Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 No. Because of the classification of the material, they weren't allowed to divulge anything that they had read or heard. But when Bush openly admitted to the program over the weekend, it opened the door for them to speak freely about what they knew. 538869[/snapback] In other words, Congress kept a secret? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 In other words, Congress kept a secret? 538870[/snapback] They had no choice. Any reservations fell on deaf ears. linky Bush said Monday that the White House briefed Congress more than a dozen times. But those briefings were conducted with only a handful of lawmakers who were sworn to secrecy and prevented from discussing the matter with anyone or seeking outside legal opinions. Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) revealed Monday that he had written to Vice President Cheney the day he was first briefed on the program in July 2003, raising serious concerns about the surveillance effort. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she also expressed concerns in a letter to Cheney, which she did not make public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Hamilton Posted December 21, 2005 Author Share Posted December 21, 2005 They had no choice. Any reservations fell on deaf ears. linky 538874[/snapback] I read in one of those articles that McCain has publicly rebuked the Intelligence Committee members who had reservations but didn't raise them publicly once they were not addressed by the administration. His criticism being that how can the problem be fixed if all you do is write a memo that everyone ignores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 I read in one of those articles that McCain has publicly rebuked the Intelligence Committee members who had reservations but didn't raise them publicly once they were not addressed by the administration. His criticism being that how can the problem be fixed if all you do is write a memo that everyone ignores. 538893[/snapback] You mean he's not the only one that understands that the memos were of the CYA variety? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 I read in one of those articles that McCain has publicly rebuked the Intelligence Committee members who had reservations but didn't raise them publicly once they were not addressed by the administration. His criticism being that how can the problem be fixed if all you do is write a memo that everyone ignores. 538893[/snapback] Because to suggest so in public would be considered treasonous by this administration. Remember, this was 2003 when this happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 No. Because of the classification of the material, they weren't allowed to divulge anything that they had read or heard. 538869[/snapback] HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. 538911[/snapback] So in 2003, John Rockefeller (a democrat) publically divulges classified information about how the NSA is operating with regards to terrorism, and you don't think he would have been lynched in the streets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 So in 2003, John Rockefeller (a democrat) publically divulges classified information about how the NSA is operating with regards to terrorism, and you don't think he would have been lynched in the streets? 538920[/snapback] No, if in 2003, John Rockefeller had a philosophical disagreement with a potentially illegal program conducted by the White House, he should have sent more than a (wink) memo asking about the program's details. Another case of a win win for the Dems in the know. The have W do all the necessary dirty work, but if something blows up, they can point to a memo showing their genuine concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 No, if in 2003, John Rockefeller had a philosophical disagreement with a potentially illegal program conducted by the White House, he should have sent more than a (wink) memo asking about the program's details. Another case of a win win for the Dems in the know. The have W do all the necessary dirty work, but if something blows up, they can point to a memo showing their genuine concern. 538939[/snapback] You nailed it. The Dems are all about not taking responsibility. It's CYA and run for the fire exits when everything looks bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 No, if in 2003, John Rockefeller had a philosophical disagreement with a potentially illegal program conducted by the White House, he should have sent more than a (wink) memo asking about the program's details. Another case of a win win for the Dems in the know. The have W do all the necessary dirty work, but if something blows up, they can point to a memo showing their genuine concern. 538939[/snapback] Uh, which high-ranking Republican with intelligence clearence was he supposed to go to? Cheney? Roberts? Yeah, that would have been productive. Rockefeller As a member of the so-called “gang of four” which includes the top Republican and Democrat of the Senate and House intelligence committees, Rockefeller was one of four members of Congress who received those briefings.... But membership also has its burdens. The "gang" — Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas and Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan and Democrats Rockefeller and Rep. Jane Harman of California — is virtually gagged from discussing anything from meetings with anyone outside the group — not even other senators, staffers or lawyers with security clearance on the intelligence committees. And for Rockefeller and Harmon, the senior Democrats on the Senate and House intelligence committees, respectively, membership can be even more problematic. If they want to object to anything the administration is doing, they're forbidden from doing so publicly. Let's cast the eye of blame away from the President of the US, you know, the guy who may have authorized the illeagal wiretaps, and lets go after the two Dems on the committee. That sure seems fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Hamilton Posted December 21, 2005 Author Share Posted December 21, 2005 You nailed it. The Dems are all about not taking responsibility. It's CYA and run for the fire exits when everything looks bad. 538941[/snapback] Stay on target Red Leader. If the law was broken, the Dems didn't break it (this time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Stay on target Red Leader. If the law was broken, the Dems didn't break it (this time). 538970[/snapback] If the Dems were of such a HIGH MORAL CHARACTER, where was the outrage when the President was at his political nadir? Answer: They scurried for the shadows like the roaches they are. Now that the blood is in the water, they all come out to play. Typical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Uh, which high-ranking Republican with intelligence clearence was he supposed to go to? Cheney? Roberts? Yeah, that would have been productive. Rockefeller Let's cast the eye of blame away from the President of the US, you know, the guy who may have authorized the illeagal wiretaps, and lets go after the two Dems on the committee. That sure seems fair. 538949[/snapback] I wasn't advocating that, either. The simple fact is: politics as usual - brought to you by the two corrupt entities that control things. I seriously doubt if John Kerry were in the White House that things would be much difference given the hysteria following 9/11 and the continued ignoring of what truly spawns these activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 If the Dems were of such a HIGH MORAL CHARACTER, where was the outrage when the President was at his political nadir? Answer: They scurried for the shadows like the roaches they are. Now that the blood is in the water, they all come out to play. Typical. 538973[/snapback] As if the Republicans act any different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 If the Dems were of such a HIGH MORAL CHARACTER, where was the outrage when the President was at his political nadir? Answer: They scurried for the shadows like the roaches they are. Now that the blood is in the water, they all come out to play. Typical. 538973[/snapback] Rockefeller was not allowed to discuss in public things he knew on the committee. If he did announce his reservations in public, you'd be the first one lining up to charge him with treason. Bush opened up his mouth this weekend, acknowledged that the program existed, and that left the door open for Rockefeller to speak. I don't see how Rockefeller is the bad guy here. He kept his mouth shut, like a good little soldier in the GWOT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Uh, which high-ranking Republican with intelligence clearence was he supposed to go to? Cheney? Roberts? Yeah, that would have been productive. 538949[/snapback] Given the furor that the program is causing right now, he should have camped out in front of the White House until he got his answer. If this thing is as serious as the trumped alegations, how can you excuse an elected official with simply sending a memo to clean his hands off the mess? People are talking about a seriously impeachable offense, but Rockefeller's defense is that he sent a memo, it was ignored, so he let it rest? What doesn't add up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Stay on target Red Leader. If the law was broken, the Dems didn't break it (this time). 538970[/snapback] Tecnhically, if they had foreknowledge, they're complicit. Ditto the New York Times, who from what I understand sat on the story for a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Oddly enough, coinciding with both the release of a book on intelligence, by the Times reporter in question, and also the Patriot Act vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Sadly, what was once an actual discussion is now quickly breaking down into just another left/right competition in the quoting of talking points. Perhaps a thread such as this should be closed, and highlighted as an example, as soon as the first post from certain closed minded posters is added. Now might be a good time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 As if the Republicans act any different. 538979[/snapback] Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts