NationStates Jolt Archive

On Fox News Sunday, the following exchange took place between Chris Wallace and U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

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?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The — 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.

While Democrats in Washington are berating the White House for having prewar intelligence wrong, a high-profile U.S. senator, member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, who has a name more internationally recognizable than Richard Cheney's, tells two putative allies (Saudi Arabia and Jordan) and an enemy who is allied with Saddam Hussein (Syria) that the United States was going to war with Iraq. This is not a prewar intelligence mistake, it is a prewar intelligence giveaway.

Syria is not only on the list of state sponsors of terrorism and the country many speculate is where Hussein has secreted weapons, it is also the country from which terrorists are flowing into Iraq to fight our troops and allies. Jordan and Saudi Arabia have had, over the years, conflicted loyalties. What was Senator Rockefeller doing? What was he thinking? And all this before President Bush even made a public speech about Iraq — to the U.N. or anyone else.

Actually, January 2002 was NOT before Bush was already blustering about Iraq. Far from it. That started almost immediately after 9-11.

Indeed it was the January 2002 State of the Union address which coined that infamous phrase: "Axis of Evil".

You remember it right?

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons. (Applause.)

Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch -- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.

We can't stop short. If we stop now -- leaving terror camps intact and terror states unchecked -- our sense of security would be false and temporary. History has called America and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight. (Applause.)



So this was hardly breaking news. Nor was it incorrect.

And the President himself telegraphed that the war would extend beyone Afghanistan's border as far back as Address on October 7, 2001 when he stated:

Today we focus on Afghanistan, but the battle is broader. Every nation has a choice to make. In this conflict, there is no neutral ground. If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocents, they have become outlaws and murderers, themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril.


Indeed, as CNN notes, BushCo was already letting the Middle East know that this was in the pipes as early as October 2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/11/27/iraq.sanctions/)


U.S. President George W. Bush said Monday Iraqi President Saddam Hussein "needs to let inspectors back in his country to show us that he is not developing weapons of mass destruction."

Asked what would happen if the Iraqi leader did not comply, Bush said: "He'll find out."

Secretary of State Colin Powell told CNN in an exclusive interview on Monday's Larry King Live that Hussein should take President Bush's demand as a "very sober, chilling message."
...

"Iraq is also paying attention to the warnings coming from Bush and Powell, but it says it has been expecting to be attacked for some time. It is counting on what it sees as a crucial lack of support for any U.S. strike among Arab allies and Russia.

"The U.S. seems to be telling allies such as Turkey and some of its neighbors that it has suspicions about Iraq, but so far no-one has produced any proof."



and from the news article linked on that page entitled Bush sends chilling message:


Asked for specifics on what Bush meant, Powell said, "The president didn't say what it meant today, so I'm not going to prejudge what it might mean."

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer later disputed suggestions Bush was elevating the possibility that Iraq could be the next target of U.S. military action in the war on terrorism. He said Bush's comments on Iraq were "nothing new."

The president's comments did serve to highlight a debate within the administration over what to do about Iraq.

Hawks such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, nicknamed the "bombers," advocate strikes on Iraq.

Powell is seen as the leader of a faction that urges restraint, fearing any attack on Iraq would weaken the international coalition against terrorism.

In his interview with CNN, however, Powell called the Iraqi regime "an evil one" and said Bush retains "all of his options" if the inspections do not resume.



So let's not pretend that the escallation towards Iraq was a big mystery in January 2002, or that the administration didn't already have the word out in the region either.



That being said, I do agree that the words spoken were probably a silly thing to do. But leaders wouldn't know if he were serious, or if this were part of a planned underground rhetoric to guage reaction to such a plan.

After all, it's not like anyone was going to STOP the US if they wanted to go in. Hell, they could have posted dates, times, and battle plans and with their air superiority it wouldn't have made a shred of difference and you know it.

It's one thing to hear it from Bush - it's quite another to hear the exact same thing from Rockefeller. One wonders what he was trying to accomplish.

/yawn

It's one thing to hear it from Bush - it's quite another to hear the exact same thing from Rockefeller. One wonders what he was trying to accomplish.


Dunno what he was trying to accomplish. And I agreed that it was probably a dumb thing. Maybe he was trying to get the message to Saddam to smarten up and get with the program to try and stop it from escallating to full war. Would that have been a bad thing if it had worked?

Anyway, you'd have to ask him his motivation. I'm not qualified to answer that.

Just pointing out that people who are saying that this would have come as a total suprise at that time are not being honest about it. Nor, as mentioned, would it really make a difference. Because it didn't.

/yawn


Yep. Seems to be a non-story to me too.

