| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Why was Sen. Jay Rockefeller talking to Bashar Assad about the president's "plans" for Iraq? |
| 2005-11-16 |
| Bravo Zula to the blog Captain's Quarters Foreign Correspondent by Edward Morrissey 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believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th that question is increasingly outdated.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 would appear that the good Senator is guilty of treason and should be booted out the Senate. At the very least he has jeaprodized the lives of 1000s of US soldiers and marines. |
| Posted by:anymouse |
| #9 Pre-War Situation: One doesn't need much of a crystal ball if one has eyes and more than a few neurons. Side Note: The Left conveniently forgets that the UNSCOM inspectors were allowed back into Iraq for one reason only - and it had dick to do with the UN: Bush began sending large numbers troops and the necessary matériel for them to fight to the Gulf. Period. Full Stop. Same for Baby Assad and everyone else Rocky "visited" on his "trip". They could see for themselves: Bush is dead fucking serious. Somehow I seriously doubt Bush required the services of the ranking opposition party member of the Senate Intel Committee to communicate with anyone in the region. I will grant one observation: it was not as clear then that Rocky was a card-carrying Kool Aid swilling flaming BDS basket case. The revelation of the depths to which he had sunk came a bit later... in Nov 2004, methinks. The unhinging of the Dhimmidonks on that beautiful Wednesday morning reached epidemic proportions, lol. I see no reason why Rocky shouldn't be grilled to well-done and lose a few fingernails and toenails over his moronic mission to the Bad Guyz on the eve of war. Far better people have suffered much more for much less in this poisoned mess. Okay, this was interesting. I'm done. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-11-16 21:46 |
| #8 Okay, my first assumption was that he was a loose cannon who knew nothing. The second was that he was under the radar enough to spread a message for the administration. The third alternative is that he was *used* by the administration as a tool to spread that same message. This third alternative is not impossible, that he was fed information to leak to the bad guys, not knowing that he was being used. But I look at what the situation was at the time: officially, we were trying any number of means to get Saddam to cut it out. By sending R to the neighboring countries to let them know we weren't kidding, would almost certainly get back to Saddam. And Saddam might not believe us, but his spies in Syria, Jordan and Saudi would get that message back to Bagdad ASAP. It also lets those countries know that they had better start pulling their people out of a soon to be hot zone, and not to get too friendly with Saddam right now. So, whether or not R was doing what George wanted him to do, one way or the other, or was just a bumbling fool shooting off his mouth doesn't really matter. It had the same effect. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-11-16 20:28 |
| #7 was Joe Wilson unavailable? Jeebus |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-11-16 20:07 |
| #6 Lol. Well, I guess almost anything's possible. That Bush would send Rocky, when he has Condi and a number of other people in State who actually work for the President, is a stretch, lol. In the Rosemary Woods 18 minute gap League. But please, spin away, it's very entertaining. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-11-16 20:02 |
| #5 This article is approprietly placed in SAST section. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2005-11-16 15:51 |
| #4 There are two faces in Washington, the public face and the private face. Senators who, before the cameras, lambaste and snarl at each other, then retire to the cloakroom and are laughing and joking with each other 10 minutes later. Of course, the politics is always there, but there is a lot more common ground then they let on. For example, both sides rely on bureaucratic mandarin experts to explain reality to them; then they turn to their Hill Rats to get the party line and the political finesses of the situation. Often times, legislation is submitted almost tongue in cheek, knowing that it has no chance, or is just a stupid waste of time. But when something dead, damn serious comes around, both parties reach agreement quick and there is minimal b.s. As the saying goes, "The bigger the fight, the smaller the stakes". As far as Rockefeller goes, if he was being used as an emissary, I'm sure the State Department was very careful to follow the political ground rules, so that he would neither be embarrassed or be able to embarrass the White House. If this is the case, then this story will go nowhere. If he was being a loose cannon, then that is another matter. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-11-16 13:57 |
| #3 Anonymoose...I hear what you are saying and understand that is a common way to back-channel. But don't you think it odd to use a donkey...and a donkey that is not sympathetic to the administration...as an emmisary? |
| Posted by: anymouse 2005-11-16 11:30 |
| #2 Two possible flaws in this reasoning. First of all, even a US Senator is generally free to "express their opinion" about what they think the president is planning to do -- in the absence of information or knowledge on the subject. Second, he almost certainly had a State Department briefing before he went on his trip, for any number of reasons. They may have proposed to him that he tell the Saudis, Jordanians, and Syrians this with the express purpose of sending a message to Iraq that the US was not just jerking around, and that they meant it this time. Traveling congressmen and bureaucrats are often used for message purposes. They both fly under the radar, and can have 2nd tier meetings without the press and formality getting in the way. Just two guys chatting over martinis. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-11-16 11:11 |
| #1 The Dhimmidonks like playing rough - or so they think. The scorched-earth policy that they've pursued for the last year deserves an ass-kicking. Kicking this asshole out of the Senate, not to mention the Intel Committee, a sensitive position which should have given him pause precisely where he took it upon himself to play at being President, would be an appropriate response. Do it you gutless Senate Pubs, burn him. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-11-16 10:43 |