building up to the invasion. And of course millions did. What makes Jeffords' Nay vote and the reasoning behind it so stunning is the contrast it offers to the floor speeches we heard in the House and Senate from hundreds of elected representatives. If you go back over and read the House and Senate speeches surrounding the resolution, you'll see that nearly every representative and senator who voted Aye stated their justification in the potential that Iraq might develop, use, or share weapons of mass destruction. You won't find talk about liberation or the spread of democracy.

Democrats who'd been in Congress long enough to spot exaggeration and lying from the White House from a mile off somehow saw something different than Jeffords and much of American citizenry. Long-time California Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein in her speech before voting for the Iraq resolution based her vote on the premise of the existence of WMD: "If Saddam Hussein achieves nuclear capability, the risk increases exponentially and the balance of power shifts radically in a deeply menacing way. As I said on this floor in earlier remarks, I believe that Saddam Hussein rules by terror and has squirreled away stores of biological and chemical weapons." And so did Missouri Democratic Representative and ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee Ike Skelton: "he question before the House is this: Shall we stay the hand of the miscreant, or permit the world's worst government to brandish the world's worst weapons? I believe that, Mr. Speaker, difficult as it is, there can be only one answer. I support the resolution." " End of Excerpt

[karynnj]

11. What's not mentioned though is the ambiguity

There were no inspectors on the ground from 1998 - 2002. So, the information from those 4 years was suspect in and of itself - for either conclusion. The problem was whether to trust Bush to do as he said - which was to go to the UN, and go to war only as a last resort.
Having read Kerry's statements, it's clear he erred in trusting Bush to stand behind his own word. The problem was what to do if you felt that Saddam could be dangerous, but you were sceptical (which Kerry was even in the speech where he voted for the authorization.)

He also miscalculated on something else - which was that he spoke of intending to be the first to loudly speak out if the aurthorization was abused. It was and he did speak out loudly before the invasition - the MEDIA though backed Bush as they continued to through the election.

The Democrats should focus their attention at least as much on March 2003 when Bush invaded a country THAT WAS DISARMING (destroying missiles) at our demand. Any ambiguity or concern that COULD have existed in Oct 2002 - in spite of Jeffords' correct view that it didn't- was gone in March. The Senators had forced Bush to take out of the IWR the provision to attack countries other than Iraq and all reasons other than WMD. Bush removed the very reasons that were his real reasons to attack. (The DSM showed the real reasons - which is why Kerry in particular has demanded the Intelligence report part 2 be done.)

[hwmnbn]

3. Something stinks about this whole story.......

Because they are dealing with classified information, are they not allowed to publicly say anything?

Something like...."The VP is trying to pull a fast one. We should look in to this."

Then go into closed session and figure it out. That's not so complicated.

[napi21]

4. You need to check Rockefeller's letter to Cheney.

He did express how unhappy he was with this spy plan, back in 2003 when he was informed, but at the time, the few members of the Intel Committee were sworn to secrecy, and weren't even permitted to discuss what they were told with their staff or other members of the Intel Comm.

As I understand it, only the Chairman & ranking member of the Intel Comm. were informed.

[kentuck]

5. Sworn to secrecy ?

They are sworn to uphold the Constitution - which supersedes any illegal or unlawful act. They are confused by their responisbilities, it seems to me. The reason he was the only one told was because they knew he could be counted on to keep the "secret" - the "lie" - the crime.

[flordehinojos]

6. so he ought to be sent to the dungeon along with the bushes.

[kentuck]

7. No. He should look at the truth, just as you should do.

He was hoodwinked. He was weak. They read him like a book.

[flordehinojos]

9. what truth would you like for me to look at?

the senator should learn from his weakness and his mistakes and he should suffer a consequence for it. and so should bush who never suffered a consequence to any of his weaknessess nor his mistakes because his daddy was there to protect him and rescue him--consequentially poppy bush created a damn sociopath.

[kentuck]

10. It would be nice to learn from our weaknesses and mistakes...

As victims, we don't necessarily have to suffer further. But the sociopathic dictator that committed the crime should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. That's the truth.

[quaoar]

8. Feinstein was interviewed by Bill Press this morning

She was on his radio show. She sounded pretty pissed, although she was trying to keep her options open. She said she thought the spying was illegal unless someone came up with another law somewhere that she is unaware of that justifies it. But when Press asked her about impeachment she said she wasn't ready to go there until "we get all the facts."

[madrchsod]

12. he couldn`t talk to anyone ----

read the restrictions they put on him--he couldn`t discuss it with his staff. that is why he wrote the letter and ---hid----it in a save place in the senate! he knew just what would happen--remember the bastards sent anthrax to the democratic senators

[kentuck]

13. But that is the question I am asking?

If they are all on the Intelligence Committee, why couldn't he share it with his own "committee"? Should they all have access to the information if they are on the same committee? What if Bush only told the Repub Chairman? Would that have been alright?

[Catrina]

14. Everyone always forgets what went on back then.

Remember Bush saying that Democrats were leaking classified information to the press and he was going to stop telling Congress about secret plans he had for fighting terrorism and would only 'brief' about eight members of Congress from then on to stop the leaking?

This was total BS and meant to paint the Democrats as unpatriotic and a bunch of leaking, uncaring morons! But at that time, people were still in shock over 9/11 and there was little objection to most of what he got away with back then.

So, as I recall, Rockefeller being one of the eight who were briefed, was constrained by law (executive order?) not to reveal anything he was told that was supposedly 'classified'. But the fact that he protected himself by hiding a letter shows just how concerned he was about what was going on in the country at the time. And he let Cheney know about the hidden letter. That tells me that he maybe even feared for his life because he expressed concerns about their activities.

Sen. Durbin also said he could not reveal information he had back then because it was said to be classified. In the documentary, 'Dead Wrong' Durbin said he was very disturbed by what he saw the Bush administration saying publicly and what he knew was being said privately, but could not speak out at the time.

And of course there was the Anthraxing of Democrats who had objected to the Patriot Act ~ I hope all this is totally investigated now.