Hell, the PNAC doctrine of preemption with specific mention of Iraq was already a well-known document by then - as were the names of it's authors and their positions int he White House.

Anyone who thinks Saddam, Lybia, the Saudis etc DIDN'T know that Iraq had a big-assed bullseye on it by then don't have a clue about politics.

Yep. Seems to be a non-story to me too.

Hell, the PNAC doctrine of preemption with specific mention of Iraq was already a well-known document by then - as were the names of it's authors and their positions int he White House.

Anyone who thinks Saddam, Lybia, the Saudis etc DIDN'T know that Iraq had a big-assed bullseye on it by then don't have a clue about politics.

The question I have is, what was he doing in Syria?

The question I have is, what was he doing in Syria?

Trying to talk some sense into them to smarten up? Shit, various government people were all over that part of the word then as Bush was letting people know that they were either "with us or against us".

Syria, as one of those countries listed as a sponsor of terrorism of course got a LOT of attention.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26113


Evidence suggests that Syria's relationship with the United States is on the verge of opening up.

Despite being labeled by the United States as a state sponsor of terrorism, Syria is now hosting a series of U.S. congressional delegations and dropping hints that it might cooperate on anti-terror measures. A warmer U.S.-Syrian relationship could help Damascus attract foreign investment and serve as a bridge to renewed peace talks with Israel.

House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., traveled to Syria this week to meet with senior government officials. The visit is one of several scheduled to be made by U.S. congressional delegations in January. While on a visit to neighboring Lebanon, Gephardt hinted that some agreement has been reached on the issue of terrorism, although he did not give specifics, the Lebanese Daily Star newspaper reported Jan. 15.

Washington's anti-terror campaign is bringing the two counties closer together. Damascus hopes to prevent Syria from becoming a target of U.S. counterterrorism efforts and in the long term, possibly pave the way for lifting or suspending U.S. sanctions. Closer cooperation between Washington and Damascus could help the underdeveloped Middle Eastern nation attract investment and aid and could set the stage for a renewal of peace talks between Israel and Syria.

For the past two years, President Bashar Assad has struggled to solidify his hold on power and consolidate Syria's control of neighboring Lebanon, where several thousand Syrian forces are deployed. Assad's overall goal is to refashion his country's political image in order to attract foreign investment. Presenting Syria as a country that opposes Muslim radicalism fits within this strategy.

In fact, the government has in the past launched brutal crackdowns to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from taking root in the country. In February 1982 the government deployed forces to the city of Hama in order to suppress the Muslim Brotherhood; the operation reportedly killed 100,000 people. Now Damascus is pointing to such experience with Muslim extremists as a foundation for expanding U.S.-Syrian bilateral cooperation, The New York Times reported Jan. 14.

The U.S. State Department currently lists Syria as a sponsor of terrorism, and the resulting sanctions have kept U.S. investment out of the country. Improved ties with the United States eventually could open the door for such investment. In the meantime Washington could also use its influence with the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to increase the amount of aid flowing to the country.

The Syrian government is reportedly providing intelligence to the United States about international terrorism. Damascus probably could provide even greater detail on the activities of militants linked to the al-Qaida network, and at the very least, could prevent al-Qaida fighters from seeking sanctuary in the country.

Damascus appears to be hinting to U.S. officials about what it is willing to do to facilitate closer ties. The Lebanese weekly al-Osbo's al-Arabi recently quoted U.S. diplomatic sources who said Damascus has informed Washington, through direct diplomatic channels, that it is willing to consider closing the offices of opposition Palestinian organizations in the country, Arabic News reported Jan. 10.

An unnamed Syrian official later denied the claim, but the surfacing of the report and the subsequent denial hints that the idea may be a topic of discussion between the two countries.

On Washington's end, President George W. Bush telephoned Assad Jan. 14, the official Syrian news agency SANA reported. Direct talks between the two leaders is significant given that the phone call follows a report in the Middle East Newsline saying the White House is putting together a proposal for a security dialogue that Bush will present to Assad when they meet in February.

Other concrete steps by Washington to renew a dialogue include four congressional delegations scheduled to visit Damascus this month, including Gephardt's visit Jan. 14 and one a week earlier by U.S. Sen. John D. Rockefeller, D-W.Va. While congressional delegations to the Middle East aren't unusual, four in one month to a U.S.-listed state sponsor of terrorism is a telling indicator of a sea change in relations.

Although any negotiations between the United States and Syria are still in the very early stages, such a prospect could clear the way for renewed talks between Israel and Syria.

So, can we put away the tin-foil hats on this one?

So, can we put away the tin-foil hats on this one?
I'm not wearing the tin foil hat today. I just think that in light of the Rockefeller memo, old Jay sounds like he was warning close friends.

The question I have is, what was he doing in Syria?

Looking for WMD, naturally.

I kinda like the way Rockefeller is shirking any responsiblity for voting. Here's a little more from Fox News Sunday:

Rockefeller: Chris, it is always the same conversation. You know, it was not the Congress that sent 135,000 or 150,000 troops to--

Wallace: But you voted, sir, and aren't you responsible for your vote?

Rockefeller: No. I'm--

Wallace: You're not?

Rockefeller voted for the liberation of Iraq on the ground that it "poses an imminent threat," a claim far beyond anything the Bush administration ever said, but now in retrospect he takes a pro-Saddam position. And this guy is the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, which I guess means he's the most intelligent Democrat.

But wait! There's more. When it comes to the relentless exposure of idiocy, the Democrats will always provide another example.

John Edwards also voted for the war and has now flip-flopped. Why anyone would be interested in Mr. Edwards opinions is beyond me, but the Washington Post published an op-ed by him yesterday:

George Bush won't accept responsibility for his mistakes. Along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he has made horrible mistakes at almost every step: failed diplomacy; not going in with enough troops; not giving our forces the equipment they need; not having a plan for peace. . . .

We also need to show Iraq and the world that we will not stay there forever. We've reached the point where the large number of our troops in Iraq hurts, not helps, our goals.

Someone should introduce this Edwards guy to John Kerry*, who, as we have seen recently, also thinks the number of troops is Iraq is simultaneously too large and too small.

* "We've got better vision, better ideas, real plans. We've got a better sense of what's happening to America--and we've got better hair."

On Fox News Sunday, the following exchange took place between Chris Wallace and U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

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?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The — 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.

While Democrats in Washington are berating the White House for having prewar intelligence wrong, a high-profile U.S. senator, member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, who has a name more internationally recognizable than Richard Cheney's, tells two putative allies (Saudi Arabia and Jordan) and an enemy who is allied with Saddam Hussein (Syria) that the United States was going to war with Iraq. This is not a prewar intelligence mistake, it is a prewar intelligence giveaway.

Syria is not only on the list of state sponsors of terrorism and the country many speculate is where Hussein has secreted weapons, it is also the country from which terrorists are flowing into Iraq to fight our troops and allies. Jordan and Saudi Arabia have had, over the years, conflicted loyalties. What was Senator Rockefeller doing? What was he thinking? And all this before President Bush even made a public speech about Iraq — to the U.N. or anyone else.

Give it up already. You're not Karl Rove, and aren't very good at going on the attack, so don't try. The Senator was obviously voicing his opinion. And does Bush's casus belli count as classified info? No it doesn't. Also if Syria is our enemy on a scale even remotely comparable to China or even North Korea then it's news to me and to them. They have the GDP of a small American corporation. They're small fry. Please find something else to get agitated over.

And why is it implied that Syria was an ally to Saddam Hussein?

Yep. Seems to be a non-story to me too.

Hell, the PNAC doctrine of preemption with specific mention of Iraq was already a well-known document by then - as were the names of it's authors and their positions int he White House.

Anyone who thinks Saddam, Lybia, the Saudis etc DIDN'T know that Iraq had a big-assed bullseye on it by then don't have a clue about politics.

Damn straight.

I kinda like the way Rockefeller is shirking any responsiblity for voting. Here's a little more from Fox News Sunday:

Rockefeller voted for the liberation of Iraq on the ground that it "poses an imminent threat," a claim far beyond anything the Bush administration ever said, but now in retrospect he takes a pro-Saddam position. And this guy is the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, which I guess means he's the most intelligent Democrat.

But wait! There's more. When it comes to the relentless exposure of idiocy, the Democrats will always provide another example.

John Edwards also voted for the war and has now flip-flopped. Why anyone would be interested in Mr. Edwards opinions is beyond me, but the Washington Post published an op-ed by him yesterday:

Someone should introduce this Edwards guy to John Kerry*, who, as we have seen recently, also thinks the number of troops is Iraq is simultaneously too large and too small.

* "We've got better vision, better ideas, real plans. We've got a better sense of what's happening to America--and we've got better hair."

Nice try. But you should learn about something called details. Sometimes they are important.

There was a difference between voting to give Bush authority to send troops to Iraq if necessary and Bush actually sending troops.

There is a difference between inadequate numbers of troops being sent over in the past and the suggestion that we may have too many troops their now.

Neither Rockefeller nor Edwards contradicted themselves.